Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

Everyones entitled to their own opinion of course. But for me, I don't feel I can have an opinion on the documentary if I haven't even watched it. When I try and defend Michael to friends and family the very first thing they ask me is if I watched it, if I hadn't I don't think anyone could take what I had to say seriously.
Just learn the main point in the doc by reading if you do not want to watch it. I saw that trash an I got angry but that is due to knowing the cases and following MJ cases since 1993 and I have worked around enuf conartists to know the game.
 
It's because I have an open mind that I doubt. Otherwise I would have picked sides already. I read reviews, I read rebuttals. I'm doing as much as I can but it doesn't stop the doubts. When people in public ask me about it I still say I believe he is not guilty but I don't elaborate on it and I also add that I understand people thinking differently about it at the moment.

I mean I can only be honest, that's what I try to be all the time. It's not appreciated here but as far as I am aware I never hurt anyone in here specifically so I don't understand the hostility towards me
You don't hurt intentionally. But it still hurts. What I can say is that do not care about reviews. They are only reviews. As somebody in here already say, based on what they saw in the documentary. Probably ppl who didn't dig deeper. Only ppl's opinions. While in here ppl post evidence of those two lying.

I still don't understand what causes the doubts? Sharing a bed? It's been there since 93. It may be not normal for you. Based on your opinion, on your own life experience. Don't forget that Michael had totally different life experience. Him sharing a bed doesn't prof the accusations. And how was Robson old in 2005? A little under 30? Such a grown man wouldn't understand what is a molestation? Please :) Think why they need all of this right now.
 
Media started to report that now even fans have doubts about Michael. Just saw the title. So it makes it look even worse that it is.
 
I haven't watch LN because I think I got all the major points already in reviews. I know it's about grooming, buying presents for the parents etc. Kids are in love with MJ, MJ acts gentle and sweet. I really don't need to see it I think. I don't care for the actual "raping" stories, I know what rape is I don't need to see a doc to know that.
I had no idea about grooming though or love between victim and culprit, perhaps that's what caught me by surprise...
 
I still don't understand what causes the doubts?

I'll say it again. You need to watch the "documentary" to understand the doubts. I believe all fans need to watch it if only to be armed with the information. But that's only my opinion.
 
I am photo retoucher and been working with Photoshop for years. Not normal. Not hair, not had. Especially hand.

I am working with photophop for many many years. it looks normal.
 
I have seen a couple of people on Twitter suggest that it has been confirmed that Harvey Weinstein, David Geffen and Oprah Winfrey financed LN. Does anyone know if this has actually been confirmed? If so, then THAT is the smoking gun as far as I can see. If true then we need to be shouting it from the rooftops.

This would be a crazy revelation but you gotta wonder where it has been confirmed. It truly wouldn't surprise me though, but how can we know for sure?
 
Media started to report that now even fans have doubts about Michael. Just saw the title. So it makes it look even worse that it is.

I don't think that's bad, it shows that MJ fans are not blind fanatics. Because I certainly don't like the media's view of MJ fans. Plus it will only inspire more people to tell their truth, for example people who have been in MJ's staff that haven't spoken out yet.
 
I'll say it again. You need to watch the "documentary" to understand the doubts. I believe all fans need to watch it if only to be armed with the information. But that's only my opinion.

With all due respect, aren't you just suggesting that the emotion displayed by the accusers may convince those who haven't watched it?

Everyone here knows what they're claiming. We've known for 6 years.
 
I'm a big believer in free-will, so no judgement. But I am surprised at the small sect of fans who are now doubting MJ based on a) info we knew already and b) the slick production of a doc that we long understood to be heavily edited and one-sided - so as to tell a specific story. I'm actually surprised some fans even tuned in (why give such a doc ratings?), but let's chalk it down to curiosity and perhaps needing to know who/what you're defending. But I digress...

We shouldn't gloss over the fact that no empirical evidence was discovered or uncovered. Like, on the merit of the info (not) provided, this would literally have been thrown out in criminal court (even if MJ was alive) and already has been tossed out of civil court. Hence their appeal and its calculated timing.

I'm not presenting myself as some kind of enlightened being, but having worked close to media and studied audiences too, you can't sew together a highly one-sided story, throw dramatic cuts and edits over it, plus haunting music and convince me it's fact. No way.

Some audiences fall for the okey-doke (and that's called the hypodermic syringe model. Almost like being injected with a premixed perspective and taking it on as your own). However, we live in a time where media entities don't wield the power they once did to generate such collectivised reactions. Social media has given everyone an individualised voice and a lot people are seeing the BS for what it is. It's ironic and a bit sad that there are people who aren't even fans seeing the obvious holes in Wade and co's stories, while some longtime supporters are being swayed by purposefully persuasive media tactics. But again, each to their own.

I'd just caution of buying into the sensationalism. Whether that be the "MJ is guilty" narrative some are peddling, the pressure to see it as "they" see it, or the idea that the doc is this big thing. The ratings and majorly mute response from the masses make clear that it is not.

Make no mistake, it's the most negative thing that has happened post his death and is getting a lot of surrounding coverage. But that's how the media works. It's a game of clicks, views, and selling papers. At this point, I'm sure we'll see stories about what the Forest Lawn staff feel about the doc lol. Anything to keep the views coming in. Once another big story catches, watch and see how this becomes yesterday's news. That's not to say the estate won't have their work cut out from them rebuilding the brand a bit, but it's not the doom and gloom many are perceiving it to be. There are far too many wheels turning with the billion dollar brand of MJ and too much money being made (and to make) for the estate to ever let that happen. And that's just me taking my stan goggles off and any sentiment out of the equation for a moment.

I was much younger during the original accusations, but old enough during the '05 trial and the latter is honestly what piqued my interest in the inner workings of the media. Any and every claim by the prosecution would be splashed across the FRONT of papers daily and when when Tom Mez and co would have a slam dunk with their rebuttal arguments it'd either be in a small backpage area or not covered at all. Fandom aside, him being convicted on the basis of that evidence would have been a crime in itself.

So I say all of this to day, I feel we should really try and stay strong as a collective.

Make no mistake, with maturity and life experience, I look at the MJ story a bit differently and in many ways am frustrated that he constantly kept being naive enough to allow himself to be targeted like this (e.g. stubbornness regarding how the sleepovers looked). Hindsight is 20/20 and I now see the $20 million 94 payout as the worst thing he could have ever done (much as I understood his incentive). It established it as open season on him. While I feel it ironically highlights his consistent innocence (ALL accusations sans Gavin's have been civil, where the only possible win is money), it's the reason we will forever have to defend him in this regard. It is what it is, but it's grating all the same.

But again, let's stay strong and weather this storm in unity. MJ is innocent and I encourage us to not let a lopsided doc sway us.

The best post on this whole thread. ??
 
MJRemixed;4247207 said:
That looks like it’s from the filming of moonwalker, specifically the chase scene.

yup, his hair and make up match moonwalker.
 
With all due respect, aren't you just suggesting that the emotion displayed by the accusers may convince those who haven't watched it?

Everyone here knows what they're claiming. We've known for 6 years.

As a doubter myself I think it's enough to just know about the major talking points of how it all supposedly happened. It's too long , 4 hours... I'm pretty sure a lot could have been edited out.
 
With all due respect, aren't you just suggesting that the emotion displayed by the accusers may convince those who haven't watched it?

Everyone here knows what they're claiming. We've known for 6 years.


Not just the accusers, but the accusers family. Honestly you will not understand unless you watch it. Even if you've read every court document. It's a produced film, but I just believe we should know exactly what we are arguing against. And the film is a big piece.
 
Can someone please upload the other picture(s) with MJ and James ohe bed or only MJ on bed who are in LN?
We must know from how they came from.
 
I had no idea about grooming though or love between victim and culprit, perhaps that's what caught me by surprise...
I didn't know about it either. But anyway I think it is sick and I don't see how a child would like sex at that age. I don't buy that. Only the pervs can come up with hat.

I'll say it again. You need to watch the "documentary" to understand the doubts. I believe all fans need to watch it if only to be armed with the information. But that's only my opinion.
I probably could watch it. I have watched the Shafechuck's part though. But I still think I don't need to watch the documentary to understand that there is no evidence and all of it are lies.
 
I'll say it again. You need to watch the "documentary" to understand the doubts. I believe all fans need to watch it if only to be armed with the information. But that's only my opinion.

Even if somebody would pay me they couldn't get me to watch it. When I see a short clip of Wade a volcano inside my head is instantly starting. I can't stand that guy one bit, let alone watch four hours of that.

Other reasons are that we fully know very well with what kind of people we're dealing with here. If we had not had all these facts, proof I maybe would have watched it but these guys lied so many times, many different stories being fabricated, Wade's diary(I can't let that go at all) that they are no better, maybe even worse than the Arvizos.

Had these men presented just one story, no crystal clear motives for this, except for actual justice I probably would have given it a chance. In my opinion LN is a tabloid "documentary" and it belongs in the trash.
 
I'll say it again. You need to watch the "documentary" to understand the doubts. I believe all fans need to watch it if only to be armed with the information. But that's only my opinion.

And when you hear that their case was rejected in 2017, what do you understand ?
 
2million is actually quite good for C4.

Lower numbers in the second half just shows lack of interest, not a belief in innocence or guilt.


Not really when you compair it to its other docs and top rated shows like gogglebox gettibg 4.5. Putting aside bake off that was doing 6-8 plus. A box standard docu in the same timezone the week or so before did 1.7mill. Yet this is prob the most promoted peice of T V in many a year.huge amount of interviews and promo yet couldnt get near the figures of the last hatchet doc done on mj by chanel 4 which i think was around 4

A drop of numbers to me implies ppl thought they were lieing so didnt waste their time watching another two hrs or didnt care enough which certainly doesnt help the mantra the haters were pushing
 
Sorry thats was not the picture I ment there is an other picture were they wear the same dresses right after this one who looked more photshoped. This is the picture which I think I saw somewhere else with only MJ in it.

then its this one...
VOln0nj.jpg



ok. two photos from the same place. hm...


2wuNBPw.png


hm...

first the shadows was not normal. but now after watch and searching longer. seems normal. hair is normal.
 
Last edited:
Has this been shared?

https://theblast.com/wade-robson-donation-page-switch-michael-jackson-leaving-neverland/

Robson has already been cashing in via funds by gullible people who are not in the know about him having made up the child abuse stories.
It's all cleverly made by whatever folks he hired: just collect a little literature, put it on a website and gullible people will think it's for a good cause, LMAO.
Anyone who wasn't a victim could make up such a website, or ask for donations. How stupid can people be...?
 
And when you hear that their case was rejected in 2017, what do you understand ?

Its called emotional manipulation. If you are forced fed 4 hrs of one sided properganda without having any knowledge of what you are watching then of course human nature will make you feel a certain way. But those who watched it and have full knowledge of the case and the lies and have a half decent B.S radar interms of being able to see body language,especially when that language is totally different from robsons pre lawsuit interviews then its not as easy to be manipulated
 
I didn't know about it either. But anyway I think it is sick and I don't see how a child would like sex at that age. I don't buy that. Only the pervs can come up with hat.

I can only speak for myself but at the age of 11/12 I knew about sex and masturbation and I was already very curious about it all. I can still remember myself looking at lingerie models in clothing books even at an earlier age. If someone had touched me at that age I'd probably feel very uneasy but if it kept happening I perhaps would have started liking it (rather quickly in fact ). Because it does feel good. It's like drugs, you know it's bad but how many people are addicted.... and the entire point of the doc is that it says MJ is manipulative. Kids are very easy to manipulate. If I say to a kid he has a monster under his bead, then that kid believes me.
 
Not just the accusers, but the accusers family. Honestly you will not understand unless you watch it. Even if you've read every court document. It's a produced film, but I just believe we should know exactly what we are arguing against. And the film is a big piece.

To me, they're all accusers.

I wouldn't argue the effectiveness of the movie in creating this impression of Michael so I still don't see why it's imperative to watch. Unless as my original post suggests, I need to respond to the emotional display laid on. In which case you're right if you're going to judge something like this on that basis.
 
Sean Lennon:
"People think Michael's a fiddler always assumed that he bought off the families of the kids he molested. You hear it all the time. They say he must have just written a million-dollar check to all the kids who threatened to come forward. But look at me. I was one of those kids he befriended at young age. I may have spent more time with him than almost anybody else. I've seen all kinds of people publicity speculate that he abused me. But I think my family is actually richer than he is. So it would be quite the trick to buy me and my mother off. It's ridiculous. No way Mike is a child abuser."
 
And when you hear that their case was rejected in 2017, what do you understand ?

In my opinion that doesn't prove a thing. It's because he lied under oath that it was rejected. But so many people have lied under oath for whatever reason. It's just that the court has made it's decision and doesn't want to come back on it because it actually hurts the court (and the public opinion of the court) if they admit they made a mistake.

The whole speaking under oath thing is hundreds of years old and needs to be revised. It doesn't mean a thing.
 
To me, they're all accusers.

I wouldn't argue the effectiveness of the movie in creating this impression of Michael so I still don't see why it's imperative to watch. Unless as my original post suggests, I need to respond to the emotional display laid on. In which case you're right if you're going to judge something like this on that basis.

You are correct. And yes, I guess it is up to the individual whether they want to watch or not. It is an emotionally manipulative and produced one sided film. I personally wanted to watch it, just to know what we are up against because this is going to reach the general public and the "industry" more than the lawsuit did.
 
Back
Top