Latest on MJJC

Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

NatureCriminal7896;4260047 said:
Everybody get ready for tomorrow. Michael Jackson Estate goes back to court. Let’s hope we are getting somewhere.
Click to expand...

I thought it was delayed again??
 
NatureCriminal7896 said:
It was. Wade and etc ask for 60 days but the judge said no move it to 30 days. i think MJ estate still speaking out tomorrow because they didn't push theirs...
Click to expand...

Are these not written submissions? If so, I hope we'll see them in a few days.

Edited to add: Also, Robson isn't part of the 'Estate vs HBO' arbitration case.

The case that was deferred at Robson's request is his appeal in the 'Robson vs MJJ Companies etc alleged abuse case'
 
Last edited:
I hope so, but's not easy.
First somebody has to decide whether the contract persists after death, and I don't believe that has been done before, so it's a precedent.
I think the law will eventually change to protect the deceased but the MJ Estate is facing a struggle.

A financial reward from HBO would of course be a great victory, but to be honest, even if that doesn't happen and they succeed in forcing public arbitration then whatever happens after that, they will have won a victory.

The reason they want the information public is so that the information can be scrutinised and be available for public consumption. In that way they may be able to restore some good will with the general public.

There was a recent YouGov poll in the UK that said %51 of the UK population think MJ is gulity.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/enterta...britons-think-michael-jackson-guilty-most-wil

(FULL REPORT HERE: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...hive-MusiciansSexualAbuse-200319-Internal.pdf )

On the subject of the poll I was arguing with some twitter troll about whether MJ was guilty or not. When I asked for evidence he was guilty, that muppet sent me a link to this poll. He truly believed that 51% of people thinking MJ was guilty actually PROVES he was guilty. WTF?! He wouldn't accept that public perception (based on the opinion of only 2000 people) is proof of false reporting more than it is of criminal culpability. At that point I knew he was beyond help.
 
Last edited:
MJTruth said:
I hope so, but's not easy.
First somebody has to decide whether the contract persists after death, and I don't believe that has been done before, so it's a precedent.
I think the law will eventually change to protect the deceased but the MJ Estate is facing a struggle.

A financial reward from HBO would of course be a great victory, but to be honest, even if that doesn't happen and they succeed in forcing public arbitration then whatever happens after that, they will have won a victory.

The reason they want the information public is so that the information can be scrutinised and be available for public consumption. In that way they may be able to restore some good will with the general public.

There was a recent YouGov poll in the UK that said %51 of the UK population think MJ is gulity.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/enterta...britons-think-michael-jackson-guilty-most-wil

On the subject of the poll I was arguing with some twitter troll about whether MJ was guilty or not. When I asked for evidence he was guilty, that muppet sent me a link to this poll. He truly believed that 51% of people thinking MJ was guilty actually PROVES he was guilty. WTF?! He wouldn't accept that public perception (based on the opinion of only 2000 people) is proof of false reporting more than it is of criminal culpability. At that point I knew he was beyond help.
Click to expand...

They sure are not the brightest.. I can't say I never jumped to conclusions weather somebody was guilty or not, because I have but it is another thing when you are presented with facts of the oposit but refuse to listen and important to remember that the way the media reported can be completely false even in other cases.
 
MJTruth said:
I hope so, but's not easy.
First somebody has to decide whether the contract persists after death, and I don't believe that has been done before, so it's a precedent.
I think the law will eventually change to protect the deceased but the MJ Estate is facing a struggle.

A financial reward from HBO would of course be a great victory, but to be honest, even if that doesn't happen and they succeed in forcing public arbitration then whatever happens after that, they will have won a victory.

The reason they want the information public is so that the information can be scrutinised and be available for public consumption. In that way they may be able to restore some good will with the general public.

There was a recent YouGov poll in the UK that said %51 of the UK population think MJ is gulity.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/enterta...britons-think-michael-jackson-guilty-most-wil

On the subject of the poll I was arguing with some twitter troll about whether MJ was guilty or not. When I asked for evidence he was guilty, that muppet sent me a link to this poll. He truly believed that 51% of people thinking MJ was guilty actually PROVES he was guilty. WTF?! He wouldn't accept that public perception (based on the opinion of only 2000 people) is proof of false reporting more than it is of criminal culpability. At that point I knew he was beyond help.
Click to expand...

Thank you for posting about the poll. I hadn't seen it before.

A few observations: Firstly 'YouGov' is not related to the government- it's just a company with a fancy name.

Secondly, the results are not '% of Britons' but are '% of YouGov survey respondents'. Quite different things.

In the 'About' section, they say their UK panel comprises 1 million people, so if this survey only had 2K respondents, it sounds as if a lot of people were either discounted from inclusion, or self-selected that they would (or would not) participate.

It's interesting that only 25% (500) respondents had seen 'at least part' of LN, but 51% thought MJ was guilty- which means that the other 26% thought he was guilty without watching LN (Presumably from previous or current press reports).

Of the % who saw the WHOLE doc (we are not told this %, but it must be less than 25%, or 500 respondents), 73% thought MJ was guilty. It's likely that those who watched the doc, did so because they thought MJ was guilty and were looking for proof to support their feelings or views.

A more surprising finding is that 'of those who previously listened to MJ's music', only '58% will continue to do so.' The survey does not seem to reveal what % of respondents said they previously listened to MJ's music, so we don''t know what that 58% is 'of'.

We also don't know how the questions looked online. If the questions 'Have you previously listened to MJ's music?' and 'will you continue to listen?' were on the same page, (or if you could go back and change responses) then anyone who disliked MJ could easily answer 'Yes they previously listened', in order to make a point as a 'disliker of MJ'. More (15%) said they 'didn't know if they would stop listening', than said that they would stop listening (9%).

Lastly, the 'YouGov' panel are entirely self-selecting, in that you have to volunteer on the online page in order to be able to join. I've been a daily computer user since around 2008, and have never looked up YouGov or volunteered as a panel member. I think you would have to be pretty motivated with opinions to join the panel, as I imagine that you have to give quite a lot of info about yourself to them, eg sex, age, political affiliations, shopping habits, relationship / family details etc etc, in order for them to decide whether to include you as a panel member, and for their surveys to be able to give info. about 'UK consumers / London residents / Conservative party members etc.

And really, who answers these things honestly?!
This survey summary omits some key percentages, as mentioned above (eg % who saw the whole of LN, and % who previously listened to MJ's music). Without full results, the summary is fairly meaningless.

Conclusion: The survey is intended purely as 'entertainment' of the kind provided by tabloids.

PS Stephan Shakespeare who founded the company is a previous contributor of articles to 'The Guardian' UK
 
Last edited:
MJTruth said:
I hope so, but's not easy.
First somebody has to decide whether the contract persists after death, and I don't believe that has been done before, so it's a precedent.
I think the law will eventually change to protect the deceased but the MJ Estate is facing a struggle.

A financial reward from HBO would of course be a great victory, but to be honest, even if that doesn't happen and they succeed in forcing public arbitration then whatever happens after that, they will have won a victory.

The reason they want the information public is so that the information can be scrutinised and be available for public consumption. In that way they may be able to restore some good will with the general public.

There was a recent YouGov poll in the UK that said %51 of the UK population think MJ is gulity.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/enterta...britons-think-michael-jackson-guilty-most-wil

On the subject of the poll I was arguing with some twitter troll about whether MJ was guilty or not. When I asked for evidence he was guilty, that muppet sent me a link to this poll. He truly believed that 51% of people thinking MJ was guilty actually PROVES he was guilty. WTF?! He wouldn't accept that public perception (based on the opinion of only 2000 people) is proof of false reporting more than it is of criminal culpability. At that point I knew he was beyond help.
Click to expand...

A person like that is either a TROLL or a hater who just desperate to want MJ to be guilty for some reason. God can come down and tell them MJ is innocent and that person still want to believe it; however, what that person THINK means NOTHING. Evidence shows MJ to be innocent. enuf said. Remember there are some people who still want to think President Obama is not American. They just want to believe that due to other bias or prejudices.
 
La74 said:
They sure are not the brightest.. I can't say I never jumped to conclusions weather somebody was guilty or not, because I have but it is another thing when you are presented with facts of the oposit but refuse to listen and important to remember that the way the media reported can be completely false even in other cases.
Click to expand...
True but be open to change your mind if facts present itself that the person is innocent and things do not add up.
 
I see another of the 'Neverland 5' has come out of the woodwork, according to the Mirror (UK) - unless the Mirror is just unearthing old news:
(Is the CBS 'Inside Edition' doc new?)

Michael Jackson put 'perfume on Lisa Marie's underwear to pretend they'd had sex'
J**** was married to Lisa Marie, 51, between 1994 and 1996, and she always insisted the marriage was consumated (sic. Spelling error)

Michael Jackson sprayed Lisa Marie Presley's underwear with perfume to pretend they'd slept together, his ex-employee has claimed.

***** was married to Lisa Marie , 51, between 1994 and 1996, with Elvis' daughter supporting him through the child sex abuse claims that emerged in 1993.

The marriage was often the subject of wild conspiracy theories, with many theorising that it was just a publicity stunt.

Now Sandy Domz, who worked as an administrative assistant at the Neverland Ranch, has claimed the pair weren't intimate.

She told CBS documentary Inside Edition that "it didn’t seem to be a natural relationship or a friendship".

Domz said: "Michael would get a hold of some underwear and throw them on the floor.

“They were also sprayed with perfume and it was to make it look like Lisa Marie had been in the bedroom.

“But to my knowledge, she was never in there. She was either in the rose room or had slept on the guest beds.”

In January 1996 Lisa Marie filed for divorce citing irreconcilable differences.
Click to expand...

(* NL5 are Abdool, Chacon, Bagnall, Domz and McManus)
 
Thanks for your analyis of the results Myosotis.

The full questionnaire is here:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...hive-MusiciansSexualAbuse-200319-Internal.pdf


Yes I understand the limitations of any poll, and even noted the limited number of people included in the poll in my original post.

I would be very surprised if the entirety of the UK population mirrored the result in this poll but it's an interesting set of responses nonetheless.

I think it's disingenuous to disregard the results using statements like "who answers these things honestly?!". As you said, people volunteer (or self-select) to be on the panel. Surely they do that because they want to express their opinion? It would be very strange (IMO) for somebody to join a group like this with the intent of screwing with the statistics by lying. Even if one or two people did do that, I think it's inconceivable that enough people did that to produce a noticeable effect on the poll's results.

So I would consider a much more likely scenario to be that the people answered honestly (in all cases, or almost all cases), and that any disparity between the results of this poll and the opinion in the general public, would be caused by the method used to select the participants. It's like selecting a jury for a trial. An effort can be made to skew the results by selecting the members that most support the desired outcome.

I don't like conspiracy theories but if the founder contributed to the Guardian in the past (we all know what vile nonsense they print about MJ all the time) then perhaps YouGov set out to create a headlines more than find an honest appraisal of the public's opinion.
Certainly the "Data journalist" who provided the tabloid-style analysis in the report I linked to deliberately tried to misrepresent what the actual poll showed. As you said, 2000 respondents does not reflect the opinion of "Britons", despite YouGov's claim. To me, that report is written to exaggerate the negative connotations of this relatively small-scale poll. This supports my suspicion of the motives behind YouGov's questionnaire.
 
I guess the poll shouldn't be a surprise. I don't think it's only a case of haters or prejudice, I do think a lot of people (worldwide, not just the UK) lack critical thinking skills. They are the people that believe what they read in tabloids or see in documentaries and not question it. They jump to conclusions based on small amounts of information, whether it be one sided or sources that have a reputation to be BS. If an individual doesn't recognise they do this, or they are happy to do this, then it's hard to rationalise with them.
 
WannaScream said:
I guess the poll shouldn't be a surprise. I don't think it's only a case of haters or prejudice, I do think a lot of people (worldwide, not just the UK) lack critical thinking skills. They are the people that believe what they read in tabloids or see in documentaries and not question it. They jump to conclusions based on small amounts of information, whether it be one sided or sources that have a reputation to be BS. If an individual doesn't recognise they do this, or they are happy to do this, then it's hard to rationalise with them.
Click to expand...
I think most people are open minded. As for polls like this, things are always based on who they talked to: I would like to know the racial amount, age, gender, etc of they spoke to.
 
MJTruth said:
Thanks for your analyis of the results Myosotis.

The full questionnaire is here:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...hive-MusiciansSexualAbuse-200319-Internal.pdf


Yes I understand the limitations of any poll, and even noted the limited number of people included in the poll in my original post.

I would be very surprised if the entirety of the UK population mirrored the result in this poll but it's an interesting set of responses nonetheless.

I think it's disingenuous to disregard the results using statements like "who answers these things honestly?!". As you said, people volunteer (or self-select) to be on the panel. Surely they do that because they want to express their opinion? It would be very strange (IMO) for somebody to join a group like this with the intent of screwing with the statistics by lying. Even if one or two people did do that, I think it's inconceivable that enough people did that to produce a noticeable effect on the poll's results.

So I would consider a much more likely scenario to be that the people answered honestly (in all cases, or almost all cases), and that any disparity between the results of this poll and the opinion in the general public, would be caused by the method used to select the participants. It's like selecting a jury for a trial. An effort can be made to skew the results by selecting the members that most support the desired outcome.

I don't like conspiracy theories but if the founder contributed to the Guardian in the past (we all know what vile nonsense they print about MJ all the time) then perhaps YouGov set out to create a headlines more than find an honest appraisal of the public's opinion.
Certainly the "Data journalist" who provided the tabloid-style analysis in the report I linked to deliberately tried to misrepresent what the actual poll showed. As you said, 2000 respondents does not reflect the opinion of "Britons", despite YouGov's claim. To me, that report is written to exaggerate the negative connotations of this relatively small-scale poll. This supports my suspicion of the motives behind YouGov's questionnaire.
Click to expand...

More than 83k liked Louis Theroux ' tweet in support of LN. I understand that many pops and radio stations have banned MJ's music in the UK. So no the damage is huge to MJ in the UK market.
 
Soundmind said:
More than 83k liked Louis Theroux ' tweet in support of LN. I understand that many pops and radio stations have banned MJ's music in the UK. So no the damage is huge to MJ in the UK market.
Click to expand...

yeah but how many people are in the UK? How many did not like it in the UK? How many feel the same way now as they did in MArch after hearing about lies told in LN? This is why you have to take polls with a grain of salt.
 
terrell said:
I think most people are open minded. As for polls like this, things are always based on who they talked to: I would like to know the racial amount, age, gender, etc of they spoke to.
Click to expand...

Yeah I do think are there plenty of open minded people too, and hopefully in the sense that they won't draw their conclusions just from something like LN or The Sun. I would like to know more information about the individuals that took part in the poll too.
 
You actually care what a poll says???

The general publics opinion on all sorts of subjects is based on the info they are provided by those who want their opinion to be transfered to others. The media have been brainwashing the gen public with hate against mj for thirty odd years.did you expect any different of the tiny % who took part in the survey. Those who pushed his sales up post L.N obviously think differrently ie younger ppl not old middle class ppl who join such pannels/groups.after brexit never underestimate the stupidty of the gen public?
 
terrell said:
yeah but how many people are in the UK? How many did not like it in the UK? How many feel the same way now as they did in MArch after hearing about lies told in LN? This is why you have to take polls with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

I agree. This poll was in March and a lot has happened since then that may have changed people's minds.
 
Soundmind said:
More than 83k liked Louis Theroux ' tweet in support of LN. I understand that many pops and radio stations have banned MJ's music in the UK. So no the damage is huge to MJ in the UK market.
Click to expand...

BBC haven't banned him. The songs have been so significantly reduced it's only been a handful on Radio 2, but local BBC stations still play him daily.

Here is his artist page. For example Rock With You was played today on BBC Wiltshire and Trevor Nelson had Baby Be Mine on Radio 1xtra yesterday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/f27ec8db-af05-4f36-916e-3d57f91ecf5e
 
Last edited:
Soundmind said:
More than 83k liked Louis Theroux ' tweet in support of LN. I understand that many pops and radio stations have banned MJ's music in the UK. So no the damage is huge to MJ in the UK market.
Click to expand...
Ok. But how many of those people do you think liked MJ to begin with. Tabloids like the Sun have been running hate campaign against him since the 80s and people in the UK are mindly speaking used to that. It is not like it never happend before and then John Ziegler who is a journalist who has done a lot of podcasts about LN for the last couple of months did a video interview with Thomas Mesereau more that 100k whatched that youtube video in less than a week. Also the only important thing the way I see it is what we can do about this and the media wants us to believe the damage is a lot worse than it is.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="de"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Scott Ross just posted this on FB <a href="https://t.co/rMXqjnOmsx">pic.twitter.com/rMXqjnOmsx</a></p>&mdash; missisabella (@missisabella8) <a href="https://twitter.com/missisabella8/status/1139507393874673664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">14. Juni 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="de"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Leicester Square in London just now.<br><br>Mute who? People love and miss Michael Jackson more than ever. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MJ?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MJ</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/tajjackson3?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@tajjackson3</a> <a href="https://t.co/PgkKTd0Y2g">pic.twitter.com/PgkKTd0Y2g</a></p>&mdash; Samuel Mesterton (@sammesterton) <a href="https://twitter.com/sammesterton/status/1140343420386516994?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">16. Juni 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="de"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Seismic impact &#128514;&#129318;*&#9794;&#65039;<br><br>About 10 radio stations, globally, pulled his music (half of which have since put it back on), and the dying Simpsons withdrew a 30yo episode as a PR stunt.<br><br>Exhibition still on. Cirque &amp; Thriller Live continue. Broadway still happening. Music streams UP.</p>&mdash; Charles Thomson (@CEThomson) <a href="https://twitter.com/CEThomson/status/1140412078236286976?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">17. Juni 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="de"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">And then I just had to do some digging for myself to come to my own conclusion. I read articles, watched interviews, everything because I just don’t understand how people can lie about things like this. I even read the damn FBI files on Michael.</p>&mdash; .- -. - .... --- -. -.-- (@anthoxyloto) <a href="https://twitter.com/anthoxyloto/status/1140256444656340994?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">16. Juni 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
MJTruth said:
Thanks for your analyis of the results Myosotis.

The full questionnaire is here:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...hive-MusiciansSexualAbuse-200319-Internal.pdf


Yes I understand the limitations of any poll, and even noted the limited number of people included in the poll in my original post.

I would be very surprised if the entirety of the UK population mirrored the result in this poll but it's an interesting set of responses nonetheless.

I think it's disingenuous to disregard the results using statements like "who answers these things honestly?!". As you said, people volunteer (or self-select) to be on the panel. Surely they do that because they want to express their opinion? It would be very strange (IMO) for somebody to join a group like this with the intent of screwing with the statistics by lying. Even if one or two people did do that, I think it's inconceivable that enough people did that to produce a noticeable effect on the poll's results.

So I would consider a much more likely scenario to be that the people answered honestly (in all cases, or almost all cases), and that any disparity between the results of this poll and the opinion in the general public, would be caused by the method used to select the participants. It's like selecting a jury for a trial. An effort can be made to skew the results by selecting the members that most support the desired outcome.

I don't like conspiracy theories but if the founder contributed to the Guardian in the past (we all know what vile nonsense they print about MJ all the time) then perhaps YouGov set out to create a headlines more than find an honest appraisal of the public's opinion.
Certainly the "Data journalist" who provided the tabloid-style analysis in the report I linked to deliberately tried to misrepresent what the actual poll showed. As you said, 2000 respondents does not reflect the opinion of "Britons", despite YouGov's claim. To me, that report is written to exaggerate the negative connotations of this relatively small-scale poll. This supports my suspicion of the motives behind YouGov's questionnaire.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your reply. You raise some interesting points.

The YouGov panel is a 'permanent' one, not selected for this survey alone. Participants will have all kinds of interests and 'dislikes', and we don't know what proportion might belong to various special interest groups that join for 'lobbying' purposes, eg with regard to CSA, legal matters, etc.

Regarding giving 'honest' answers, I had in mind the 'response bias' whereby people often respond to surveys according to how they might feel 'judged' for their response. eg more people might have watched 'all' of LN, but might not want to admit that they did, because of its content. (MJ fans and 'haters' had a 'reason' to watch LN, but the rest of the survey population must have had some other 'reason' to watch it, if they did. )

Thank you for including the link to the dataset. It's very disappointing to see that only 3% of respondents thought that MJ was 'definitely not guilty'..but again- if respondents think someone will 'judge their answers', this could be the reason.
(We are all 'supposed' to think that MJ is guilty, apparently!)

The question asking 'Did you previously listen to MJ's music' is not objective so responses are not measurable in any way. Respondents will have answered this question according to 'what they thought it means', which could be anything from 'Did you buy MJ's last album' to 'Did you rush to the radio to turn it off if MJ's music was ever played'. The lack of objectivity implies to me that this questionnaire was never intended to be taken seriously.

Which bring me to the last and most important question...'YouGov' is a 'PLC' and does not do surveys for 'fun', as they cost money. So someone commissioned this and paid for it. I wonder who? (Some tabloid probably).

There were various other points in other responses, so I'll try and respond to them here:
The pop. of the UK is about 66 million, and London alone is about 9 million.

As regards the remarks Louis Theroux made on Twitter, these were widely copied, so the 83 K respondents (if they were all human and not a proportion of bots) were likely to be from various parts of the world including the USA, where MJ sadly seems to have more 'haters' in the population, and that goes way back in time.
 
Last edited:
And then I just had to do some digging for myself to come to my own conclusion. I read articles, watched interviews, everything because I just don&#8217;t understand how people can lie about things like this. I even read the damn FBI files on Michael



Well, why would Jusse Smollett do what he did knowing how things are with Civil Rights? This is more common (lying about incidents) than people think; those cases just does not make the news. Plus this is GROWN MEN who are trying to make a quick buck and trying to destroy MJ's legacy because Wade did not get what he want as a lead dancer of a MJ tribute; and James and his family needs money. How IRONIC that the 2 people who defended MJ for 20 years are the ones now doing this doc and both and their families are caught in lie. It s so obvious it is LIES.
 
Last edited:
10 radio station out of over THOUSANDS of others who continued to play Michael. LOLOLOL
 
I'm not middle age and i know it's a bunch of lies. i was taught at a young age that Michael was and is innocent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top