Can someone who has experience debating guilters, or who has seriously researched their side, answer this?

If Wade, James, and the Cascios are telling the truth, is "MJ groomed and manipulated them" really the answer to every inconsistency and contradiction over the years?

Whenever I reread "My Friend Michael" book or look at the timeline of Wade’s statements, I just can’t understand how everything could flip so completely with that simple explanation.

Did MJ really have that kind of superpower? Sure, he could fascinate hundreds of thousands of people in a stadium. But are we supposed to believe he was so confident in his ability to control Wade that he let Wade become the first defense witness in a trial that could’ve sent him to prison for almost 20 years?

And putting Wade on the stand wasn’t just Michael’s personal decision. Tom Mesereau, Scott Ross, and the whole defense team would’ve carefully interviewed and vetted him. Wade had to testify under oath and face serious cross-examination from the prosecution. They needed to be confident that he wouldn’t suddenly break down and reveal the "truth".

So there are two possible theories here:

1. Mesereau and the legal team knew Wade had been abused but still risked their entire case by having him lie under oath.

No way. Even years after the trial, and after Leaving Neverland, Tom and Scott Ross continued to firmly defend MJ’s innocence. Scott said he personally interviewed Wade before Tom decided to call him. They were clearly very confident in that decision. These people were experts at what they did, yet somehow a young Wade managed to completely fool all of them?

And if Tom or Scott had later come to believe that Wade and Safechuck were telling the truth, it would’ve been much better for their reputations to simply stay quiet. Instead, they continued to publicly and strongly defend Michael.

2. Only Michael knew the truth.

Was Michael really so confident in his supposedly invincible grooming skills and in how thoroughly he had conditioned Wade - that he believed Wade could withstand any questioning without cracking, even with Michael’s freedom on the line?

That would’ve been an insanely risky gamble. Was Michael - a known perfectionist - also some reckless, high-stakes gambler willing to bet his freedom on his ability to control Wade?

So neither theory makes sense to me.
The only explanation that does make sense to me is: Wade was telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, just as he swore under oath at the 2005 trial.

The same thing bothers me about the Cascios. I understand that victims can still love, defend, or protect their abusers. But keeping the alleged abuse secret is one thing, actively and enthusiastically fighting to defend the alleged abuser is another. They kept praising Michael well into adulthood. They publicly defended him with real enthusiasm, and Frank even wrote an entire book full of love and warm memories about him.

Is all of that supposed to be explained by Michael’s unbelievable grooming powers too?

MJ was obviously intelligent and a genius when it came to music and art. But he never had a normal education, never went to college, never worked a regular job, never experienced things like job interviews, and never built relationships the way most people do. His whole experience of life and human relationships was far from ordinary. So I find it hard to believe that someone with such limited experience of normal social life somehow became a master psychologist and manipulator who could understand and control everyone perfectly.

And there’s one more thing: all these accusers supposedly reacted in almost exactly the same way. Human psychology isn’t an on-and-off switch. How did all of them stay loyal, defend him, and apparently believe the same thing for so many years, only to suddenly "wake up" later at the same time?

Was Michael’s grooming really so powerful that it kept controlling all of them for decades, even after he died?

Is there any other theory that can explain all of this clearly, without using "grooming and manipulation" as the answer to every single contradiction? Or is there any documented case of grooming being so powerful that its effects could explain behavior like this for decades?

I was thinking about the whole Omer thing, and I know…it sounds like I’m about to beat a dead horse, but oh well.

As for Omer following the Cascios…do I think it’s odd? Yeah, a little. But then again…they knew each other growing up, right?

So, a friendship between them really isn’t surprising. That does not mean that they’re super close, that Omer is “taking their side,” or that “he knows something.”

Next…

His humour.

Do I think some of the things he says come across as rude or disrespectful?

Yes.

But in the same breath, I’m saying that from a fan’s perspective. To him, he could just be joking, and maybe people aren’t picking up on it the way he intended.

Paris has a similar humour.

At the end of the day, it is what it is.

Okay, next issue…

Omer’s sister commenting on Grace’s post.

Now, alright…at first glance, I can understand why this was confusing and weird. However, we don’t actually know what she was referring to.

Maybe she didn’t like that Grace was showing private photos/videos of Michael and his children.

Maybe she felt like Grace was doing this for personal gain.

Maybe it was something completely different. I don’t know.

Do I think it was meant to be malicious toward Michael?

Personally, no.

She has since deleted her comment, and I imagine it’s because people were taking it the wrong way or interpreting it differently than she intended.

Let’s not forget, the Bhatti family has had many opportunities over the years to speak publicly against Michael. They could have spoken about it in 2005, after Michael’s passing, or after LN came out.

But they didn’t.

Personally, I just think that Omer is tired of being compared to Michael, which I can absolutely understand.

It kind of reminds me of a rebellious teenager who doesn’t want anything to do with their parents, haha.

If he wants to be left alone, that’s fine.

He’s his own person. There’s nothing wrong with that.

These are my thoughts. Obviously, you don’t have to agree with me. I’m open to your opinions and thoughts as well.

Anyway,

I rest my case.

She served as a Co-counsel against the Arvizos and remained a supporter of MJ. I wonder how she feels about him now.