Meiwaku_Mailing_Girl wrote: ↑Sat Oct 26, 2024 5:53 pm
Artaxerxes II wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 11:32 am
Meiwaku_Mailing_Girl wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2024 4:15 am
Him getting acquitted doesn't mean much when you consider the fact that in order to be found guilty, he would have to had been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's possible for an allegation to be completely true or partially true and still for the verdict to still reach not guilty. Considering the fact that some of the jurors did believe Gavin was telling the truth, but they still considered there to be reasonable doubt, so they had to vote not guilty. Some of the jury thought that particular accusation was false but that Jackson had molested other boys in the past. Some of the jury also felt pressured by other members to change their verdict to not guilty. Some felt that there was going to be a hung jury, so they thought it would be best to just vote not guilty. So it's not as if the jury had came to the conclusion that he was undoubtably not guilty of any child molestation. I recommend watching "The Jury Speaks" season 1 episode 2.
How could the FBI have exonerated Jackson of CSA allegations when they never investigated into him? All they did was provide assistance to the Santa Barbara County police investigations that happened in 1993/1994 and 2004/2005.
Razorfist videos are not a good source. Pretty much every point of his is inaccurate information.
False. The FBI did investigate allegations against him, and found nothing to charge him with. And if the 2005 trial isn't enough to prove that Michael Jackson wasn't anything but an eccentric guy with Peter Pan syndrome who was a victim of political machinations, then I don't think much else will convince you tbh.
Also, which claims by Razorfist are false in your opinion? As much as I don't like the guy, he did a really thorough research on Michale Jackson's alleged abuse of boys with his 6-parts video, so I would be interested in hearing what your issues are with his series since I haven't heard anyone debunking his claims.
The Fbi did not investigate him, this is literally what us said on the site "The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to these agencies during the cases."
Providing assistances for the investigation is not the same as investigating. The FBI had no reason to ever investigate him. He wasn’t accused of breaking any federal law.
Also some of the other stuff you said is incorrect. Not all of his accusers are or were poor. Wade Robsin (sic) is a healing coach for child abuse and a faculty member at the broadway dance center. James Safechuck works for an IT company and is financially comfortable. The Chandler’s family wasn’t broke. They were rich.
Also your point about him spending most of his intimate adult life with women is incorrect. He had few verifiable romantic relationships with women and none were long, intimate, or serious.
No Razorfist did not go through thorough research. He's either lying or didn't actually do much research.
The FBI worked closely with local authorities, reviewing thousands of pages of evidence and performing background checks on Jackson as part of their standard protocols. Importantly, no incriminating evidence surfaced in these reviews, and no federal charges were ever filed. If any credible federal offense had been discovered, the FBI had jurisdiction to pursue charges. The FBI’s thorough handling without resulting charges points to a lack of evidence.
The 2005 trial acquittal was based on extensive testimonies, including cross-examinations of accusers and testimony from witnesses like Jackson’s former staff. The jury deliberated for over 30 hours, and their verdict reflected a lack of compelling evidence to support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While the jurors did have some doubts, the verdict was ultimately based on extensive review of the evidence available, meaning that MJ wasn't just proven innocent "beyond a reasonable doubt", but also that the prosecution's case wasn't credible even under intense scrutiny.
If MJ did commit contact offenses as you believe, I don’t think that a man as scrupulous and wealthy as him would ever let it be known to the public. Remember that time he went doctor shopping just to obtain pain medication in complete privacy, avoiding any public scrutiny? His efforts to control even minor, controversial aspects of his life (like managing pain) show that he went to great lengths to protect his reputation and maintain privacy..
As for Wade Robson and James Safechuck, both men had previously defended Jackson under oath, and Robson even testified in the 2005 trial in Jackson’s defense. Years later, they changed their stories, which suggests that they had financial motives, especially as they were involved in civil suits. And let's not forget the documented inconsistencies in their testimonies as given in Leaving Neverland (e.g., Safechuck alleged he was abused in the train station at Jackson’s Neverland, but the construction of the train station didn’t begin until the end of 1993, and it did not open until 1994 — two years after Safechuck said the abuse ended at age 14.).
You can read more here:
https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/why-is ... -pouncing/
Point being, if these accusers had genuine trauma, it would be unusual for them to repeatedly switch between staunch defense and serious accusations. This lack of consistency, especially as it aligns with financial pursuits, brings the credibility of these claims into serious question.
As for Jordie Chandler, the initial high-profile case involving him and his family ended in a $20 million settlement. The settlement with the Chandler family, often misinterpreted as an admission of guilt, was instead a strategic choice by Jackson to avoid prolonged negative media exposure, as his career faced immense damage from the allegations alone. High-profile individuals often settle to protect their reputation, which, in Jackson’s case, was particularly vulnerable due to his status and wealth.
Consider the case of the Arvizo family, who accused Michael Jackson of abuse during the 2005 trial. This family had a documented history of making allegations against others for financial gain. Prior to targeting Jackson, they had filed a lawsuit against J.C. Penney, alleging assault by security guards, and later settled for a significant amount of money. In that case, inconsistencies in their story were evident, including allegations that were exaggerated or contradicted. This history of dubious claims raises questions about their credibility and motives when they later accused Jackson of abuse. Given this family’s track record, it’s reasonable to view their accusations with skepticism, especially when financial gain appeared to be a motivating factor.
Also your point about him spending most of his intimate adult life with women is incorrect. He had few verifiable romantic relationships with women and none were long, intimate, or serious.
False. He had long-term relationships with Lisa Marie Presley and Debbie Rowe, which are well documented, and Debbie's case shows the series commitment by MJ (such as marriage and having children with her). MJ's relationships were well-known and his consistent choice of having relationships with adult women are inconsistent with the characteristics typical of a boylover, or an exclusive one just to be charitable, although the case of MJ being a non-exclusive MAP is already tenuous as it is.
Look, just because he hanged out with boys and had an eccentric personality that tabloids picked upon doesn't necessarily make him a MAP, anymore than Charles Dobson's close relationship with Alice Liddell is conclusive proof of Charles being a girl-lover. Many psychiatrists and psychologists who observed Jackson, including those involved in his defense, viewed him as having a "Peter Pan syndrome" rather than being sexually attracted to boys.
No Razorfist did not go through thorough research. He's either lying or didn't actually do much research.
Razorfist’s series includes extensively researched points, with sources like biographer Mike Smallcombe corroborating the details. If there’s a specific instance of inaccuracy, it would be helpful to discuss it and provide examples of it, but as of now, his arguments remain well-supported and reliable.
I should also note that numerous children who spent a considerable amount of time with Jackson—including famous individuals like Macauley Culkin and Brett Barnes—have defended him publicly, asserting that he never behaved inappropriately with them. These individuals had no financial incentive to defend Jackson and often faced public scrutiny for doing so. The consistent defense from those close to him, in my opinion, adds weight to the argument that Jackson’s intentions were misinterpreted and possibly exploited for financial gain by others, such as the mainstream media and greedy families.
In sum, Jackson’s extensive defense, the inconsistencies among accusers, and the lack of credible evidence from investigations all underscore his innocence. Considering the motivations of his accusers and the unconvincing nature of the cases brought against him, the evidence leans heavily towards Jackson being a target of exploitation rather than a perpetrator.
