“I don’t think these men are lying” MJ friend and Rabbi Shmuley Defends Accusers - Sensationalist Headlines

https://www.nme.com/news/music/i-dont-believe-these-men-are-lying-michael-jacksons-friend-rabbi-shmuley-boteach-defends-singers-accusers-2466958 Rabbi and former friend of Michael Jackson weighs in on Leaving .. ‘I don’t believe these men are lying’ "The rabbi revealed his friendship with Jackson spanned from 1999 to 2001, years after the star had settled a child molestation case with Jordy Chandler's family. Mr Boteach said at the time, he did not know whether or not to believe if Jackson was guilty but said he could not 'comment' as to why the family would agree to take a $23million settlement instead of taking the case further in court." "I didn't know if to believe it or not. We didn't know. What I did know was, that regardless of whether it was true or not, Michael could never again really be around children,' he said." Mr Boteach said the disgraced star was a 'uniquely American tragedy,' explaining that Jackson was a tragic figure long before the sexual abuse allegations. 'Michael said he wanted to leverage his celebrity status into helping the world's children. So what I said to him was, "you were never meant to be the child's messiah. Stop thinking that you're the one that's supposed to give all the world's neglected children attention."' Mr Boteach said he developed a friendship with the star in 1999 and had served as a spiritual advisor despite Jackson being a Jehova's Witness. 'The moment I began to feel like my advice could not be heeded, because I wasn't a fan, I was a friend. I wasn't a hanger-on, I was a rabbi...I felt I had to leave and that's when I severed our relationship.' Wikipedia for this guy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmuley_Boteach He previously said this. Boteach was a vocal supporter of Jackson and "dismissive of suggestions that Jackson's relationships with children have been anything other than wholesome. Why would anyone believe those charges? They said anyone who spends that amount of time with kids has to be sick. Well, that's not an indictment of Michael Jackson, that's an indictment of our society!" He further stated: "I was friendly with Michael for a year before anyone knew about it. I did my own investigation. He never had sex with the child he made the settlement with, and there are no others.

From his previous statement it sounds like there was some serious self denial going on there. This topic is always very touchy as its a complete mess of a court case and done around a time when people didn't really give a fuck about this type of thing, it came and went with little much other than he says she says then got buried for years. Never exactly followed the whole MJ thing as its not exactly appealing and its now long since passed, but it still looks like its in that he says she says situation over a man who had serious issues. It really raises the question of why it wasn't pushed harder in the courts originally.

I don't quite see how this is news-worthy. Someone who was friends with MJ (but wasn't directly in the know) who wasn't sure which side to believe at the time of the original accusations, now believes the accusations are true because this documentary is well-made and sounds believable? He already had doubts, he's just made up his mind now based on the emotional-argument of the documentary .

It actually was pushed in the courts originally. But the Lawyers and the Estate were trying their best to stop it completely. Actual Physical evidence was found that supported the allegations. https://puu.sh/D5Mi6.pdf And here's how they found the evidence as well, along with further details of what was found with the evidence. https://puu.sh/D5MmA.pdf Do note that a large amount of what was found wasn't necessarily considered to be Child Pornography. But, The purpose of those books was more for the Grooming process. It wasn't exactly explicit as flat out pornography. But it was to slowly groom children in the process. To slowly desensitize them, so when they do perform sexual acts. It wouldn't come off as being "Weird or Gross" to them. Here's a part of the PDF that describes this. https://puu.sh/D5Mlg.png A repository of the Court Documents if people are interested. Remote Electronic Access Actually. They did present evidence. Which was also a part of another Court Case that happened awhile back involving James Safechuck. Where he presented wedding rings and jewelry that was given to him by Michael Jackson during the "Grooming" process. And also Faxes, audio recordings, and other forms of physical evidence as well. Part of the evidence that was presented in the trial was this video. https://youtu.be/RV7-HDO5zb0 The person who is with Michael Jackson in the video is James Safechuck. And they confirmed that the jewelry came from the store that's in the video. Part of the Court Hearing of James Safechuck's Civil Complaint. "78. Upon learning of his death, Plaintiff felt sad because he realized he would never have the opportunity for a normal relationship with DECEDENT, and that his experiences with DECEDENT would never be resolved. 79. After the birth of his son, in late 2010, Plaintiff began to worry that he himself would have pedophilic urges. Plaintiff started to see how innocent children really were. Plaintiff had married a woman he worked with in 2007. He had never told her about his sexual abuse. During his wife’s pregnancy, Plaintiff had sought help from Dr. [REDACTED], a general practitioner, who prescribed Xanax to help with his anxiety. Plaintiff did not discuss the abuse with Dr. [REDACTED], nor did he equate his anxiety with the abuse. Plaintiff had coped with the abuse for many years by compartmentalizing what had happened during his relationship with DECEDENT. 80. Shortly after May 1, 2013, Plaintiff saw on the news that Wade Robson (“Wade”), who he had met in 1993, had filed a lawsuit against DECEDENT for claims of childhood sexual abuse. After learning that Wade had made public the sexual abuse that he had suffered at the hands of DECEDENT, Plaintiffs feelings of panic and anxiety heightened, and he thought that he might need help. By this time, Plaintiff now also had a newborn baby daughter, and his fears increased about his own children and what could happen to them. 81. Plaintiff never thought the feelings of panic and anxiety he had been suffering were the result of the sexual abuse by DECEDENT. Rather, he thought they were just a part of who he was. He had spent his entire life holding on to DECEDENT’s words that talking about what happened between them “would wreck [their] lives.” 82. Plaintiff first met with a psychiatrist, Dr. [REDACTED], on May 20,2013. He was finally "

I mean it was, there was decade long investigations and multiple FBI raids that turned everything in his home upside down, and they found nothing substantial. Unless new evidence is brought forward, the only thing you can really do is re examine existing evidence

Except they did. They actually confirmed it had links to the use of Grooming the children. Its stated in the PDFs i've posted. And in fact. Jurors from the trial came forward afterwards, feeling ashamed that they declared Michael Jackson innocent. Saying they were bullied by other people to declare him innocent. 2 jurors say they regret Jackson's acquittal

This is exactly as valid as my Christian mother bringing up random "atheists" who converted to Christianity while trying to "disprove" it and that means I should also be a Christian.

"I mean for fuck sake even if he's a pedo or not. I can't be the only one to think that picture is Weird. For fuck sake i had to censor it...." how many times does it have to be said that just him being 'weird' is not only not actual evidence, but it also has literally no weight or implication on a single thing in this situation. Not just for when framed against the potential sexual abuse or pedophilia or harassment or any other allegation, it's just not actual evidence for anything.

One thing i would like to note. Michael Jackson also did the same thing with his father in praising him awhile back. And then eventually revealing he was an abuser to him. This isn't me going "Oh Michael Jackson is a Hypocrite" No. This is me saying that this is possibly a cycle of abuse. Cause for christ sake, its almost the same shit that the two guys describe in the documentary. His father would force him and the Jackson 5 to perform at Strip clubs. Forcing strippers and hookers to have sex with his children when they were underage. To the point Michael Jackson became repulsed by regular Heterosexual sex. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVnSuk7MTz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cDWAqqhrIo I mean the more i read about it. The more it continues how tragic MJ is. Cause i will admit he is a very talented musician, performer, and artist. But the actions by his father and family probably warped his mind so badly. That's why he became that.

Cherubs were always depicted like this https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/424942/636afe19-b25f-40d0-9771-2225dc824aff/image.png

Are you joking or not? He had literally thousands of art books in his collection, and you'll see plenty of representations of cupids in art like that. If the bar for evidence of pedophilia is that low then we should arrest everybody that owns a copy of Nirvana's Nevermind shouldn't we? Jesus Christ the sheer absurdity of this situation, where the sole "evidence" that could be found was a few art books despite a decades worth of investigation. I don't understand why people want so desperately for MJ to be a pedophile that they'll throw out all fairness and due process, and take the word of a couple of people in a documentary that offers nothing but some hackneyed emotional music and some tears to support their claims while only presenting their side of the situation. I've seen people offer the exact same level of emotion describing how they were abducted by aliens and haunted by ghosts, it doesn't mean anything. I'm sorry for being so truculent but people being so easily swayed by an appeal to emotion really gets my goat.

Have you even read the PDFs?

didn't MJ have all the mirrors in his house removed so he wouldn't have to see his own face? why would he commission that painting? don't you think it's more likely that someone made that of their own volition, sent it to him, and it was thrown in with all the other stuff I'm sure he received on a daily basis?

"Have you seen the Documentary?"

He commissioned it. And no, he didn't remove the mirrors from his home. I believe that came from a joke calling Michael Jackson a Vampire due to his skin pigment.

I think this illustrates part of the problem here; you're seemingly taking everything at face-value as if there's no other explanation at all, combing that with "he's weird!" and using that to say he's guilty. Yes, there is some strange stuff, but that is not evidence in itself. The documentary presents this sort of information in a way that is meant to lead you towards a specific conclusion based on its emotional argument and linking tentative circumstantial information that may or may not be as they say. Using that video you posted as an example: There's a claim that he bought him a ring and that it was for a "wedding", and a video shopping for Jewellery. The video definitely shows Michael with someone (who presumably is Safechuck) shopping for jewelry. That much is correct. The conclusion after that? The existence of that video does not prove that a ring was bought for him, that it was that particular ring, that were was a "wedding" etc - that all depends on anecdotes, conjecture and heresay to support that part of the claim. Not that i'm accusing them of lying (and i can't remember what the specific phrase is) but "Lies are best told with a grain of truth" applies, the video does not directly support those claims, the video proves nothing beyond he went shopping for jewellery, the rest involves jumping to conclusions. There are plenty of other explanations - Michael was said to be dating someone around that time (Not Sheryl Crow, like the video suggests) and there's quite a few people who knew him then mentioning he bought rings and had plans to marry her. Also, they can't have "confirmed that the jewelry came from the store that's in the video" because according to the article about this happening at the time, they bought nothing there. It should require more concrete evidence than one that requires believing what's said as the truth in the first place in order to to determine guilt (or not) in something as serous and horrific as this. You're right in that there's no way to talk about this topic without emotion factoring in, but it's still something that needs actual evidence to corroborate with what's being said, something that goes beyond having to fill in the gaps yourself.

They did in the court hearing. They confirmed it. Btw. Here is an audio recording of Wade Robson describing a sexual encounter with Michael Jackson. I'm still looking up a program to record the documentary to show that its not what people make it out to be in these threads. There is barely any music at all, and it completely drops out. This is to point out that there's no emotional words, no emotional music, or emotional manipulation when they're describing it. Its just plain dead simple, which makes it more disturbing to me. Cause usually when abuse victims describe their abuse. They speak it in a very simple manner, creating a feeling that they have "A lump in their throat". I recommend just listening to this without any visual medium. Its already disturbing enough. https://puu.sh/D5PKa.wav i sorta fucked up the unpause so there's a tiny half-second of garble in the beginning.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: It speaks huge fucking volume that the 'MJ = pedo' side of the metaphorical coin is driven by subjective statements of 'he always seemed weird', or 'There's no understandable reason as to why people would lie', or 'Well, we shouldn't have complete faith in the justice system'. The previous thread on this whole scenario did us a wonderful favour by exposing that barely anyone in the 'MJ = Pedo' camp could string together a proper argument that didn't rely on emotion or 'evidence' that was subsequently debunked. I've seen, on more than one occasion, people in this camp, even on this forum, using the very emotion-driven manipulation tactics that they say couldn't possibly be used by people. At the end of the day, I'm hardly a state fanatic, but I will always have more faith in investigative authorities than in Twitter / celebrity 'detectives'. But please, try to undermine that by throwing out a groundbreaking case from 2004 in which the authorities were proven to have gotten something wrong, whilst subsequently ignoring that if something is news, it is such because it is uncommon.

You'll have to be more specific than that. Confirmed what?

They confirmed that the child in the video was him. Cause it matched his physical description at the time. Along with having a mullet as his hair-style. And they confirmed that the jewels were purchased from that store. And the time that the video was shot. Michael Jackson was known to take James Safechuck along with him during trips around the city.

This is barely newsworthy, you could've just posted this in the other MJ thread it honestly feels like you made the thread just to start shit

Weird how I keep seeing people's opinions brought up like it's supposed to sway people definitively. It's almost like nobody has anything compelling so appeals to emotion is all they have left.

And there is proof of this?

Did you know that Michael Jackson had a whole fucking library in his house? He hoarded books. He could have not possibly even know or read all the books that was in his library as big as a normal public library. You're nitpicking and you're on a witch-hunt.

plus an artsy book of boys being boys frolicking and whatnot. Really? That's the most damning thing you could find? After the FBI dug through his place before and after his death? An art book? Like from what I recall, the prosecution was so desperate to dig up evidence that they even tried creating some. They dug up a hussler magazine and presented it as evidence that the accused touched it because they just did when it was being taken out of evidence in the 2005 case.

This 100x. I have no idea what to think if majority of people claim a person guilty regardless of these facts.

Oh there's lots of it. I listened to many of the things MJ was accused of. They're horrifying. And yet you have bugger-all evidence. If you compare the timeline, you will also see that things don't even add up. Look, I get it. Vitiligo MJ looks like a ghoul and his fixation with childhood is creepy as hell. There still isn't evidence that MJ was a kiddie-diddler, and no, some washup in a documentary saying a bunch of sick things like how MJ asked him to jack off infront of him as sad music plays isn't evidence.

I've done lots of research in the past 7 years on these accusations, claims, conspiracies and scandals surrounding Michael Jackson. There was lots of shady things and shady people in the background of this whole thing that people don't even realize. Michael was a genuine and kind human being who was easily used by wrong people. Just look at the 00's, he got talked into shitty projects including a couple of shitty b-low budget films. Also not to mention that the accusers during MJ's Dangerous world tour waited until he was on the road, having to cancel the whole tour.

Well a kicker is that when MJ did break the law (like when he found some underground pharmacist to give him painkillers IIRC? You prob know this more then me) he made sure to dot his Is and cross his Ts to be sure it was untraceable. And yet we are to believe that when it came to kiddle-diddling, his grace only extended to "Jump up and down the bed while touching yourselves sexually as I record the whole thing" nuts.

Can you link to the document you're referring to? Unfortunately all that seems to come up when searching is biased source. However, lets assume that is Safechuck and he did buy something from that store (even though the news at the time said he didn't?) - that in no one means the rest is true. Michael and Safechuck being out shopping does not then automatically verify the rest of the claims he makes. You still need evidence to back up the specific claims of it being that particular ring that was bought, specifically for him, and then evidence that this "wedding" took place - all the video shows it that he was at a store. It's absurd to just see that video and take then assume the rest as true because of what is circumstantion and tentative evidence with no direct support of those claims. Michael was in a disguise when he was shopping there? Well, that was fairly normal for him. He wore a disguise a lot of the time in public and there are many occasions where he got caught wearing one. The ring shopping itself? Again, Michael was said to be dating someone around that time, and there are several mentions from multiple people about his plans to marry her, even that he bought a ring. To think the video is proof in itself seems a bit disingenuous, as it involves taking some of those aspects out-of-context and deciding they're abnormal behaviour for him in the first place.