I think all paedos should face justice, but I agree with they laying people to rest once they have died. The person is question cannot comment, confess or anything else, so the only thing the victim gets from continuing outing them is tarnishing their name, ( which may be what they want, but it's not going to effect the dead person) and will cause upset to their family. It's a hard one as I think more victims need to be heard but coming out after the person has died and claiming abuse happened is such a hard thing to prove and can result in the victim getting more and more abuse from the public who doubt their conviction. I knew someone who hurt me when I was younger and he died a few years back. When he died the relief I felt was in real as I knew he couldn't hurt people anymore.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I think all paedos should face justice, but I agree with they laying people to rest once they have died. The person is question cannot comment, confess or anything else, so the only thing the victim gets from continuing outing them is tarnishing their name, ( which may be what they want, but it's not going to effect the dead person) and will cause upset to their family. It's a hard one as I think more victims need to be heard but coming out after the person has died and claiming abuse happened is such a hard thing to prove and can result in the victim getting more and more abuse from the public who doubt their conviction. I knew someone who hurt me when I was younger and he died a few years back. When he died the relief I felt was in real as I knew he couldn't hurt people anymore.
these two accusers have literally millions of dollars to gain by saying this now.
they may well not have been paid for the documentary but they are suing MJs estate for millions in the civil courts
I personally found the documentary really believable at first but the more I’ve read about the accusers the more their credibility is brought into question and I’ve realised how biased that tv programme actually is. I think MJ is a total weirdo but even a dead weirdo deserves a fair hearing and he’s not been given that.
Both of the accusers have money troubles and one of the accusers (James Saffechuck) happened to remember he was abused by MJ just a few days after his family business was sued for millions. He also says he was abused daily in a building which categorically has been shown not to have existed until years after the abuse ended.
the judge in the civil case has reprimanded one of the accusers for lying about certain technical matters (existence of the estate) and also fabricating evidence. If some of what they are saying is clearly lies in just not sure it’s fair to say we must believe them unquestionably about the alleged abuse
one final thing. I know all too well from personal experience that abuse victims can be in all sorts of denial and shame about their abuse for many years. But Wade Robson stood in the dock of the criminal court in 2005 *AS AN ADULT* and denied he had ever been abused by MJ. He was asked if MJ had ever touched him inappropriately and all sorts of specific questions. Wade said no. But now (2020), Wade claims that in 2005 (when he was already an adult) he didn’t know what abuse was (he has to say this because of statute of limitations and because he wants max financial
Compensation ). I feel like there’s some really obvious questions here that aren’t being asked. The whole thing with Saville is that it was always covered up when Saville was alive and victims were not given a chance to come forward. Many were silenced when they tried to talk. With MJ these questions were asking in a courtroom when MJ was alive. Total opposite . MJ stuff makes no sense.
I think MJ might well be innocent here
im sort of in the same camp as you in that I used to love MJs music but was never a fan
I completely believed the documentary at first
after a couple of weeks of feeling disgusted by it all, I decided to do some research. At the very least what I would say is that “documentary” is ridiculously biased and I’m actually angry as a viewer that I was misled like that. It made it seem as if both accusers would have no reason to lie but actually both Have denied abuse while lives but claimed abuse when facing financial difficulty (that doesn’t mean they’re lying but it should have been mentioned). Also these accusers conduct in the civil court case has actually been a disgrace. They’ve been reprimanded by judge for lying about various issues (not the abuse, other matters) and for Deliberately concealing evidence.Whole thing is actually shocking and has made me really distrust TV programmes and journalists as they just go with a story and run with it and don’t give their audience all the information. If you’re interested in reading more about this it’s actually fascinating but remember not to rely on tabloid sources and instead rely on court documents and transcripts
Last edited:
I think it’s really important to remember that lots of survivors of childhood sexual abuse never disclose it to anyone or some don’t until their abuser has been dead for many years. He was an expert at grooming boys and they felt like they were in a relationship with him and that it wasn’t abuse. They felt like they had to protect him.
I’m a very open and outspoken person but a few weeks ago I disclosed things that had happened to me 35 years ago and this was the first time I’d ever said it out loud. The reasons why people don’t disclose things even when directly asked are complex and I think that we shouldn’t question people’s credibility because they didn’t speak out earlier.
I’m a very open and outspoken person but a few weeks ago I disclosed things that had happened to me 35 years ago and this was the first time I’d ever said it out loud. The reasons why people don’t disclose things even when directly asked are complex and I think that we shouldn’t question people’s credibility because they didn’t speak out earlier.
do lots of survivors deliberately conceal evidence from court (as adults)? Do they lie about various technicalities (eg claiming not to know about existence of the “MJ estate” even though they’d been emailing the MJ estate) in order to maximise financial compensation?
i’m not saying the accusers are lying about abuse. I wasn’t there and so I don’t know and never will. But their credibility is seriously questionable after how they have conducted their civil suits.
I say this as someone who has been through abuse myself.
The percentage of accusers who lie about abuse to police is absolutely miniscule. But I’d be interested to hear the percentage that lie when there’s millions of pounds at stake and the accused is dead.
MJ has had more (false) paternity suits against him than he’s ever had child abuse allegations. So the “no smoke without fire” statement doesn’t ring true.
Memory is a chronichally unreliable thing, we all remember many things wrong even when we are convinced we remember something 100% right.
Particularly traumatic experiences will be fudged with by our brain, partly to protect ourselves from deeper trauma.
Victims not remembering stuff 100% right, messing up events and places and thinking abuse happened in place 1 instead of 2 (even if that place didn't exist then and was built later) doesn't make these people liars and is one of the reasons people don't speak out, because the victims get such abuse by others for speaking out and being made out to be liars.
I watched Leaving Neverland and don't doubt the 2 mens' stories at all. Seemed very real to me.
Others, like Macaulay Caulkin, who claim they were not abused either were indeed never abused, haven't processed it yet or just don't want to go public with it, not (just) to protect their abuser, but also themselves (not to be seen constantly as victim, to move on from it etc etc).
I don't know why Caulkin's word is taken for truth but the victims' isn't by MJ defenders?
I don't care that MJ has been found innocent by a court, plenty of innocent people are found guilty and plenty of guilty people are found to be innocent by courts.
One juror (old man) voted R Kelly to be innocent (years ago), because he didn't like the way one of the victims (young woman) dressed and spoke!!!! Wtf.
The reason why abuse victims come out only later, mis-remember things etc etc are so complex and deep that it isn't a simple case of "they need money and that building didn't exist then! they are gold diggers and liars!"
I mean it also takes many domestic abuse victims years, some even decades, to leave.
So easy to sit at the other side and say "why didn't you leave sooner?" "why didn't you speak out?" "why didn't you go to the authorities?"
I also think it's hard for kids, even as adults, to admit to themselves that their abuser is an abuser when they are liked by the parents. If your parents like someone, how can that person be bad? Psyche is complex and it takes time to reconcile yourself with reality.
I don't know about the estate etc, but many people would lie when they think they won't be believed over technicalities etc.
"Do you know of the estate's worth?" "yes" "so you want money?!"
"Do you know of the estate's worth?" (If I say yes they'll think me a gold digger) "no".
There's no way that all these boys' (now men's) stories would have similarities if they weren't true.
And so much more.
I don't get how people so passionately defend MJ, R Kelly and others?
Particularly traumatic experiences will be fudged with by our brain, partly to protect ourselves from deeper trauma.
Victims not remembering stuff 100% right, messing up events and places and thinking abuse happened in place 1 instead of 2 (even if that place didn't exist then and was built later) doesn't make these people liars and is one of the reasons people don't speak out, because the victims get such abuse by others for speaking out and being made out to be liars.
I watched Leaving Neverland and don't doubt the 2 mens' stories at all. Seemed very real to me.
Others, like Macaulay Caulkin, who claim they were not abused either were indeed never abused, haven't processed it yet or just don't want to go public with it, not (just) to protect their abuser, but also themselves (not to be seen constantly as victim, to move on from it etc etc).
I don't know why Caulkin's word is taken for truth but the victims' isn't by MJ defenders?
I don't care that MJ has been found innocent by a court, plenty of innocent people are found guilty and plenty of guilty people are found to be innocent by courts.
One juror (old man) voted R Kelly to be innocent (years ago), because he didn't like the way one of the victims (young woman) dressed and spoke!!!! Wtf.
The reason why abuse victims come out only later, mis-remember things etc etc are so complex and deep that it isn't a simple case of "they need money and that building didn't exist then! they are gold diggers and liars!"
I mean it also takes many domestic abuse victims years, some even decades, to leave.
So easy to sit at the other side and say "why didn't you leave sooner?" "why didn't you speak out?" "why didn't you go to the authorities?"
I also think it's hard for kids, even as adults, to admit to themselves that their abuser is an abuser when they are liked by the parents. If your parents like someone, how can that person be bad? Psyche is complex and it takes time to reconcile yourself with reality.
I don't know about the estate etc, but many people would lie when they think they won't be believed over technicalities etc.
"Do you know of the estate's worth?" "yes" "so you want money?!"
"Do you know of the estate's worth?" (If I say yes they'll think me a gold digger) "no".
There's no way that all these boys' (now men's) stories would have similarities if they weren't true.
And so much more.
I don't get how people so passionately defend MJ, R Kelly and others?
Completely understand @vikka but Wade Robson deliberately concealed his emails and book drafts from the court (in his multi million pound civil suit against the MJ estate). The documents he tried to hide from the court make for interesting reading.
I cried after the MJ documentary, I felt so sad for those poor boys. But having done some research I’m now angry that I was so misled as a viewer. Recipients of false accusations are victims too. I don’t know if these are false but everyone even Fred West deserves a fair trial, not a one sided hit piece that leaves out so much key information.
I say this as a victim of abuse.
I noticed after the documentary, Wade Robson set up a “charity fund” registered in Hawaii (so no need to declare what happens to the money). The minimum donation he was accepting was 250 dollars. I feel very uneasy about this amongst other things.
I cried after the MJ documentary, I felt so sad for those poor boys. But having done some research I’m now angry that I was so misled as a viewer. Recipients of false accusations are victims too. I don’t know if these are false but everyone even Fred West deserves a fair trial, not a one sided hit piece that leaves out so much key information.
I say this as a victim of abuse.
I noticed after the documentary, Wade Robson set up a “charity fund” registered in Hawaii (so no need to declare what happens to the money). The minimum donation he was accepting was 250 dollars. I feel very uneasy about this amongst other things.
It’s often the case in trials and indeed in the court of public opinion, there are “good” victims and “bad” victims. It happens a lot in rape cases (hence why it’s effectively been decriminalised in the U.K. at least), also in everything from child abuse to murder. Look what happened to Joanne Lees in the Peter Falconio murder trial. Or the recent-ish rape case in Ireland where the victim’s knickers were passed around and her sex life openly raked through. Happens every day.
Reading this, for example, does not put Wade Robson in the best light. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....chael-Jackson-sex-abuse-claims-tell-book.html
However. Your character and actions don’t need to be above reproach for the things you claim to have happened to be the truth.
Perhaps neither of the men are textbook “good” victims.. with Wade possibly less so out of the two. Nevertheless I believe both of them. There’s little doubt in my mind that MJ was pedophile and used his money, fame and power to get his way.
Reading this, for example, does not put Wade Robson in the best light. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....chael-Jackson-sex-abuse-claims-tell-book.html
However. Your character and actions don’t need to be above reproach for the things you claim to have happened to be the truth.
Perhaps neither of the men are textbook “good” victims.. with Wade possibly less so out of the two. Nevertheless I believe both of them. There’s little doubt in my mind that MJ was pedophile and used his money, fame and power to get his way.
He just wasn't that into you?
I was a boy in Michael Jackson’s life, and nothing of what he's being accused of happened
I wanted to write and post this before Leaving Neverland premiered at Sundance last Friday. After all, I had a close relationship with Michael Jackson growing up and nothing of what he continues to be accused of has ever happened to me. I decided to wait because I was curious to see if the film […]talunzeitoun.com
Very intresting blog post
that’s not usually how paedophiles operate though is it. It’s a disease and they usually cannot resist.
I know as with anything there will be exceptions to these general principles.
But if Culkin, Barnes, the boy in the article etc etc etc are all saying nothing happened. It does make this a very peculiar case. MJ wasted a lot of time with boys that weren’t his type? Or maybe he just wasn’t a paedophile?
Interesting new article in ABC news yesterday:
Wade Robson wanted to cash in on Michael Jackson sex abuse claims with tell-all book | ABC 14 News
Michael Jackson accuser Wade Robson wanted to cash in with a tell-all book revealing sex abuse allegations against the King of Pop and wrote a personal note stating: ‘It’s time to get mine!’, according to bombshell court documents. Robson was so desperate to push his story out to the world that...
abc14news.com
Remember Chandle the first accuser back in the day...The Mother had a list of people she tried to sue,including a security guard she claims tried it on with her out of the bue for no reason in a changing room...its the next step up from spilling water in Tescos and pretending to slip
I agree. Bad people can be victimised. It doesn’t make it less of a crime.
Also, so what if they’re after money? Who wouldn’t take up the opportunity to earn millions? If I was telling the truth about a terrible crime, I would still try to milk it for every last penny. I would feel like I deserved compensation, and it would be a reward for sharing sordid and painful details.
yes bad people can be victimised, I agree. It’s just the questionable timing of it for both of the two accusers. Safechuck says he remembered he was abused about a month after the Safechuck family business got sued for millions of dollars. Wade Robson claims he suddenly remembered the alleged abuse a couple of weeks after he got dropped and replaced (by Jamie King) for the Michael Jackson Cirque de Solei show. Wade Robson is now asking for the public to make donations to his charity registered in Hawaii. The minimum donation used to be 250 dollars from what I remember.
I’m not saying the two accusers are lying. I don’t know. None of us do. Just factors to consider given the documentary was so biased and included none of this information. I had to look at the official court files to find this out.
Have you watched SquareOne? It’s by a guy ( not a fan) who studied the first case and it really shows you how the first allegation was handled and how many lies were put out by the media like he ‘ paid them off’ the legislation behind it. It really opened my eyes to how much bs was written about this man. I also read the court documents.
No not watched. where would I find it @Dexy , sounds interesting
There's a show on BBC2 in the UK right now called The Real Michael Jackson
Hadn't even heard of it. What a completely different take on the situation, thanks for sharing.
Ha. No need for a trial then, just show the judge the album covers! Haha
I previously assumed he was guilty because of the number of accusers. Every time anyone would raise it with me I'd be like "oh come on now. So all 4 accusers are lying?! Yeah right"
But then someone pointed out how often Jackson has been sued. He's had more paternity suits than abuse allegations. And paternity suits are easily disproven now that DNA evidence is so easy. In the time before DNA forensics I could imagine people saying "ok so Jackson has 10 paternity suits against him. I really doubt 10 people are lying". Yet they were.
Where you've got a situation with 2 broke accusers who are suing the Jackson estate seeking millions of dollars, I think this brings credibility into question and you have to look at the allegations more closely.
I don't know if Jackson did it. I certainly won't be muting or cancelling him on the basis of posthumous allegations though when there's such a huge financial incentive to potentially lie about this and you can see from the court documents that both accusers were in dire financial difficulty in the weeks and months before they claim to have remembered the abuse they had always previously denied
I previously assumed he was guilty because of the number of accusers. Every time anyone would raise it with me I'd be like "oh come on now. So all 4 accusers are lying?! Yeah right"
But then someone pointed out how often Jackson has been sued. He's had more paternity suits than abuse allegations. And paternity suits are easily disproven now that DNA evidence is so easy. In the time before DNA forensics I could imagine people saying "ok so Jackson has 10 paternity suits against him. I really doubt 10 people are lying". Yet they were.
Where you've got a situation with 2 broke accusers who are suing the Jackson estate seeking millions of dollars, I think this brings credibility into question and you have to look at the allegations more closely.
I don't know if Jackson did it. I certainly won't be muting or cancelling him on the basis of posthumous allegations though when there's such a huge financial incentive to potentially lie about this and you can see from the court documents that both accusers were in dire financial difficulty in the weeks and months before they claim to have remembered the abuse they had always previously denied
Hey you can tell a lot from song titles! Rick Astley sang “together forever”... and is still married to the same woman and no gossip on him cheating over his entire career. He must love his wife and be sure he’s “never gonna give her up” let alone run around and desert her.
Anyway remember how Jackson was so broke before he died? Anyone wondering how a man who owned the rights to thousands of famous songs by other artists couldn’t be making enough cash to pay his bills or support his spending habits would apparently be amazed to find that much of his income was going towards dozens of multimillion dollar pay offs that included NDAs and so haven’t ever been disclosed, so the rumour goes. I mean, we all heard allegations about Weinstein and a handful of actresses, but what came out involved hundreds of women nobody had mentioned, from office workers to hotel maids to interns and nannies. I don’t think Jackson is likely to have only ever had a handful of accusers, it’s just the majority aren’t public knowledge
I won’t listen to his music again. It’s too creepy now.
Stings that his prosecution was in a country that showed how they deal with the famous when OJ was in court
Anyway remember how Jackson was so broke before he died? Anyone wondering how a man who owned the rights to thousands of famous songs by other artists couldn’t be making enough cash to pay his bills or support his spending habits would apparently be amazed to find that much of his income was going towards dozens of multimillion dollar pay offs that included NDAs and so haven’t ever been disclosed, so the rumour goes. I mean, we all heard allegations about Weinstein and a handful of actresses, but what came out involved hundreds of women nobody had mentioned, from office workers to hotel maids to interns and nannies. I don’t think Jackson is likely to have only ever had a handful of accusers, it’s just the majority aren’t public knowledge
I won’t listen to his music again. It’s too creepy now.
Stings that his prosecution was in a country that showed how they deal with the famous when OJ was in court
Last edited: