The wedding ring account was unsettling, and there's certainly a lead there, but I'm not convinced Jackson bought Safechuck those rings.

I watched this last night. I don't think there can be any denying that he sexually abused young boys. Perhaps you could argue whether their memories can be quite so detailed and explicit 30 years on but in the broader scheme of things I think that is irrelevant.

I've been thinking about how my reactions to the various scandals are formed by bias. My general emotion while watching LN was just sadness - I'm upset about how the boys were groomed, how no one realised what was going on, how their lives (and their families) were affected, and also about how Jackson himself lived a troubled life - but I don't feel the same thing about Cardinal Pell for example, I just find that disturbing and disgusting.

Mar 7, 2019 3:14:25 GMT Big Pete said:

The wedding ring account was unsettling, and there's certainly a lead there, but I'm not convinced Jackson bought Safechuck those rings.

What's the explanation if he didn't buy them for him?

What's the explanation if he didn't buy them for him?

Safechuck could have acquired those rings any number of ways. Bought them himself, received them from somebody else, stolen them, until it's verified that Jackson bought them those rings, I wouldn't consider it admissable.

So I saw a bit more of this tonight... Do you think it is credible that Michael molested some of his victims but not all of them?

Likewise, do you think any woman who got her break in a Weinstein movie and has been silent probably rode the Harvey express to tinsel town?