One thing I didn't realize, and which changed my thinking about the subject, was that the kids were alone with him one at a time in a serialized manner. From the descriptions I always thought it was more like a sleepover party atmosphere at Neverland and why I was not inclined to believe the allegations.
To me, Diane Dimond said it best: “Is Michael Jackson the incredible victim of multiple extortion attempts? Or is he simply a man that is a pedophile?”
I can’t believe the amount of MJ truthing in this thread and Im glad you’ve seen the light. I agree that the stories in the doc may not be 100% credible, but Jimmy Safechuck is simply not a Machiavellian personality type, IMO. I strongly believe Safechuck and Robson, strongly believe that MJ was guilty as hell, and thanks for circling back to discuss your findings.
> "[Robson and Safechuck] have previously testified under oath, under intense cross-examination, [have] maintained for twenty years a consistent story about Michael Jackson being innocent, and they come forward and completely change their story. That in itself is discrediting."
Looks more like they realized they could make a bunch of money on a controversial "documentary" without getting hit with a defamation lawsuit, since MJ is dead.
> American singer Barbra Streisand spoke in Jackson's defense, saying "his sexual needs were his sexual needs" and that the accusers had been "thrilled" to be with him. She added that the accusers were "both married and they both have children, so it didn't kill them".[73]Streisand later apologized and expressed sympathy for the accusers.[74]
What a comment coming from a woman that didn't even want to have a nude picture in the press. Which blew up in her face and is called that the Streisand effect.
It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose 2003 attempt to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu, California inadvertently drew further public attention to it.
But, today I learned, the name seems to have been coined to describe something else a couple of years later [1]:
Mike Masnick of Techdirt coined the term in 2005 in relation to a holiday resort issuing a takedown notice to urinal.net (a site dedicated to photographs of urinals) over use of the resort's name.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect#Origin_of_the...
They only testified on Michael’s defense team under pressure and duress and witness tampering. Safechuck and Robson are definitely legit.
And I don't mean that as a jab. I really think he was so messed up by his abusive upbringing and subsequent life that he may not have been fully accountable.
"Affluenza" on steroids.
Zero insane people have the ability to negotiate contracts like MJ did. Michael was a ruthless and canny businessman and anyone who thinks he was “insane” is not familiar with the absolutely fiendish and dark level of planning he put into his rape career. The dude had silent alarms outside his bedroom. That shows a level of foresight and planning that would get an insanity defense thrown out of court instantly.
in short Michael was guilty as hell and if you watch the documentary I bet you a million dollars you will renounce your “MJ truthing. “