Macaulay Culkin on Michael Jackson: "I Never Saw Anything; He Never Did Anything"
share
Jackson was smart. He wouldn't do anything to people who were going places. He knew nobody would believe those other kids. (Which is true, millions of people don't believe them) But if Culkin said anything, people would believe it right away..
shareAre u just speculating this theory or is this a fact?
shareJust mental gymnastics to explain away how obvious it is that Jackson never did any of those things.
shareIt's completely laughable to think people still believe he didn't molest kids.
shareWhat would be laughable if it weren't so sick & demented is how some people just REALLY, REALLY want to believe the molester narrative despite no credible evidence to support it and lots of evidence that contradicts it.
shareThis argument is also very silly. If a woman is brutally raped by 5 men in an alleyway, and then tells people who did it, you wouldn't believe her because there's no "Evidence". I mean, whaddya expect her to do, ask her rapists "hold on a sec, lemme record this with my video camera... for evidence."
There's no "evidence" because shit took place in a room without cameras. Two people came forward in the documentary, along with OTHER kids who never had this "money" motive. It's all up to interpretation. My interpretation is he molested kids.
Unfortunately the burden of your apparent limited capacity or willingness to understand a what constitutes credible evidence pointing towards one's potential guilt or innocence in these cases is on you.
And there are no "OTHER" kids/parent accusers who didn't have a clear financial motive. That's a flat out lie. %100 percent of the accusers had documented financial motive.
It's only "open to interpretation" to those who choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence that discredits these PROVEN liars. Really makes me wonder about the kind of mindset of some of these people who simply "PREFER" the narrative of children being molested on the basis of "Evidence? What evidence? Who cares? Open to interpretation i say!"
Well to start with if a woman is raped by 5 guys there is going to be evidence, not just DNA evidence from the guys that raped her but also from the damage to the woman's vagina which would show evidence of forced sex.
Now apply that same reality to the boys that have now claimed MJ molested them. Well to begin with you should have some evidence. Even if you don't have the DNA evidence you would still have damage to the anal tissue from being molested. If you don't have any physical evidence then you where are the police reports that should have been filed as soon as little boy X got back to his parents. The fact is those accusations didn't happen until way down the road from when it supposedly happened. Well that brings up a significant amount of doubt and you are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In non of the instances is was anything proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Was MJ weird as hell? Yes. Did he molest kids? I don't know, nor do you know. MJ knew, and the accusers know. So you can go on and accept the word of those kids now that they waited years after the supposed act happened, but frankly I don't give a lot of credibility to anyone that wait to come forward with an accusation.