#James Robson

[ozimagines]

The Trouble with Robson…

So… I’ve seen some discourse on this site about James Robson… and I want in lol.

I’ve got a lot of thoughts about this man, and based on everything I’ve read from other Oz fans, I might have an unpopular opinion.

Please don’t get me wrong! Season 2-Season 5 he was a tremendous piece of shit. Like in every way possible it is to be a piece of shit. But that said I have two points: 1) that’s what makes him an good CHARACTER, not a good person, and 2) a redemption arc doesn’t mean that person is automatically forgiven, but are going down a better path and MIGHT be forgiven for their actions at a later date. It is with this, your honor, that I submit that Robson’s redemption arc was actually one of the better plot lines in Oz. (Please don’t hate me lol)

Okay, so Robson season two, pretty easy to characterize. He’s a Nazi. He’s violent. He’s a rapist. Very easy to hate. Season three, he’s lieutenant to Vern Schillinger in the Aryan Brotherhood. He boxes and such. In season four, he’s a menace, coming into his own character. He threatens on his own and has his own plot lines now. Season five is more of the same, at first, he rapes Peter Schibetta, he tries to ruin Beecher’s life, etc. He commits one of the more heinous of his crimes in my book when he kills the young Muslim man in the store room. A long, drawn out process that James is smiling through. He LOVES violence. More than anything he seems like he was made for prison. Then he learns about his gums, makes racist remarks to the doctor, one thing leads to another, he has black man gums and gets kicked out of the brotherhood.

He’s destitute and alone, which is all he deserves. But even Kareem Said finds pity for him and says “God is trying to teach you something. Please be smart enough to learn.”. What can even God attempt to teach someone like James Robson? He does what he needs to survive. He joins Cutler and agrees to be his prag. Here’s where some views from other Oz fans and I start to diverge. You look at videos on YouTube, many of the comments you’ll find say “good, he deserved it.”. The best argument I heard for this was actually from Funky Frog Bait on YouTube talking about misgendering murderers. Many people misgendered the nonbinary Nashville shooter. Why would you respect the pronouns for a person that horrible? Because, as Funky Frog Bait said in their video, it revolves around your opinion of gender as a whole. If you can just revoke someone’s preferred pronouns when they’re bad people, how “bad” does a trans person have to be to not have their pronouns respected? People of differing “politics” (morals) say different things, but if we apply this argument to Robson’s situation, I think it has to do with one’s overall view of rape. How “bad” does someone have to be before being raped is considered a reasonable punishment? For me, it’s never. For me, just as in never revoking someone’s right to their preferred pronouns, I also think it’s never justifiable to rape someone. So, no, I don’t think Robson deserved to be raped, even though he was a serial rapist himself, because there’s no situation where I think rape is a justifiable response. People may disagree with me, but I think it’s a slippery slope when you can deem someone as deserving of rape.

We learn during this time, as he’s being beaten and abused sexually by Cutler, that James was beaten and abused by his father as a kid. He confirms that this occurred while he was only five years old. His first introduction to life and sex was violence. Maybe this gives you sympathy for him, as it did me, but maybe you say fuck him, it doesn’t excuse anything. But I don’t think that it was meant to be an excuse, I think it was meant to be an EXPLANATION. I think we were learning how he became James Robson of unit B, not justifying his actions as James Robson of unit B. He was a child and the person he was supposed to trust most in this world gave him very harsh lessons very early on: no one cares about you, and do what you need to do to survive. He becomes demure and pitiful in Sister Pete’s office. One line that stuck with me was “here I am, 35 years old and I have nowhere to run.”. He’s been running his whole life. Running away from an abusive father and running away from his own actions. “I shame to think of what I’ve done. Look on it again, I dare not.” Is Cutler’s line as MacBeth in the play. It is an apt line for James. He’s been running from his own actions for as long as he could remember. Like I said, none of this justifies the lives he’s ruined and taken, but it does explain the inter-workings of a character that was pretty static for four seasons. That he survives. He tells Sister Peter Marie that all he does is run from things. I truly believe that some of the reason he was able to be as ruthless as he was is because he doesn’t let himself think about his own actions.

Finally season 6! He kills Cutler with some kinky play, joins the brotherhood, and it seems like he’s back, right? Only when he sees his wife, we see some of the shame come back. Some of the embarrassment of being taken in that way. If he feels this way now, he felt this way for however long his dad was abusing him. He loses it with her for calling him a “cock sucker”, which CLEARLY he’s embarrassed/ashamed about. He hurts her, and immediately, instantly, feels bad about it. I love learning the morality of immoral characters. With everything he’s done, why was hurting his wife crossing a line? Because she trusts him, just like little James trusted his dad. I think, personally, that he sees himself as her personal protector. Since he couldn’t protect himself, he became the protector for her, and then for Vern, but James isn’t stupid enough to think Vern can’t take care of himself. I think hurting his wife tore him up so much because he remembers when he relied on his dad for everything, and his father took advantage of his state.

Then he finds out he has AIDS. He joins a support group for rape survivors. They talk about their experiences and James listens to all of them. He thanks them towards the end, saying it was good to “hear it from both sides” which we know is something he knew already since he was at least five. But hearing those stories, all of which are upsetting but some are straight gruesome, puts FORCES him to face his actions. He can’t run anymore, his lifestyle caught up with him. Am I saying he deserves AIDS? ���‍♀️ Chissà. Who’s to say? He has it though. There’s a deleted scene where he lets Clarence rape him (I understand “lets” and “rape” don’t make much sense together but I don’t think coerced consent is consent at all so it’s still assault), and it gives Clarence AIDS. Robson says something interesting, with his classic smile on his face. “Retribution. It’s all about retribution.”. That’s what Oz is about. Retribution. It should be about Rehabilitation, but it’s all about Retribution. This is where James’ story ends on the show. With him moving to unit F, the AIDS unit. Finally, even if only physically, is he forced to face his actions.

This is why I think his story was beautifully written. He’s just a meathead in the beginning, but we learn about his morality -because he does have a code, even if it’s not a good one-, his past, and his future. They took a character that was frankly very flat and gave us a wide enough view on his life and character to confuse our anger into sympathy into more anger and into sadness. I don’t know if anyone else felt this way but my heart just dropped when he mentioned his dad. James Robson never stood a chance. He was a monster in training since he was five. But no one deserves to be raped. (A good reference is Adam Gunzel who was a BIG prick… but never deserved that shit.) Anyway these are just some of my thoughts on one of the most interesting characters in Oz (to me at least) and gave us an actual character out of a plotless muscle man.

One thing I think we can all agree on:

Retribution. It’s all about retribution.

[scurvyratt]

MORE

[imposterzoe]

Salty asks: popular character you hate? Unpopular character you love?

I can't think of one for Oz but a popular character I dislike is Ramsey in fast and the furious. I genuinely have no idea what she adds to the team outside of being the creator of God's Eye. All her hacking scenes with Tej just seem like her just now coming up with ideas he had twenty minutes ago. Love the actress, do not care for the character

Unpopular: Probably Robson tbh. Like I don't condone anything he does or believes cuz y’know... Nazi but like... you gotta admit the guy is fucking hilarious. His actor has no shame or self-respect to tarnish with this character and it's amazing. The man barks at the warden for godssake.

[daddyd0nt]

Asking the James Robson Question

Ive seen like 3 posts on the subject and didnt want to hijack anybody else's old post but there is a lot of discussion in the relatively small and inactive Oz fandom about if James Robson deserved his fate in season 6. The obvious answer is, yes, it is not only morally correct but funny to rape a rapist. But even more importantly yes, because it was the right artistic choice from the writers IMHO. In a show that builds itself on being Shakespearian, this is as Shakespeare as it gets. I could draw at least some parallels between Titus Andromedas and Robson's starring arc in the same way that there are some parallels in King Lear and the plotline that follows Schillinger and his sons (that comparison is a different ramble though)

So yeah, in the episode where Robson's character debuts, the first thing that happens is he is mean to the very sympathetic and lovable elderly man in a kick the dog moment. Then he orally rapes Beecher in what is probably the most graphic onscreen sex act pictured up to that point (While we see the psychological abuse and the branding, the sexual abuse that Vern puts Toby through is conveyed through dialog and never shown on screen). We are so uncomfortable. When Beecher bites off the tip of his dick, we rejoice. It is the first time Beecher actually gets retribution against an abuser instead of just getting away. Everybody stands and claps and feels good not only because Beecher ended the attack and defended himself but because Robson is suffering for how uncomfortable we were made as onlookers by witnessing him committing his first on screen rape.

When shit starts to go south for Robson during the gum incident at the end of season 5 you absolutely want anything bad to happen to him, nothing is bad enough, he deserves literally the worst, he has not had a single sympathetic moment. From the second you see him in pain from his gums you are like "good. Literally good". You are happy about seeing anything bad happen to him at all after 4 seasons of him dong nothing but raping and killing more sympathetic characters with no consequence. Imho this peaks either at Cyril's rape or the torture and murder of the young Muslim which I would consider the most disturbing act of non-sexual violence on the show (Robson is the girl that can do both).

At most he gets a few uncomfortable shock laughs at his outlandishly, flamboyantly disgusting dialog. You feel only anxiety when he is in a scene. The only time he is not consistently hurting somebody is when he is suffering, like when Said beats the shit out of him. When Said feels bad about attacking him, which you want to happen every time he opens his abusive mouth, you as an audience are like bbygirl you have nothing to feel bad about 10/10 I support it.

Even VERN, who you think will be the most unlikable character from the first episode, has sympathetic moments by that point: during the bus crash and how often he talks about his coming granddaughter and even arguably when he makes the choice to painlessly kill his youngest son through an overdose because he believes that there is a chance that Beecher (or potentially Keller who he has a complicated relationship with and knows can be unpredictable and oh yeah also sexually abused as a minor. There is some level of if not fondness then at least familiarity between them, but we learn that Keller was a minor submitting to sex with an adult for protection and that Vern "Liked sex better if it was a power thing (forced)" so even if Keller convinces himself that he consented Vern has no way of knowing that he was doing anything other than sexually abusing a kid and actually specifically got off on the fact that it was abuse.) could eventually make good on his threats to subject Andy to the same things that Vern subjected Beecher and Keller to, and he knows that he has done things to deserve the worst retribution imaginable. After the death of Hank, Robson even completely biffs the opportunity to have the slightest humanizing moment and comfort Vern when he is in mourning. This dude is the worst. He does not a single thing to earn a good feeling in the time he is on screen.

So the brotherhood shuns him for the cadaver transplant. When hes talking to Said and says "My friends will take me back" is the first deviation from what we have come to expect every time Robson Appears on screen. (which is the first time I noticed what a good actor R E Rodgers was, the little stutter and lower lip pout twitch when he delivers the line, the man put his entire cunt into this role) he doesnt say "they" or "the brotherhood" he says "my friends". That is literally the first time we see any hint of the potential that he is capable of any form of human connection at all. Its also the first time that we see his face in distress (his face is obscured by shadow when he gets bit) in contract to what is up until now his constant cruel smirk. It is the first time that we see him show any level of vulnerability at all. And we as an audience are like fuck yeah, I want justice, I want to see him get what he deserves. We don't know what we want, but we are glad that it is happening. Maybe in this bleak-ass show the closest thing to a good thing that can happen is something bad happening to a bad person.

We see Vern betray him in a very bizarro-christ-in-the-garden-of-Gethsemane-way when he favors former prag Franklin Winthrop when Robson gets physical with him. Winthrop is an interesting character in this conversation because he and Gunzel are a taste of how good it can feel when we see rapists get what a large portion of the audience feels like is even justice for not only their crimes but what a dick Gunzel is when Beecher tries to protect him/bragging to the bikers about the crime (and our desire to see the advancement of the love arc between Keller and Beecher through Schillinger's offer). Their fate is satisfying on both a moral and narrative level. Like Robson in season 2, the audience also wants to punish the characters for what they had to witness. Their joint assault on their female victim is the 2nd most graphic SA scene on the show. The last time we were made this uncomfortable, somebody lost their mushroom cap. It sets a pattern of expectations, sort of a horrible version of the fairy tale rules of three, with each incident in a sequence of three following the same pattern and escalating.

Then Pancamo gets out if the infirmary ready to completely FSU and Robson has nobody. Hes not a small dude, hes pretty fit, but Palarmo is not only larger but has numbers to back him up. We see Robson have a lot of physical altercations and come out the less damaged party about 50% at the time. When he loses in the boxing match to Cyril earlier in the show, again, a triumphant moment of not only bad guy Robson and the Aryan antagonists not persevering but getting to watch Cyril have a victory over at least one of his rapists. Hes not somebody who can always physically defend himself even with the brotherhood to back him up. He holds Pancamo off with a book cart until the guards break it up and rescue him. Then we see him bug the fuck out. He is wide eyed and terrified and breathing heavy and looks like hes about to burst into tears.

He goes to Cutler for protection, who we know nothing about other than that he is a nazi who killed a man by burying him alive with his head exposed and running over his head with a motor cycle. Robson stabbed a stranger, which is unforgivable, but its also only a choice he was able to act on on impulse. Cutler's victim was prepared in a way that would be extremely time and labor intensive just to enjoy the act and do something uniquely deranged, which is significantly scarier and requires an even longer and more intense period of autonomous choice to do something evil. May I introduce the new most unlikable and unsympathetic character, Wolfgang Cutler. When Robson approaches Cutler, he offers to hurt anybody Culter wants him to hurt in any way Cutler wants him to hurt them. Cutler's response is that Robson is the person he wants to hurt, and he wants to hurt him in the worst way possible, in a way that he genuinely has to calculate if it is worse than a violent death.

When we see him talking to sister Pete he is absolutely pathetic, and confesses that he has lived his entire life in fight or flight waiting to be hurt/killed. He is torn on which fate is worse. You still don't feel bad for him, but you're not sure how much you want to watch. Maybe it would be better to just watch a death scene. But didn't you want justice? And you're like yeah, I guess if it has to happen again on the show the character that I would be least upset to see it happen to would be Robson. So he goes back to Cutler, and in THE top most disturbing, graphic, and drawn out SA scene in the series, he is violently sodomized with a metal spoon. Suddenly, Cutler is the perpetrator that subjected us as an audience to the new most uncomfortable scene, and our laser ray of hate becomes focused on him.

We see a completely fallen Robson feminized and humiliated. Cutler is publicly parading around the fact that he is raping Robson, and all of his fellow prisoners join in degrading and mocking him over the fact that he is being raped. Nobody is helping him. Even when Cutler protects him, he is faced with the realty that the only person who gives a fuck about keeping him alive for any reason is a rapist who wants to use him as a sex toy. Is this fate actually better than death? If death would have been better, has he already submitted to too much in his attempt to stay alive that he can't go back on it even if it means he gets to die in relative peace?

In his conversation with Sister Pete, he breaks down in tears and admits that he was a CSA victim and feels like he can't defend himself now any more than he could defend himself when he was a 6 year old little boy getting "fucked in the shed". Understanding the full significance of this means knowing a little bit about the pop psychology climate of the very early 00s. To some audiences at the time, this revelation is the missing puzzle piece that explain why Robson does what he does for 4 seasons. It was a commonly accepted theory that sexual abusers were acting out of sexual trauma, abusing others as a way to take the power back that was stolen from them when they were abused. Robson has lived "shacked up with a psycho", as he later sobs to Sister Pete, for every moment of his existence that is accounted for in the narrative: First with his father, then as Vern's lieutenant, and now as Cutler's prag. This confession also carries the weight of the fact that in submitting to his abuse at Cutler's hands, he is not only reliving his most painful and shameful childhood trauma, but he cannot even experience it as a secret. We wanted to see him hurt, but this is a lot. It kind of isn't satisfying anymore. He can't get much more broken and pitiful. We don't feel any better about seeing him in this state than Said felt about punching him so long after he was passed out.

We see Cutler humiliate him in the gym and then leave him behind for the Italians to intercept, which he responds to by freezing in panic and staring at nothing with dissociated eyes. Does he care if they end his suffering at this point? Was it worth what he went through if he only survived a few miserable days extra before the Italians get their revenge on him anyway? But they don't kill him, they tell him he can redeem himself by killing Cutler and in exchange they won't kill him. The audience is almost as relieved as the character.

Not out of the woods yet though, because we are then subjected to the most graphic (not the most disturbing but 100% the most explicit) scene of any sort of sex act in the series. Nothing is left to the imagination. It shows more than viewers at the time thought even an HBO show could show and still be considered art. It is disgusting and relentless and you want it to stop but didn't you want to see him endure the worst fate possible for his crimes? Did you ever think you would be capable of feeling any pity for the most evil character on the show until Cutler's introduction? Because holy shit you feel bad for him. Even his method for murdering Cutler involves sexually degrading himself in order to convince Cutler to put a noose around his neck (IMHO it is also pretty punk rock and symbolic to kill a white supremacist villain by hanging because of the historical connotations with nooses and racial violence by lynching). When it is over, the worst person in Oz is dead and you are happy about it. Did Robson deserve to get abused? Another question you could ask is, did you like seeing him suffer at the hands of somebody you liked even less? Did you like seeing Cutler swagger and parade him around and get off? If a bad person is hurt by a worse person is your instinct to hate the perpetrator or celebrate that he abused the "right victim"?

Still not over. Unable to accept his rape, he ruins his relationship with his wife and crosses the only line he has ever expressed having. With everything he's done, he now reveals that he does have some moral limit in his mind, he does have some sense of shame (he also expresses shame about what he's done to others when talking to sister Pete). He's not happy about the people he hurt. He doesn't feel good about it. He hurt all those people trying to feel better and it didn't even work. He is then diagnosed with HIV, which had a very different prognosis in 2000 than it does today in 2024. Finally we get a silver lining, a tiny chance at the potential for some sort of redemption; he joins a support group for rape survivors and seeks professional help for his trauma.

That is his last plot point on the show, but the deleted scenes extend the nightmare and I think one in particular is important to mention. In the scene, he is cornered in a bathroom stall by Clarence, who we recognize as the man who originally threatened Winthrop with rape in order to get Winthrop to submit to the Aryans for protection. At best he is a rape enabler, but we come to find that he intends to rape Robson. Robson agrees not to resist, saying it is because he knows he couldn't beat Clarence in a fight. Again, devastating scene. Robson looks so hopeless and literally asks Clarence point blank if he's about the be raped, and when Clarence confirms you want to see the now-healed Robson fight back and it is tragic when he doesn't. Wasn't the last time supposed to be THE last time? Back in the pod, Vern approaches him about a rumor that Clarence was spreading that he fucked Robson, which Robson confirms is true. Vern is disgusted (always weird what he shows disgust/outrage at and what he normalizes/justifies he has very shifty moral goalposts from one episode to the net). Vern asks why he let it happen (Which he really couldn't have prevented it Clarence was 3x his size and he was unarmed and alone). Robson replies that it was for "retribution". When Clarence passes by the cell and mocks Robson, Robson reveals that he was infected with aids and he infected Clarence. For the first time he can make an abuser pay for abusing him without having to be violent himself. This last time WAS the last time it was ever going to happen because now nobody would ever do that to him again without dying a horrible death. He announces with his final line that he is moving to the HIV unit. I have no idea why they deleted this scene.

We hate Robson for nearly his entire run on the show, and while I don't think this arc makes him sympathetic, it forces us to confront what we thought we wanted/what we thought would be justice. When the arc starts you want to see literally every bad thing ever happen to Robson to punish him for all the atrocities he commits with no consequences. It forces us to ask ourselves if we really wanted "equal justice" if it meant having to be so intimately involved with the most repulsive parts of it. At a point you feel bad about wanting what you wanted, there is a limit, you want it to stop. But until you have to watch Robson get his "justice" no matter how pitiable and human he becomes, you think nothing would be too bad for him.

[hello-nichya-here]

My love for MJ aside, speaking purely as someone who is looking into all the accusations against him and trying to be as unbiased as possible, it's CRAZY how the fans are labeled as being "in denial about the truth" when they are clearly correct in saying there's more than enough proof of his innocence.

Literally EVERYTHING is on Michael's side: eye-witnesses, videos, recorded phone calls, documents, and well-over a decade of FBI investigations, all of which contradict every single part of the stories about the supposed child abuse.

The proof of his innocence goes from "The pictures police took of Michael's genitals did not match the description the kid provided" to "This family that claims Michael kidnapped them and forced them to sell all their stuff, including their house, so they'd be dependent on him was confirmed to be lying since they still owned all the things they said they were forced to sell", all the way to "Michael wasn't even in the same country as the supposed victim at the time, and in fact, the very ROOM in which the the abuse allegedly happened did not even exist yet"

Not to mention proof that first "victim" (Jordan Chandler) was coerced by his abusive father into accusing Michael, that the family of the second "victim" (Gavin Arvizo) already having a history of scams that included lying about sexual abuse, and the Leaving Neverland documentary (that talks about the alledged abuse of James Safechuck and Wade Robson) was discovered to be copying an erotic book written by a confessed pedophile that wanted to share his fantasies about Michael abusing children.

Meanwhile all the people who say he was guilty have as proof is "Well, I saw an interview with the pedo that wrote that pornographic book and assumed it was true" or "I heard on a TV show 30 years ago that he was guilty and paid hush money to the victims and never checked that the investigation was still going and that the boy was even allowed to testify in court if he wanted to" or "This maid that was fired for stealing stuff from Michael's home claims she saw him molesting Jordan Chandler in Neverland - even though Jordan says he was abused during the tour, not in Neverland, so even if you were to believe his story you'd still have to assume this woman is lying."

It really is no wonder the 1993 and 2013 allegations did not even managed to get a proper trial with how little there was to work with, and the 2005 one led to Michael being found innocent of all charges in record time - I strongly suspect that if it wasn't for the former case, it wouldn't even have made it to court in the first place either with how nonsensical it was.

[brokehorrorfan]

The Boy will be released on 4K Ultra HD + Blu-ray on September 3 via Scream Factory. The 2016 horror film was an international co-production between the US and China.

William Brent Bell (Orphan: First Kill, The Devil Inside) directs from a script by Stacey Menear. Lauren Cohan, Rupert Evans, Jim Norton, Diana Hardcastle, Ben Robson, Jett Klyne, and James Russell star.

The Boy is presented in 4K from the original elements with Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos. Special features are listed below.

Disc 1 - 4K UHD:

Audio commentary by film critics Julia Cunningham and Emily Higgins (new)

Disc 2 - Blu-ray:

Audio commentary by film critics Julia Cunningham and Emily Higgins (new)

Interview with William Brent Bell (new)

Interview with writer Stacey Menear (new)

Interview with cinematographer Daniel Pearl (new)

Interview with doll designer Todd Masters (new)

Interview with doll handler Tannis Hegan (new)

Theatrical trailer

Greta (Lauren Cohan) is a young American woman who takes a job as a nanny in a remote English village. She soon discovers that the family's 8-year-old is a life-sized doll that they care for just like a real boy, as a way to cope with the death of their son 20 years prior. After she violates a list of strict rules, a series of disturbing and inexplicable events bring Greta's worst nightmare to life, leading her to believe that the doll is actually alive.

Pre-order The Boy.

[geordieandhisvicars]

they were insane for this season two opening tbh

[dukeofdelirium]

You ever done a summary of all the allegations, about all the accusers? Like, what they alleged? Did there seem to be any pattern? Were any of them somewhat believable? Did any witness seem credible?

I have made threads for both the Chandler allegations as well as the Arvizo allegations. I was going to make threads on Safechuck and Robson but then I had a death in the family and never got around to it. I could still make them if I have enough interest and engagement. Lemme know if y’all want me to, and I will.

My Chandler thread ☝🏻

My Arvizo thread ☝🏻

Here’s another post I made talking about the “documentary” Leaving Neverland though I didn’t go into extensive details because that would be quite a long read.

I have lots of other posts but nothing compiled as extensively like the above threads.

As for your questions, yes I have extensively researched these allegations and each individual case. The accusers all paint Michael in very different lights with different abuse patterns and grooming habits. They often contradict one another’s allegations.

For example: Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo never claimed they were anally raped by Michael. They just said they were touched by him. The only individual that ever claimed anal rape was Victor Gutierrez, a NAMBLA member and “journalist” that MJ sued for slander and libel and won… fyi NAMBLA stands for “North American Man Boy Love Association”. As in, it’s a pro-pedophilia group… he was a self admitted pedophile and made up lies that MJ anally raped Jordan Chandler, despite Jordan never saying this. Jordan even signed legal declarations saying this was untrue…

So isn’t it strange then, that Wade and James allege that MJ anally raped them? The first two accusers never said that. But suddenly they switch up his alleged abuse habits.

They stole the stories from Gutierrez, who wrote a child porn book full of lies like this. They also stole many other stories from this book.

In order to attack the allegations against MJ, you must aim for the origin. The first allegation. The Chandler allegations. Which I have thoroughly discredited on here in numerous posts. If that allegation is false, and there is every reason to believe it is, then every other one crumbles. They’re all built off of that first allegation.

And lastly, no, there are no credible witnesses. The prosecution of 2005’s trial were so lacking in evidence that they brought in witnesses that even the tabloid media didn’t trust. All of these witnesses (including the Neverland 5 that I have a link to in my Chandler thread) splattered under cross examination. They sold stories to tabloids, and depending on the amount of money being offered, the stories would change or grow in intensity.

The prosecution had witnesses that all claimed they witnessed with their own eyes Michael molesting Macaulay Culkin, Wade Robson and Brett Barnes.

The defense then had their first three witnesses testify: Mac, Wade, and Brett. All three vehemently denied being molested, and Wade Robson himself testified as Michael Jackson’s star witness.

To entertain Michael Jackson’s guilt is insanity. No rational, sane person could believe these allegations when seriously scrutinizing them. They require time travel and teleportation to be truthful. They don’t conform to the facts of these cases, they don’t conform to reality, and they don’t conform to logic.

[morse-perez-and-davenport]

James Norton with Robson Green on his last day of filming Grantchester

[citizenscreen]

Stars gather to celebrated Frank McHugh’s birthday in 1935.

Pictured: Mrs. James Gleason, Ben Alexander, Anita Louise, Frank McHugh, Jimmy Gleason, Ginger Rogers, Pat O'Brien, and May Robson as Frank prepares to slice the cake.

[ozimagines]

K so this one was too fun to write and now y’all will be mentioned in therapy this week😋

[scurvyratt]

[miriam-heddy]

It’s not a slashy show, but if you like watching really deep male friendships develop, you should absolutely watch Grantchester (2014-2025). The entire thing is brilliant.

[daddyd0nt]

[viking-raider]

So sad to learn Tom Brittney will be leaving Grantchester in Series 9. I loved him as Will, even when I wasn't sure I would after James Norton. Here's to hoping with Rishi Nair in Series 10! Will forever love Geodie!