So why then does he claim he didn't realise he'd been abused until 2013?
At the 2003 trial, James claims he simply told her he didn't want to testify in favour of MJ, as he was not a good man. Yet she never thought to ask more questions about this? Surely she would have feared right away that her son had been abused if he knew MJ was not a good man?
-
-
So... she knew he was a child rapist in 2009, based on being told by her son that he was not a good man in 2003? And yet, she did not know that her own son had been a victim until 2015, despite the fact that he had told her MJ was not a good man back in 2003?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.