New MJ documentary

Pedz wrote:I guess like most things involving rape/molestation is that is monumentally difficult to prove and the parents thought that at least this way they get something, it also means they can pay the ridiculous prices for mental help for their children.

Seems odd they are suing the estate for 100s of millions. Their case have been thrown out of court though as an estate cannot be sued for this.

No:1 Final Fantasy Fan wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:

No:1 Final Fantasy Fan wrote:

Saint of Killers wrote:I didn't watch all the video but, from what I saw, I didn't find the director to be 'creepy'. I do however question yet another accusation being made against Michael Jackson, this time by people who previously testified for him. This is all very sad and tricky to deal with, and so I'll just say this: it was lovely seeing Charlotte Hawkins again.

He is so creepy imo and really annoying. He so arrogant! Just look at his body language and his tone when he's accusing MJ.
Also his annoying accent and bald head just creeps me out. U can tell he's a bad person

You can tell the director's a bad person because of his accent and bald head.

You cannot tell that the guy who had to pay off scores of children because he sexually abused them is a bad person.

k

Like Piers said, in America there is a suing culture so it is not uncommon to pay people off to get rid of the problem...and when you are worth that much, 22million is nothing.
Anyway lets go to the other side and ask the opposite question? If you really were molested then why take the money and run?

Jesus man. Maybe because you don't want to relive the trauma and have to have your name plastered everywhere with rabid MJ fans about? You can't say how you would act in such a situation. Taking the money probably seems like the 'easy' option in the scenario.

Why would you pay people off if you were guilty? Is it just a massive coincidence that there were multiple accusers? That he slept in a bed with children? Why were they all targeting MJ and not any other celebrity?

Rocsteady wrote:

No:1 Final Fantasy Fan wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:

No:1 Final Fantasy Fan wrote:

Saint of Killers wrote:I didn't watch all the video but, from what I saw, I didn't find the director to be 'creepy'. I do however question yet another accusation being made against Michael Jackson, this time by people who previously testified for him. This is all very sad and tricky to deal with, and so I'll just say this: it was lovely seeing Charlotte Hawkins again.

He is so creepy imo and really annoying. He so arrogant! Just look at his body language and his tone when he's accusing MJ.
Also his annoying accent and bald head just creeps me out. U can tell he's a bad person

You can tell the director's a bad person because of his accent and bald head.

You cannot tell that the guy who had to pay off scores of children because he sexually abused them is a bad person.

k

Like Piers said, in America there is a suing culture so it is not uncommon to pay people off to get rid of the problem...and when you are worth that much, 22million is nothing.
Anyway lets go to the other side and ask the opposite question? If you really were molested then why take the money and run?

Jesus man. Maybe because you don't want to relive the trauma and have to have your name plastered everywhere with rabid MJ fans about? You can't say how you would act in such a situation. Taking the money probably seems like the 'easy' option in the scenario.

Why would you pay people off if you were guilty? Is it just a massive coincidence that there were multiple accusers? That he slept in a bed with children? Why were they all targeting MJ and not any other celebrity?

The director even smiled and laughed throughout that interview with Piers Morgan. Why would you be in the mood to laugh and smile when talking about such serious allegations....another reason for people to discredit his documentary and a sign that he is a bad character.

I can accept that MJ hung out with children because he was so open about it to the public. Like a lot of people I will never believe these allegations...I mean these two guys even testified for Michael in court.

Why were they targetting MJ? Because MJ gave them the opportunity to by coming into contact with them. So where are all the other so called accusers? The director said he thinks more will come out now...but nope no one.

No:1 Final Fantasy Fan wrote:U can tell a persons character from their looks and body language. In this case we have more than that! Collaborating with these individuals to make a documentary and not maintaining neutral I.e. going on tv shows and stating MJ is a pedo as a fact
Thank god Piers caught him out

What

I couldn't give a gooseberry fool about the director.

How much pressure do you think it takes to have children testify in favour of you when you're the biggest celebrity in the world and even your own mother seems to favour said celeb over you?

I love how it's just a coincidence that MJ came into contact with so many cute young boys.

You're believing a paedophile over multiple victims because he was immensely talented and it's pretty strawberry floated up.

Page 3 of this thread needs to be archived

The director being dodgy or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Jackson was inappropriate with children.

Rocsteady wrote:I couldn't give a gooseberry fool about the director.

How much pressure do you think it takes to have children testify in favour of you when you're the biggest celebrity in the world and even your own mother seems to favour said celeb over you?

I love how it's just a coincidence that MJ came into contact with so many cute young boys.

You're believing a paedophile over multiple victims because he was immensely talented and it's pretty strawberry floated up.

I could say the same about ur actions. You remind me of the days when people use to burn people at the stake accusing them of being a witch

If witchcraft equalled blatantly raping young boys I'm not sure burning people at the stake would have gone out of fashion quite so quickly.

Jenuall wrote:The director being dodgy or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Jackson was inappropriate with children.

But he's bald! So he's bad and CREEPY.

Squinty wrote:

Jenuall wrote:The director being dodgy or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Jackson was inappropriate with children.

But he's bald! So he's bad and CREEPY.

Ok, fair play you've convinced me.

Jenuall wrote:

Squinty wrote:

Jenuall wrote:The director being dodgy or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Jackson was inappropriate with children.

But he's bald! So he's bad and CREEPY.

Ok, fair play you've convinced me.

Don't forget his funny accent. That's the real giveaway.

Jenuall wrote:

Squinty wrote:

Jenuall wrote:The director being dodgy or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Jackson was inappropriate with children.

But he's bald! So he's bad and CREEPY.

Ok, fair play you've convinced me.

Jawa's bald, but he is the nicest person ever. Guess he's not really and is massive scum. Jawa you are a bad bald person. And you have a beard and beards are for people who like to hide things.

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Squinty wrote:

Jenuall wrote:The director being dodgy or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Jackson was inappropriate with children.

But he's bald! So he's bad and CREEPY.

Ok, fair play you've convinced me.

Don't forget his funny accent. That's the real giveaway.

Solid, incontrovertible evidence right there. MJ is solid, this guy is the creep!

Pedz wrote:

Squinty wrote:

Jenuall wrote:The director being dodgy or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Jackson was inappropriate with children.

But he's bald! So he's bad and CREEPY.

Jawa's bald, but he is the nicest person ever. Guess he's not really and is massive scum. Jawa you are a bad bald person. And you have a beard and beards are for people who like to hide things.

It's always the nice ones that you need to watch out for...

Pedz wrote:[

Squinty wrote:

Jenuall wrote:The director being dodgy or not is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Jackson was inappropriate with children.

But he's bald! So he's bad and CREEPY.

Jawa's bald, but he is the nicest person ever. Guess he's not really and is massive scum. Jawa you are a bad bald person. And you have a beard and beards are for people who like to hide things.

This description of Jawa fits me. Bald. Creepy. Beard. Secret pervert.

Is this the first N1FFF thread since the SONM guys moved over?

Don't worry about him, he's just a weirdo and he's harmless. Though unless you want to make a life long enemy don't tip him over in a raft.

Man, where is that thread?

Pedz wrote::lol:

Man, where is that thread?

t:just-got-capsized-during-a-raft-race?f=7&hilit=Raft