Do you believe the Michael Jackson allegations part 2

[AutumnLover1990]

New thread 😀

He didn’t sleep on the floor. He said that once, quickly in the Martin Bashir programme because he was trying to minimise what Gavin had said which was that MJ said ‘If you love me, you’ll sleep in the bed’. Which sounded incredibly manipulative. Because it was.

Other children were coached to say ‘I sleep on one side of the bed and he sleeps on the other’.

Why do you think he locked the door with other people’s children in there?

Are you trying to claim that Michael Jackson never slept in the bed with kids at all or what is the reason that you're fixating on that one clip where they said he slept on the floor even though elsewhere in the documentary he said he does sleep in the same bed as children? 🤔

You can basically see in the clip where Michael realises he has said the wrong thing. Why are you so obsessed @AutumnLover1990 with trying to disprove what was said. On tape. And at other times?! It’s well known that he admitted it in the documentary, many times during the trial and in the 60 minutes interview he did.

Certainties are always helpful in a case like this. Here's another certainty thanks to former employee Vincent Amen who has brought his own experience into the forum because he cares about the children involved. Oh wait....

x.com/GiorgioTardio2/status/2062692081986904326?s=20

https://x.com/afishofall/status/1105184338709143552/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1105184338709143552&currentTweetUser=afishofall

@AutumnLover1990

Oh wow, he got paid. He was in the trial documentary too so he may even have got paid twice! The only certainty then is that he got paid, which doesn't actually mean anything. I can see why some people would only want to provide factual information if they were paid considering how the fans go on.

His lawyer has always worked for free I assume 😅

Well she seems delusional, he quite clearly is a pedophile, he's also clearly a narcissist but she's blind to that too.

He didn't have to go public at all. Simply could have passed the information onto wade and James' lawyers. But not so many $$$$ down that route eh

I think I'll go with the opinion of someone who actually knew him.

And if he simply passed that information on his name etc would still be out there and he'd still get abuse from fans and he'd still be accused of cashing in some way anyway so I can see someone would choose to get paid for it.

Not sure if this happens where you live but in Ireland we have a disgusting thing in our justice system where people are allowed to provide character references for rapists etc, there's often so much love and support from those who were closest to them and they paint a very different picture of the man, doesn't have any relevance to the fact they haven't seen this persons dark side.

We see this all the time on here, no one knows a rapist but so many have a boyfriend/father/brother/friend who was falsely accused 🤔 despite rape being so common and false accusations being so rare.

Again you're on here talking about evidence, and certainty and how you're not picking a side but yet you take opinions of someone who knew him to mean he's not a pedophile, even though it's a well known fact that many pedophiles hide this so well from their loved ones and they never would have suspected.

But don't let the facts of life that you already know, get in the way of your conclusions, and continue to think that people who knew him would know if he was a pedophile or not. A lot of the time people who are closest to the pedophile and rapist are the ones who are even less likely to know because they are blinded by what they see as their good side.

Hed admitted himself he cashed in. The first time back in 2004 with the National Enquirer.

I'm sure that is the case in some circumstances

Yes and again that just means he got money, doesn't mean he made anything up.

In some circumstances...but definitely not in Michael Jacksons case.........because Michael Jackson.

And then wrote some glowing things about MJ post his death. We're looking at individual(s) who change their story depending upon where the profit is.

It is rather revealing. Media outlets, publishers, documentary makers, publicists can all have financial or reputational motivations. And that can create a situation where multiple parties benefit from promoting a particular narrative.

Of course that's what you're looking at, because you refuse to look at all of the obvious pedophile/grooming/abusive behaviour, just look at everyone else instead.

Yes, that’s why there won’t be a documentary that’s open and shows all sides - because there’s no money in it.

@fundamentallyauthentic exactly.

some People on here have been at the Jesus juice. But that’s fine because it’s okay to give it to minors….along with porn.

No money for who?

The production company, the broadcaster and the media outlets who publicise the programme.

Why wouldn't there be? Makes no sense.

Because, in general, nobody would watch it.

They definitely would.