Can you be specific, in what way?
There are accounts from Brett Barnes and taj Jackson that the dinner that Wade is talking about took place after the trial, not before the trial. There were multiple people at that dinner. And they say it didn't happen like was described
Michael Jackson's lawyers could not use james testimony in the second trial. The judged barred it well in advance and his lawyers never called him
Wade's mom contradicts the timing of Wade's stories in a sworn court testimony that they were somewhere completely different (in the Grand canyon) when Wade alleges of abuse in the doc.
Jimmy made it a point that Michael stopped contacting him after he was like 14 or 15, but there are pictures of him being on set for film shoots because Michael hired him for help in the 90s.
Wade calls himself a master of deception in some court document.
Michael's defense attorney brought Wade in for questioning before using him in trial. According to the attorney they had a bunch of people they could use, but Wade was intent on talking and after being questioned by multiple people on the defense in mock trials, they felt that he was being honest at the time.
James's accounts and timing of the abuse doesn't line up with evidence of structures he says we're there and when they were actually built. The train station in Neverland wasn't built until a couple of years after the alleged abuse had taken place and there's a bit about euro Disney Land I cant remmeber
There are dates for the allegations where Michael was in a completely different place. This can be verified. I remember reading an account that he was in New York or Japan and there were receipts because of concerts or something. My memory is hazy on this point, but it's in a catch-all document I found.
Neverland was fully staffed. Because it was so large they had to have cameras and people everywhere. If the abuse happened in all of the places that they allege, they're essentially implicating at least dozens of people of being implicit.
There's more but I'm at work.
Eish.....that's not a good look thoigh
I guess it depends. If he was gifted it and just kept it, it's not a problem. I can't remember if he bought it himself. He had a massive library and was an art collector though. If you look at it from a common pov I can get it, but there's a lot of art where the nude body is shown in a way to highlight some aesthetic ideal. The issue here is that if we govern what is obscene, you fall down on a slippery slope. This is a big deal in the art world actually (I remember taking a law class about it).
Still, I get what you mean, but there are different perspectives to it