Robson sued for (I believe) $1.5B after he was turned down to direct the show on MJ tribute show at the MGM Grand "One". His case was dismissed in 2017. This is why many feel his story not credible which is certainly understandible. Even if you don't believe them, there is one thing that cannot be explained away: When the police interviewed Jordan Chandler - the kid who sued him in 2003 - he drew a picture showing the markings (from vitiligo) on the underside of MJ's penis. When he was served with a search warrant in 2005, pictures were taken of his penis and the photos showed markings that were identical to the drawing made by Jordan Chandler. As Spock would say: "Fascinating!"
How anyone could watch this documentary and believe that these two men made this all up is beyond my comprehension. SMH at anyone here trying to dismiss his accusers without hearing their story first.
We heard their story years ago when they denied anything happened. Now they want to change it for whatever reason. It’s not crazy to think that people may be less inclined to believe anything they say now especially when there appears to be financial motives behind the accusations.
This was dismissed too. Dr. Richard Strick, the doctor who was present at the strip search from the authorities’ side, indicated in an interview with Fox News in October 2009 that he did not come to the conclusion, but rather someone else told him later that it was a match. “The genitalia were very oddly colored with dark skin and light skin and I was told later that the deposition and the photos that were taken absolutely matched what the child had described” [3]. (Emphasis added.) Based on his statement Dr. Strick did not actually see Jordan’s description and drawing; he was only told that there was a match. This is odd; as a medical professional, hired by the authorities to be present at the strip search, one would expect that he would have been asked to make the determination. It is unknown who told Dr. Strick that there was a match but all claims of this nature seem to point to Sneddon as a source. Sneddon, however, cannot be considered an unbiased source given his decade long malice against Jackson as the district attorney. At Jackson’s 2005 trial, for example, he made many claims in his motions which then were proven to be false on the stand – often by his own witnesses. Sneddon’s motions were often clearly deceptive. Putting aside why Dr. Strick was not involved in making a determination and who exactly later told him that the description was a match, the fact that Jackson was not arrested after the strip search and indicted by any of the two Grand Juries which were convened against him, indicates that, despite Sneddon’s claims, there was no match. But not only that, Jordan's attorney asked the photos of Jackson's genetalia not be included in the case. If it was a match, why would they ask that? Makes no sense. Jordan also testified the penis was circumsized, but Jackson's autopsy proved he in fact was not. That's major.
Don't you think it's possible that a CHILD would hide humiliating sexual abuse or try to protect their abuser?
But Billy Jean...there were all these girls coming after him and what about dirty diana? Crazy how we let our idols cloud our judgement. My father til this day doesn't believe Juan Gabriel was gay, just a mama's boy. And I don't even think twice when I make Cosmo Kramer references. Have to catch up on these docs including the r kelly one.
I think it’s plausible that these 2 are completely making this whole thing up... but I find them both entirely believable. If this is a big put on, wrap up the academy award right now, because these guys are epic. You would have to be a sociopath to make up this big of a lie. Then you’d have to find another complicit sociopath to join you. Then you’d have to either convince both families to lie or lie to both families with the understanding that everyone involved is going to be roasted to the extent of lives being threatened. Never mind the future ramifications of this being out there for your own children to see and their view of you as a man and a father. Money is a great motivator but you couldn’t pay me enough to make this **** up and say it in a movie. And we found 2 of them to do it? Of course all of that can absolutely happen, but it’s easier for me to believe them. Them having stuck up for Michael before is a complete non issue. We have heaps and heaps of evidence of victims of abuse staying quiet well into adulthood or never saying anything at all. Particularly children. This is a mental stranglehold beyond the understanding of hopefully anyone on here. The brain has an amazing ability to suppress and create a reality that isn’t in line with the real world. That it took them 30 something years to come to grips with what happened isn’t remotely unbelievable. I’m not seeing what the benefit to making this up is?
IT’S NOT MY ROLE TO PUBLICLY DEFEND MY LATE FATHER, INSISTS PARIS JACKSON https://www.google.com/amp/s/ewn.co...-late-father-insists-paris-jackson/amp?espv=1
I don't see any benefit at all. If it were Wade on his own, I'd have more doubts since he seemed to be someone that seeked the limelight his whole life. Jimmy, however, is clearly just a broken human being at this point, and I believe his story. Seeing the footage of him now compared to his younger days is like night and day, all of the life has been sucked out of him. He shouldn't have slept with a boy in his bed every night and he would never have had a reason to defend himself, living or dead.
as long as it's innocent it's really no one's business, and to bring the innocence of it into question at this point is weak.
Agreed, Jimmy is struggling. The truth is oozing off this guy. I find Wade believable as well, he’s just not outwardly as broken. There’s just no convincing reason that they are making this up. Michael didn’t have to molest every child that came to his house for me to believe he may have raped a few of them. He wasn’t a child in a mans body. He had child like tendencies. But he made plenty of grown ass adult decisions. As far as sleeping with kids, morally it’s ridiculous, even if it’s not illegal. I don’t see how that’s debatable, I don’t care how many cartoons this guy watched. Sometimes you have to separate the art from the artist.
Disagree. It wasn't appropriate then and when you take a closer look at it now, you can really see how inappropriate it actually was. It's unnatural for a grown man to sleep alone with a young boy every night for years and having a new boy every year. Maybe his lawyers did a good job getting him off without solid evidence but the sleeping with boys alone (from all accounts, every night) is enough to tell me he was sick. Not to mention every other bizarre aspect about his life, he finished his days drinking himself to death and taking ICU level drugs to live with himself. Trying to forget about something, maybe?
That whole situation is certainly at the very least taboo. We'll never know the whole truth of what happened for certain, and to my original point, it's still in bad taste to throw accusations at someone who is dead.
