Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators
Latest News => TMZ.com => Michael Jackson News => TMZ Articles => Topic started by: SEHF on August 06, 2014, 11:09:08 AM
-
Michael Michael Jackson Sex Abuse Accuser
MJ Had Secret Code Words
For Abusing Me (http://www.tmz.com/2014/08/05/michael-jackson-sex-abuse-code-words-accuser-duck-butter)
8/5/2014 12:20 PM PDT BY TMZ STAFF
EXCLUSIVE
(http://ll-media.tmz.com/2014/08/05/0805-james-safechuck-getty-3.jpg)
Michael Jackson had code words and signals that he used with a boy he allegedly molested to describe various sex acts ... including "duck butter."
James Safechuck -- now 36 -- claims in his lawsuit against the MJ Estate ... the singer started abusing him when he was 10 ... when he traveled with Michael to Paris for the "Bad" tour in 1988.
In new court docs -- obtained by TMZ -- Safechuck says Michael taught him to use code words ... referring to his erection as "bright light, brick city" ... and calling semen, "duck butter."
Safechuck claims Jackson also used secret signals -- when they would hold hands, Michael would scratch the inside of James' hand with a finger ... to show he wanted to have sex.
Safechuck says MJ wanted a full-blown relationship with him ... to the point he performed a secret wedding ceremony with the boy with wedding ring and a marriage certificate.
He also describes how Michael would take him to various homes -- including a place called "The Hideout" in Century City -- where they would drink sweet, pink wine and watch porn ... including movies of children masturbating.
Safechuck says at one point ... he questioned his own sexuality -- because he also had a crush on Sheryl Crow, who was one of Jackson's backup singers. He says Michael found out and became jealous ... showing him unflattering pics of Crow without makeup.
Safechuck says the abuse stopped entirely when he reached puberty.
Howard Weitzman, attorney for the MJ Estate, tells TMZ the whole lawsuit should be scrapped because it was filed more than 20 years after the incidents supposedly happened ... and says Safechuck "has given sworn testimony that Michael never did anything inappropriate to him."
-
Can I say that? I feel sick (http://smileys.surlatoile.org/repository/Crade/gerbe2.gif)
Too absurd..... (http://smileys.surlatoile.org/repository/Confus/zinzin.gif)
-
MJ code words = clues?
thought him to use code words = us he teaches us
Safechuk= safe chuks as a safe throw? to what?
bright light, brick city= Las Vegas, or...??? help
-
Thank you for sharing this with us. I'm with DreamsComeTrue - sounds rather hoaxy.
If this happened more than 20 years ago, and the boy has already stated before that nothing has happened, then why now? Money? I sincerely don't believe this happened but maybe he just thinks that it's an easy target. Show me that marriage certificate!!!
-
Wade's accusations are way more disgusting than these. He is also asking for an outrageous sum of 1.62 billion. Something does seem strange in all of this. The part about Ms Crow minus her make up was just bizarre not to mention that a pre-pubescent child having the ability to know his sexual orientation and to also question it just adds ? in my mind.
Meanwhile there is silence from Michael's family.
-
"This" is ridiculous......just like the story about M.J. beating bubbles was lol.... and that according to Jane Godall :icon_geek: :icon_rolleyes: !!!!
I really have to wonder.......who the f are all this people anyway :icon_e_confused: :thjajaja121: ??
-
I have a new secret code for that guy :
when i punch your face, it mean you gotta stop lying.
Very simple code !
PS : his "secret" code is nothing new... "Duck butter" was already known and "scratching someone's hand for sex" is not something "new" (or am i the only girl to know it :icon_lol:)
Those stuff were easy to re-use.
-
^^^ no :icon_redface: it's well known here in Aus too.
I wonder where these two are hiding out. The fans might forget to be loving and kind if they get a hold of them.
-
Well if they've all sworn under oath 20 yrs ago that MJ did nothing to them, the surely they would have committed purgery if they are now saying he did do things to them. So they should all be locked up and the key thrown away.
-
I wonder where these two are hiding out. The fans might forget to be loving and kind if they get a hold of them.
This could be one of many reasons why a victim of a worldwide superstar kept quiet for so long.
I know we don"t want to think about it, but if you are a reasonable person, you do understand what I'm saying.
If you don't agree that's okay, but this is what I'm feeling about these kind of cases.
-
And no, I'm NOT a hater and I love Michael for many many years but I simply don't dismiss these accusations in advance, because I wasn't there and neither were any of us.
-
And no, I'm NOT a hater and I love Michael for many many years but I simply don't dismiss these accusations in advance, because I wasn't there and neither were any of us.
No,you are not a hater but you are saying that MJ DID abuse those guys and they were afraid to denounce it due to MJ's fans.
-
No, what I'm saying is that, yes, I do find it HARD to believe that Michael did this, but no, I'm not dismissing the accusations in advance. Because that would be an insult to all victims of abuse as well (and I also do believe Michael himself was a victim of sexual abuse).
There are many arguments that the timing of these accusations are highly suspicious and yes, they are, but one could also say so of the timing of Michael's marriage with LMP. I try to look at all happenings and circumstances with objective eyes, even if the outcome might be very hurtful.
If you choose not to do so, I'm okay with that as well. And if you have any inside *cough* information, then share it please, it's getting pretty monotonously. Maybe it will help change my view on a lot of things.
-
Sorry I don't buy any of the allegations. Not saying im blind, but no I just don't see it. First of all, this so called "Safechuck" VOLUNTARILY came forward and defended MJ publically. Nobody forced or asked him to come forward in 2005. Why make it a point to think so highly of a person that you have to come forward and say how good of a man Mike was? Nobody asked him anything. So why volunteer a lie? Why change it now? If he stayed silent all these years because of MJ being a superstar, why didn't he just keep quiet in 2005? Nobody asked his opinion. What was his motive for defending him then? But why say something now? Why not say it in 2009,2010,2011,2012,2013?
I think hes a liar. Him and Robson both. I have my own opinions of what I think is REALLY going on. But I will keep it to myself.
-
Sorry I don't buy any of the allegations. Not saying im blind, but no I just don't see it. First of all, this so called "Safechuck" VOLUNTARILY came forward and defended MJ publically. Nobody forced or asked him to come forward in 2005. Why make it a point to think so highly of a person that you have to come forward and say how good of a man Mike was? Nobody asked him anything. So why volunteer a lie? Why change it now? If he stayed silent all these years because of MJ being a superstar, why didn't he just keep quiet in 2005? Nobody asked his opinion. What was his motive for defending him then? But why say something now? Why not say it in 2009,2010,2011,2012,2013?
I think hes a liar. Him and Robson both. I have my own opinions of what I think is REALLY going on. But I will keep it to myself.
Please do share your opinion, I'm always willing to view things from a different perspective. It sure is very well possible that a conspiracy, as Michael told us many times, is this far-reachting.
Btw, I can't seem to find Safechuck's testimony in the trial transcripts of 2005. He wasn't a witness, was he?
-
I wonder where these two are hiding out. The fans might forget to be loving and kind if they get a hold of them.
This could be one of many reasons why a victim of a worldwide superstar kept quiet for so long.
I know we don"t want to think about it, but if you are a reasonable person, you do understand what I'm saying.
If you don't agree that's okay, but this is what I'm feeling about these kind of cases.
Sorry @Do.....That doesn't seem too logical to me. Didn't Wade shoot his movie at Neverland, and I think he also got married there. Strange to want to have the big events / days of your life at the place where you were so horribly abused . Oh wait...that's right....he had repressed memories then. He also had a thriving career .
I don't see fear from fans here, I see opportunistic greed and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
-
I wonder where these two are hiding out. The fans might forget to be loving and kind if they get a hold of them.
This could be one of many reasons why a victim of a worldwide superstar kept quiet for so long.
I know we don"t want to think about it, but if you are a reasonable person, you do understand what I'm saying.
If you don't agree that's okay, but this is what I'm feeling about these kind of cases.
Sorry @Do.....That doesn't seem too logical to me. Didn't Wade shoot his movie at Neverland, and I think he also got married there. Strange to want to have the big events / days of your life at the place where you were so horribly abused . Oh wait...that's right....he had repressed memories then. He also had a thriving career .
I don't see fear from fans here, I see opportunistic greed and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
ok didn't wade actually say that he didn't suppress so much as say umm not realize what happened to him? they say there was a relationship which they are kinda describing like a romance . soooo shouldn't something start to sort of surface about it not being quite ummm shall we say right about putting your current romance in the presence of your old very ummm unusual secret one. am i explaining myself here ?
-
You are right @Suspicious.....quoted from an interview here. Seems this story has changed a few times .
'This is not a case of repressed memory. I have never forgotten one moment of what Michael did to me, but I was psychologically and emotionally completely unable and unwilling to understand that it was sexual abuse.'
I had the facts wrong about getting married at Neverland....Wade and Amanda got married in 2005 in Hawaii upon further digging. But he is on record saying that both families got together for BBQ's.
-
You are right @Suspicious.....quoted from an interview here. Seems this story has changed a few times .
'This is not a case of repressed memory. I have never forgotten one moment of what Michael did to me, but I was psychologically and emotionally completely unable and unwilling to understand that it was sexual abuse.'
I had the facts wrong about getting married at Neverland....Wade and Amanda got married in 2005 in Hawaii upon further digging. But he is on record saying that both families got together for BBQ's.
but i wonder about the legal aspect of all of these. as long as these things are out there does that keep the estate from being settled and still needing branca and weisman to execute it?
-
You are right @Suspicious.....quoted from an interview here. Seems this story has changed a few times .
'This is not a case of repressed memory. I have never forgotten one moment of what Michael did to me, but I was psychologically and emotionally completely unable and unwilling to understand that it was sexual abuse.'
I had the facts wrong about getting married at Neverland....Wade and Amanda got married in 2005 in Hawaii upon further digging. But he is on record saying that both families got together for BBQ's.
but i wonder about the legal aspect of all of these. as long as these things are out there does that keep the estate from being settled and still needing branca and weisman to execute it?
Yes that BBQ took place in July 2008!
-
Sorry I don't buy any of the allegations. Not saying im blind, but no I just don't see it. First of all, this so called "Safechuck" VOLUNTARILY came forward and defended MJ publically. Nobody forced or asked him to come forward in 2005. Why make it a point to think so highly of a person that you have to come forward and say how good of a man Mike was? Nobody asked him anything. So why volunteer a lie? Why change it now? If he stayed silent all these years because of MJ being a superstar, why didn't he just keep quiet in 2005? Nobody asked his opinion. What was his motive for defending him then? But why say something now? Why not say it in 2009,2010,2011,2012,2013?
I think hes a liar. Him and Robson both. I have my own opinions of what I think is REALLY going on. But I will keep it to myself.
According to this article, James never came forward in 2005, nor did he volunteer to defend Michael in 2005.
http://www.mjfacts.info/news/mj-facts-exclusive-jimmy-safechuck-story/
Before anyone dismiss it as a 'hatersite', I recommend you to read it before forming an opinion. Don't want to say everything on it will be the absolute truth, but I just want to learn the truth, so I'm looking at it from both sides, whether it's in favor of Michael or not.
Part of the article:
Farcically and with zero self-awareness, Jackson called 25-year-old James a total of three times throughout the trial in an attempt to get James on the stand to “deny everything that the cooks at Neverland samid that they saw happen between Decedent and him,” his Petition says. The bid failed spectacularly.
On the first call, Jackson tried to soften James with chat about wanting to assist him with music, directing, and film; when James was a teen, Jackson had promised that “one day, we’re going to make movies together.” Jackson then made the request for James to testify in his defense; James declined.
Jackson became enraged, the Complaint says, and threatened his former ‘special friend’. James told Jackson “never to call him again, and that he wanted a normal life.” Jackson grew angrier at this, James remembers, and escalated his threats — he told James he’d “get [him] for perjury” for statements James had made under oath as a fifteen-year-old at his November 1993 deposition. Jackson was evidently fearful James would decide to tell the full version of their story for the Prosecution in lieu of cooperating in his defense, and attempted to intimidate him with invectives about jailing the boy he once ‘loved’. When the call concluded, James began to panic, his court filings say. He dreaded what his mother could learn about the aspect of he and Jackson’s relationship the star had made him keep secret.
According to several workers at the Ranch, Jackson used the Neverland theater bedrooms with boys. Blanca Francia recalls Jimmy Safechuck.
It was an understandable fear for a young heterosexual man. Though Mark Quindoy died before getting to testify about what he’d seen on August 12, 1989, when Jackson caressed and fondled eleven-year-old Jimmy in the Neverland hot tub, chambermaid Blanca Francia was very much alive. She’d worked for Jackson long enough to see his boys from Spence through Culkin before quitting in 1991. She claimed to have seen Jackson and Jimmy in one of the ‘cancer-kids’ bedrooms in the Neverland theater, both shirtless with their waists and legs covered in a blanket.
James told his mother about the telephone call with Jackson, saying he would not testify for the star because Jackson was a “bad man” — a vague descriptor that no doubt confused his mother, who, like other members of the Safechuck family, believed Jackson “could do no wrong.” In explaining his sudden and surprising rejection of Jackson to his mother but still sparing her from the grimy details, James “was unable to tell her any details or say anything but the briefest statement that he had been abused.”
Jackson later called Mrs. Safechuck himself. He asked the mother not only to convince James to change his mind about testifying but also if she and her husband would give under-oath testimony in his defense. Mrs. Safechuck kept her son’s secret, and apparently neither of the parents took Jackson up on his request.
Jackson’s lawyers and longtime assistant Evvy Tavasci made the second call to James, but he rebuffed their pleas by stating he wanted nothing more to do with Jackson.
The final call from Jackson, James remembers, seemed “rehearsed”, with Jackson’s tone reminding James of all of the listening devices attached to phones at Neverland Ranch. It occurred near the end of the trial, perhaps at a moment when — in spite of his attorney Tom Mesereau’s confidence the Prosecution’s case was full of holes — Jackson feared for his freedom, a tacit acknowledgment that years of bad behavior may have finally caught up with the allegedly ‘smooth criminal’. He needed James. He apologized, James remembers, telling James he was “sorry for not being there for [the Plaintiff].” James suspected the phone call was being recorded and “the very sound of Decedent’s voice made him very uncomfortable and put him into panic mode.”
Jackson pressed, saying Gavin Arvizo — as he’d said about Jordie Chandler over a decade earlier — was only interested in money, but James resisted. He told Jackson “never to try to call or try to talk to him ever again” and hung up.
Please read the full article, it's the whole story about the relation between James and Michael, based on what James confessed what really happened (if true).
-
Words/actions can be twisted to fit the intent and the intent has always been to bring Michael down.
There has never been any evidence of any kind to prove any wrong doing that the FBI or child services could find - EVER; if there had been Michael would have been put away.
And how odd that James told his mom that Michael was 'a bad man' and that abuse had occurred, but she did nothing?? And I can't recall hearing how Wades and James personality, mood or emotions changed while all of this abuse was going on. There would have been something to give the parents an inkling something was going on.
I don't believe Safechuck or Wade - I do believe there is something with all of this but it isn't about Michael. Could it be part of the double theory?
Now, we have all heard about nobody being allowed in Michael's bedroom at Neverland; ring a bell? Nobody was allowed upstairs at Carolwood. Is that a coincidence? I don't think so.
After Wade's interview with Matt Lauer, there was a body reader who watched the interview and he said the body movements didn't match to what Wade was saying and the words that Wade was saying wasn't matching to the accusations. He said it was like the victim was feeling sympathy for the offender.
As I'm sure you all know during This Is It there are mini movies included, Suddenly Last Summer was one of them. Suddenly Last Summer is about a man who molested young boys and in the end those young boys devoured him.
As I said in the beginning, words/actions can be twisted to fit the intent.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053318/synopsis?ref_=ttpl_pl_syn
http://www.southernrep.com/plays/suddenly-last-summer/
I have been lucky enough to visit Neverland and I wish I could describe the feelings one has while there but I don't think there are any words.
Your heart tells you what you need to know.
Love you Michael!
-
Words/actions can be twisted to fit the intent and the intent has always been to bring Michael down.
Unfortunately I'm starting to see this in a different light. Why would anyone want to bring Michael down if he was such a kind person? I just don't get it. He wasn't the only one with money, why only get HIM down? Where were his friends when he needed them? Now I'm starting to believe that they suspected there was a dark side on Michael and that that was the reason they didn't support him. Even Paul Anka wrote about that side in his book.
What we still want to believe is this: everybody is a liar, except for Michael.
There has never been any evidence of any kind to prove any wrong doing that the FBI or child services could find - EVER; if there had been Michael would have been put away.
There was evidence, but it a) never went to a trial back in 1993, because right after taking the pictures, Michael settled with the Chandlers b) evidence was hidden or taken away by his staff. There was plenty of evidence, but because of court laws (which I have zero knowledge about, but read about on several accounts), much evidence was barred of being used (to put it simple).
And how odd that James told his mom that Michael was 'a bad man' and that abuse had occurred, but she did nothing?? And I can't recall hearing how Wades and James personality, mood or emotions changed while all of this abuse was going on. There would have been something to give the parents an inkling something was going on.
I agree with you on that. But maybe, like the article stated and many of us still want to believe: Michael Jackson could do no wrong. Even parents were blinded by the gifts, vacations and privileges they had when they were with Michael. Maybe they were very scared to admit to themselves that they made a mistake in judgement and that their children became victims because of that lack of judgement. Remember, not only Michael would've been guilty, the parent of the children as well!
I don't believe Safechuck or Wade - I do believe there is something with all of this but it isn't about Michael. Could it be part of the double theory?
That crossed my mind a year ago. But I can't seem to make it fit in any scenario.
Now, we have all heard about nobody being allowed in Michael's bedroom at Neverland; ring a bell? Nobody was allowed upstairs at Carolwood. Is that a coincidence? I don't think so.
Not sure what you mean by this. By many accounts, many were allowed unlimited access in Michael's room, but not ALL the time.
After Wade's interview with Matt Lauer, there was a body reader who watched the interview and he said the body movements didn't match to what Wade was saying and the words that Wade was saying wasn't matching to the accusations. He said it was like the victim was feeling sympathy for the
Like I stated many times, maybe that's why they kept quiet for so long or didn't fully understand what had happened to them. Because of the SYMPATHY they felt (and maybe still feel) for Michael. When you have read the link of the Safechuck story, you know how much love James felt for Michael, before he was being pushed out. And if James was only after the money and had hated Michael, he would have testified in 2005. But he wanted to go on back then, maybe still feeling really confused.
As I'm sure you all know during This Is It there are mini movies included, Suddenly Last Summer was one of them. Suddenly Last Summer is about a man who molested young boys and in the end those young boys devoured him.
As I said in the beginning, words/actions can be twisted to fit the intent.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053318/synopsis?ref_=ttpl_pl_syn
http://www.southernrep.com/plays/suddenly-last-summer/
I have been lucky enough to visit Neverland and I wish I could describe the feelings one has while there but I don't think there are any words.
I'm sure it wasn't all bad things what happened there, ofcourse not. Michael did so much good. But that doesn't mean he wasn't capable of doing less good things. Like he said: everybody has deep dark secrets.
Your heart tells you what you need to know.
My heart tells me different things right now :icon_e_sad:
Love you Michael!
-
Do, I wonder what your motivations are to cast doubt on Michael being innocent of child molestation. You talk about things you believe, or can't imagine. And you are making false assumptions to make a point. Maybe before you throw Michael under the bus with wrong information, you should take the trouble of reading the truth, instead of spreading lies.
http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-medias-role-in-the-allegations-against-michael-jackson/
-
Do, I wonder what your motivations are to cast doubt on Michael being innocent of child molestation. You talk about things you believe, or can't imagine. And you are making false assumptions to make a point. Maybe before you throw Michael under the bus with wrong information, you should take the trouble of reading the truth, instead of spreading lies.
http://michaeljacksonallegations.com/the-medias-role-in-the-allegations-against-michael-jackson/
You are only looking at one side of the story, that's why you only talk about things YOU believe or can't imagine. Yes, I read the link you put in your post which RK posted before. And I agree that Michael was found guilty by them based on their 'assumptions'. Do you think it's easy for me to even think Michael could have done these things?
I don't make false assumptions, if there are, they have been brought into the world by his 'false' accusers or even his own family. Have you even read the link I posted? Or are you afraid that the truth might be different then we want to believe? Michaelslady put it best when she said something like: if it looks like fish, taste like fish and smells like fish, then it is fish. That works both ways don't you think? After the Chandler story, everbody was asking: where are the other victims? Now they are coming forward, people immediately call them liars. Is that fair? You, me and anybody else can't know the truth, except for the people involved. So, IF they are telling the truth now, Michael should be thankful to them for not speaking up earlier, because otherwise he would be in jail right now, and broke.
I'm sorry for being this blunt to you, but I get itchy when people do not wish to investigate both sides, or automatically assume none of this happened because Michael was found not guilty in 2005. Like I stated before in another post, do you believe O.J. Simpson was not guilty? I just ask people to have an open mind. If I'm wrong, I will be the happiest woman in the world ofcourse.
-
@Realdeal
I also wonder how, when you are fully convinced Michael is innocent, I'm casting DOUBT with my post?
-
The link I posted, along with the there posted link to the investigative article by Mary S. Fisher are about facts.
Your link to the Jimmy Safechuck story is indeed from a hater-site. Funny you use it as your source. It brings many 'happenings' as fact when they are not. You quote from stories about Blanca Francia, Diane Diamond and so on. That tells me a lot.
You say you are after the truth, but at the same time you have clearly already formed an opinion. That doesn't match. So I question your intentions. And you can try to lure me into lengthy debates on the whole case, but I won't bite.
Succes met haat zaaien.
-
The link I posted, along with the there posted link to the investigative article by Mary S. Fisher are about facts.
Your link to the Jimmy Safechuck story is indeed from a hater-site. Funny you use it as your source. It brings many 'happenings' as fact when they are not. You quote from stories about Blanca Francia, Diane Diamond and so on. That tells me a lot.
My first post was a response to a post of Michaelslady, which stated that James volentarily came forward to defend Michael in 2005. That wasn't a fact, because why didn't he defend Michael in court then? Apparently he didn't want to defend Michael at all. And did you know TM stated during Kiki Fournier's cross-examination at Michael's trial (on March 17, 2005) that James was wedded at Jackson’s Neverland Ranch? Which also wasn't a 'fact' because James wasn't married there. Nice lie of TM. But it did make seem that Michael was still in contact with James, which apparently he was not. Besides that, I often felt that Michael himself was not always telling the truth.
Mjfacts is called a hater-site by Michael Jackson fans who believe he is innocent. It is not called a hater-site by me, it doesn't 'only' quote doubtful sources like many seem to think. They have many 'facts' over there, which make me doubt.
You say you are after the truth, but at the same time you have clearly already formed an opinion. That doesn't match. So I question your intentions. And you can try to lure me into lengthy debates on the whole case, but I won't bite.
My search for the truth didn't start yesterday. So yes, I am clearly forming an opinion. It isn't an absolute opinion, but I have doubts certainly. And believe me, the last thing I want is a lenghty debate with someone who doesn't want to hear anything about it.
Gelukkig heb ik wel een leuk contact met een anderen hier op de site, die net als jij geloven in Michael's onschuld, maar we kunnen wel samen op een constructieve en positieve manier over dit soort zaken discussiëren. Jammer dat je zo vijandig bent.
Succes met haat zaaien.
-
@Do
You are not wrong for having different opinions on this matter.
There have been times over the years where I have wondered if maybe, just maybe there was some truth to any of it but I always came back believing that none of it was true.
Not because it was Michael Jackson, but because I never saw any proof. Hearsay means nothing to me. In all the years there are no pics? Even the pics and mags that were found in the raid weren't classified as pornographic, even by Mr. Evil himself (Tom Sneddon).
If Michael was a predator (because that is what he would be in this), there would be something, somewhere that would come to the surface and it would stop me stop in my tracks and make me die inside.
I realize that at times victims do take awhile to come forward, but in James and Wade's case why not do it while Michael was still alive? Why wait 4 years after his passing when the man can't defend himself? I don't believe the suppressed story coming from Wade and James looks like a tag-a-long.
Even though I believe Michael is not guilty 100% that doesn't mean I won't look at this at a different angle if there is something to look at. If these last lawsuits are telling us something, it is up to us to find out what they really mean - even if the outcome isn't what we wanted.
After all, isn't this hoax about finding the truth?
Love you Michael!
-
You describe my own stand perfectly, thank you for that :-)
-
i love your post iamhere4MJ.
And i do like that you have the abillity to let people have their own opion ,and own search for the truth.
I personally don't believe any of the accusations at all ( let that be clear). regarding Mj, but Mj made some bad choices regarding sleeping with children in the same bed or even in the same room, he was claimed a intelligent man why did he do that, everyone could have known it was fuell to to the fire while doing that. I suspect that he was thinking like "i did nothing wrong so i can't get in trouble for that, so imo that was bad judgement from his side. but that my opion.
@iamhere4MJ,...Wade later on changed his story from repressed memory into " i always known, but thought it was love" this was( if i recollect correctly) because the judge ordered him to change to get the claim going on, i hope i will find that post about that matter, if i do i will share.
@Do, i hope you will continue to post here, i know you are not a hater but instead loves MJ very much, you are in search for the truth. i hope you will find the truth for your own peace of mind.
p.s. you asked in a former post why would people jump the band waggon and claim that MJ molested them, the answer is a whole lot of Money. people are greedy, extremely greedy, money can take away lots of sorrows, and hey, the man is dead so it won't hurt him no more.
Tht's why Wade accused the estate, and P.A. and claim 1.62 billion! because i think you can't sue a dead man....
-
@Do
You are not wrong for having different opinions on this matter.
Thank you iamhere. I have always loved MJ, I stated this many times. I can't help it that I have serious doubts, to me there are just too many things that point in a certain direction. I used to believe in a conspiracy, now I'm not that certain anymore.
There have been times over the years where I have wondered if maybe, just maybe there was some truth to any of it but I always came back believing that none of it was true.
Not because it was Michael Jackson, but because I never saw any proof. Hearsay means nothing to me. In all the years there are no pics? Even the pics and mags that were found in the raid weren't classified as pornographic, even by Mr. Evil himself (Tom Sneddon).
Sadly, I think there were pics and mags that were classified as such (seized evidence of erotic materials, request to admit those to court):
http://www.mjfacts.info/resources/011805pltreqaseemd.pdf
A nude pic believed to be Jonathan Spence and many (sometimes exremely graphic)pornography, hetero- and homosexual. Ofcourse that doesn't mean that MJ was a molester, but it certainly WAS pornographic. But then again, if it's for own use, what's the problem.
Plaintiff's (The People of the State of California) motion for reconsideration of the defendant's (MJ) motion for an order excluding 14 items of irrelevant evidence:
http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/013105pltmotrd14itms.pdf
If Michael was a predator (because that is what he would be in this), there would be something, somewhere that would come to the surface and it would stop me stop in my tracks and make me die inside.
I realize that at times victims do take awhile to come forward, but in James and Wade's case why not do it while Michael was still alive? Why wait 4 years after his passing when the man can't defend himself? I don't believe the suppressed story coming from Wade and James looks like a tag-a-long.
I think that having their own children was the biggest trigger. And the fact that Michael also did a lot for them and that they admired him and loved him, kept them quiet. I don't know how the mind works when you were part of an extremely, extraordinary, privilaged and maby manipulative situation back then.
Even though I believe Michael is not guilty 100% that doesn't mean I won't look at this at a different angle if there is something to look at. If these last lawsuits are telling us something, it is up to us to find out what they really mean - even if the outcome isn't what we wanted.
That's all we can do right now, wait and see. Again, thank you for having patience with me!.
After all, isn't this hoax about finding the truth?
Love you Michael!
-
@ Shy
Hi Shy! Thank you for your understanding! I'll PM you!