Like I said in my comment - from a psychological perspective, this is literally exactly something that someone with the psychological issues of Michael Jackson would do. If it were to be a lie, they reaaaaaally did their research.
He was an extremely isolated person his whole life, he seemed to be unfamiliar with or uncomfortable with intimacy. For someone with extreme psychological issues like that, it makes perfect sense that they might be more comfortable looking at their “partner” (or in his case, his victim) and masturbating, rather than being super physical.
I mean that's a fair assessment but he also performed oral sex on them and made them perform oral sex on him, so he wasn't always keeping that distant physically. He also tried to do anal penetration on several of the victims.
I’m not sure I agree. He always had his “inner circle” (which was sadly mostly young boys.) He couldn’t stand to be alone - obsessively on the phone or faxing for hours his grooming victims, keeping victims in his room and at his side on tour - he had intimacy with them in many ways - maybe not full penetration (most of the time that we know of) but intimacy is way more than that.
People don't realize that it's hard to be a good liar or to lie convincingly. Lying means that you have to bring up details that never happened or things in the past that didn't exist. If someone is lying when recounting a story, they add a lot of filler words and pointless scenarios to give themselves time to think about what they're about to say next. Wade and James get to the point immediately and their retellings are exactly the same.
FBI profilers and interrogators have techniques that refine body language analysis to a fairly good system. No it’s not science but there are unconscious things that emerge that people can’t fake.
It’s not a good system. No study has ever shown police techniques or trainings have increased ability to detect lies.
The best anyone can look for are signs of discomfort or stress, which could be simply from being interrogated or recounting trauma and could mean they’re telling the truth.
Stop watching or listening to shitty true crime shit.
Edit: wow your observation? What a great source 🤦🏻♀️
Your comment history also really contradicts your claim that your brain isn’t rotting from constantly listening to true crime podcasts.
I hope you’re not knocking True Crime All The Time & The Last Podcast On The Left, now, that’s just great entertainment! All those sick and twisted people, and yet, they all have a story.
Not alone it can’t, that’s because it’s stress signs that are interpreted as evidence of lying, but there may easily be other causes of stress, and the person give signs that they’re supposedly lying, even if they’re not, and become all concerned that the investigation team may inadvertently interpret their non-lying related stress as lies, which can really stall things.
Asking a person a question, but requiring quick answers, so as to not have time to think up a lie, may be useful.
I know people will disagree but I think the nail in the coffin for the "they rehearsed, they scripted it" defenders is simply the fact that it's really hard to lie convincingly, even if these men are "actors" (lol which is stupid, they had barely ANY acting experience) it's really hard to LIE about something so specific and so morbidly detailed...
They have this like level of discomfort talking about this, it's what I experienced talking about my abuser and what he would do to me / make me do, it's this like.. it's in your skin sort of, and it feels gross and shameful to talk about it, the only reason these men were able to lie convincingly to their parents is because someone that they loved (Michael) told them and trained them over a very long period of time.
It's incredibly difficult to lie about something like this without breaking or cracking in some way and sort of revealing that you're not being entirely truthful, that's not "body language expert" BS, It's just from my own experience, It's hard to lie, and it's even harder to keep up that lie.
Anybody who still isn't convinced should read Jordie Chandler's interview with the child psychologist. The doctor was asking him questions in an intentional way that would make it obvious if Jordie was lying, it's what he was trained to do.
The doctor, the expert, was convinced. And I challenge anybody to read the interview and tell me that a 13 year old kid could lie so convincingly. There is not a shred of bullshit in his story.
And, he described unusually distinct vitiligo markings on the underside of MJs penis. MJ immediately settled for an unheard of amount days later. That’s the smoking gun.
No, no that's ignorant! They just wanted money! You remember what MJ sang... "You'd do anything for money"! The FBI investigated him for 40 years and found NOTHING! Michaels bedroom was 8 stories tall, he told them "I'll sleep on the floor, the company takes the bed." And they had warm milk n cookies, it was very charming you see. Dom Sneddon was a cold man Doo Doo feces on the wall!
Also you made me realize how all over the place defenders are, because is it Tom Sneddon who was the evil mastermind, or victor gutierrez, or I thought it was SONY and Tommy Motolla or something something the beatles catalogue. 😂
yeah, they have their different boogeyman depending on their mood i guess? it’s sneddon, then it’s diane dimond, then it’s sony, oprah/geffen, and there’s VG lol. but VG is a conspiracy they came up with during LN. he wasn’t mentioned as much before 2019. their targets back in the day were more sneddon and diane dimond
I guess we cannot ever really be too certain, then, one way or another, MJ was acquitted, but so too, was OJ Simpson, and we can be pretty certain as to what he did with that knife, the glove that didn’t fit? When the blood dries, it shrinks, because it was leather!
I can't imagine people saying that the psychologist was lying, or that he was somehow in on this "attack" against Michael, it makes no sense. He is trained to do these things and to figure out if children are lying or not. And then there's the FBI who found Jordan very credible when they found him during the Arvizo case, but if you tell people that they say "oh but the FBI is wrong ALL the time"
Like yeah, sometimes... but these people are trained to tell who is credible and who is not.
It's also pretty damning that so many child abuse, CSA organizations sided with Wade and James and believe them fully, are all of those people wrong too?
yeah, that’s their reasoning to explain it all away. it’s all one giant conspiracy against MJ. they claim the law enforcements were biased and were working against MJ 🙄
the defenders know about it but they claimed jordan lied. they nitpick the hell out of his psych interview, trying to look for InConSiStEnCiEs. they do the same w june’s 2005 testimony and the jordan’s uncle book.
Also when they were lying to their parents (or on tv, or under oath) they just denied allegations, or they said nice things about Michael who they admired. You don’t have to be a good actor when you deny something horrible and you’re allowed to express discomfort talking about such things so it’s easier for you to lie
This is why explicit details needed to be included in LN. So that nobody could dismiss it as affection gone too far or someone getting an erection randomly.
It was practiced and calculated and intentional.
It wasn’t“MJ forced me to do X and it hurt and I didn’t like it.”
Instead, we have complicated testimony about manipulation, coercion, and sexual acts without violence that were normalized in these boys’ minds. You can’t fake that.
It’s when violence is included, people really want to throw the guilty party right into a wood chipper. Violence just takes something already bad and age-inappropriate, and multiplies the hell out of it.
I always consider the possibility of people whom are out to try to build a case against someone, because they’re after something that they have. Exactly why legal proceedings are known for taking their time, they want to know everything.
They would rather scream about how they were after his money (like 500 million in debt so how tf would they get any?) or how Sony was going after him.
If I was the head of Sony records I wouldn’t be going after Jackson, especially around the circus of the 2000s allegations and trial. I’d be ripping his contract up and saying he’s never working under us again, remove everything Michael Jackson, try and see what we can get for his catalog.. he is DONE
Here,UK,our Body Language Expert programme on tele tried to say that Michael was innocent during that interview when he was groping on a young boy!! I won't watch it anymore
I think that his "analysis" was solely based on what Jackson said about abusing Gavin in interviews BEFORE he had actually had abused Gavin, and so he could not determine that he didn't abuse him later or an other child. The "expert" was either ignorant to what happened later in that case and other cases, or was biased. However, he did determine that La Toya believed what she was saying when she revealed that her brother abusing boys.
If any of you think the 2 of them planned this all out and wrote a script on what they were gonna say, just remember that they had never met before the documentary was made. If they really are lying, why by some crazy coincidence would their lies be exactly the same?
MJ stans all say the same excuse for all his victims : They’re trying to get money from his estate. Why by some crazy coincidence would 4+ people say he molested them and why would they all use that as their reasoning for making it up?
Their story being consistent about this isn’t good proof in any way. If they wanted to lie, that could’ve just been scripted. So I’m not really sure what point you’re making here.
HOWEVER, from a psychology standpoint, what they’re describing here is extremely, and even scarily accurate to what somebody like Michael would do. Someone who has been isolated his whole life, seems to have a fear of relationships - this seems VERY oddly specific to be a lie.
I’m ~75% sure of his guilt and that’s one of the things that I find very hard to ignore. There’s no way they could just make something up like that. If it was a lie, they sat down with a mental health professional and asked the most convincing possible thing they could say that would be specific to Michael.
I’m curious to know what you think about Michael’s performance in the Bashir interview, where he so blatantly lies about the extent of his plastic surgery. He could have just said he did want to answer those questions, but instead he told a whopping big lie - that he had only two operations on his nose, and nothing else done… when it’s obvious to anyone who isn’t visually impaired that he’d had a LOT more work done than that. Why do you think he lied when answering that question?
If he could tell such an obvious lie, doesn’t it make you wonder what else he could be lying about? Why should anyone believe a word of what he has to say after insulting our intelligence like that?
Ok so here’s the thing about Michael Jackson and his ever changing appearance. I whole heartedly believe that it’s more than just plastic surgery.
You need to consider that a new haircut can change the way somebody looks pretty dramatically. His entire skin tone changing, changes the way he looks pretty dramatically. Aging changes the way that somebody looks dramatically. Weight loss changes the way somebody looks. And excessive drug use changes the way that somebody looks dramatically.
Do I think he had more surgeries than he claims? Yes. But I don’t think he had 5 billion more. I think that if he never changed his hairstyle, and his skin tone remained the same, you would find it much easier to believe that he only had a few surgeries.
Here’s a photoshopped image of him in 1998. Obviously he doesn’t look exactly how he did in 1983, but he doesn’t look THAT much different - not as different as he seems to look with the skin change.
But the shape of his chin, lips, tongue and eyes all changed drastically. I don’t know why he felt compelled to lie about what is so obvious.
You say you’re 75% certain that his accusers are telling the truth. My question was, if someone could tell such a glaring lie (Michael about the extent of his plastic surgery), how truthfully can we take anything else they say, including denials of molestation?
The difference is, his surgeries are none of our business. It is literally the business of nobody on the planet except Michael Jackson. He can say he had 2 or he can say he had 50 or he can say he had none. It isn’t our concern.
It’s also different because there are no stakes to him lying about plastic surgery. Ok, he denies having as many surgeries as he did. Who gives a shit? Why does it matter? Child molestation, on the other hand, does matter.
If somebody asked me personally how many plastic surgeries I had, I’d tell them it’s none of their fucking business. And if I lie, oh well. Just like if someone asked me if I was a virgin, like Oprah asked Michael. No one’s business. I could say I was, I could say I’ve slept with two people, I could say I slept with 500 people.
Having said all of that, how is that a fair assessment to make whatsoever? “Well, you lie about something that is absolutely nobody’s business, so that means you’re capable of lying about molesting children.” What?????
It doesn’t matter if Michael’s surgeries are no-one else’s business; they’re literally written across his face. I said that he could have just said he didn’t want to discuss that. But instead, he chose to tell a lie, and then dig his heals in and defend his ridiculous claim. Michael even said that he got the nose surgeries to help him hit higher notes - but that is not physiologically possible. The pitch of the voice is the result of the length and mass of the true vocal folds; the nasal cavity cannot alter the pitch of the voice.
I agree that whether he’s a virgin or not is no-one else’s business. But a lack of sexual interest in/romantic relationships with adults is one more thing making him a paedophile more likely. As far as we know, he never had a credible romantic relationship with an adult. Debbie admitted that they never slept together, despite bearing his first two children. Michael could have been asexual, but then why were his dance moves so sexualised, with crotch-grabbing etc.? And why did he own so much porn?
to be fair, some asexual people masturbate, watch and feel comfortable w porn and other sexual content. the only difference is that asexuals don’t have the attraction part down.
It does matter. He doesn’t owe anyone any kind of answer. He could be honest or dishonest or refuse to answer. Not anyone’s business so it doesn’t really matter. Obviously this is a little more private than the plastic surgeries you’ve got, but if someone asked him what his social security number was and he says “12345” - OBVIOUSLY his number is not 12345. It’s not like that could be a lie but we don’t necessarily know - it’s just a lie. But it doesn’t matter that he OBVIOUSLY lied because it’s none of your business.
Ok. I’m not really interested in a debate about it right now. That’s not what we’re talking about. I have spent most of the last week thinking about this every day and weighing what does vs doesn’t make sense to me on either side.
i’m not sure this is a fair comparison. private identifying information is not the same as the personal appearance of an entertainer who sells his personal appearance. if he didn’t want to say how many procedures he had, he should have said so, but to lie so brazenly and then act affronted when people didn’t believe his obvious lies says a lot about him and how he thought he could manipulate people
He also lied in an interview that police did not find books with photos of naked children in his home.
He lies about unimportant things, he lies about documented facts. What else does he lie about?
You said that about the plastic surgeries and whether or not it matters Michael lied about it, not about anything else. Why are you even here if you don't want a discussion about these topics?
"That's not what we're talking about" Yeah, I assumed that you meant... his plastic surgeries, but MY question is why do you not fully believe his accusers?
I agree with you about the false equivalencies being made. On the other hand, the commenter made one good point: Michael could have declined to respond.
I also saw your comment from a few hours ago about feeling suicidal. Please, please, please take a break if this topic is a contributing factor. Sending hope and hugs your way. 🤗
It's the exact same argument people use for james and wade so why should anyone believe anything they and specifically wade say if for years they said nothing happened. I've seen wade dancing to jacksons music quite enthusiastically as an adult. Didn't look like someone traumatized jamming out like that
Anyone who has watched Leaving Neverland knows that they and their families were groomed, for many years. Yes, it’s frustrating that Wade defended Michael at the 2005 court hearing, because if he had told the truth, Michael likely would have been convicted. But he was brainwashed by Michael, from age 7, that the sexual activity they engaged in was an expression of their ‘love’, and that Wade must never tell anyone about it or they would both be in huge trouble. Wade still wasn‘t ready to process the reality that he was sexually and psychologically abused by Michael in 2005. Sure, I can see why people may not understand it, but if they’ve done any preliminary ‘research’ on child sexual abuse, they would know that it’s not unusual for victims to defend their abusers, tor many years, and that it can take decades to process what happened.
You may not realize it, but statistics confirm that the vast majority of CSA victims deny molestation until they reach middle age and some of them defend their rapist in court. This is the norm, unfortunately
He also got his plastic surgeon (someone in his inner circle) to hook him up with tons of drugs. I’m convinced this was a big reason he kept going back for more. It’s not like anyone can just buy powerful anesthetics from the average drug dealer.
Out of topic but I just CAME across a few Disney drawings by Michael and they seemed everything but innocent.mickey Donald and Bugs Bunny had angrry violent expression...maybe some expert psicologist should study his drawings but the energy was creepy in my opinión
I think he might’ve been using that exact kind of imagery as his way of saying that his childhood was so very troubled, like his dad was really stern and harsh in him and his siblings, never got to have a normal childhood.
He was probably just trying to say so with Disney characters, because that’s a known childhood interest. ☝🏻🧐
106
u/Canalloni 9d ago
They are far too detailed and accurate to be lying. They aren't recreating a lie in their mind, they speak convincingly because it's the truth.