Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland" [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

[terrell]

Interesting reports about lawyer Lisa Bloom, the atty. who is Gloria Allred's daughter, and who was retained by a certain H. Weinstein:

In March 2019, Bloom was quick to support LN on Twitter:




But it seems that Ms Bloom has some troubles of her own:

Lisa Bloom Blows Bruce Weber Case, Attempt to Coach Client to Lie Exposed

Some call it “another setback” others, “a slow motion trainwreck.” Either way, Lisa Bloom’s stain on the legal profession continues to grow as a judge calls her opponent’s evidence ‘Indisputable.”

Buddy Kreuger made a big mistake when he tried to cash in on having worked for superstar photographer Bruce Weber with sexual harassment allegations: Kreuger hired Lisa Bloom to represent him. Bloom has been having a very bad couple of years: She was exposed for having sold out all her past clients and feminist-bonafides to Harvey Weinstein, as reported in the book 'She Said'. She was exposed for having sold out her pal Ronan Farrow and participated in trying to get his reporting on Weinstein shut down with NBC. She has had to step back from numerous cases including ones involving CA Rep Cardenas and Usher. And, perhaps most humiliating at all, she lost a high profile case to a non-lawyer, Alki David, who admitted to being stoned throughout the trial.

In any case Kreuger is now shit-out-of-luck on his scam, thanks to Bloom.

“He appeared like he was trying to fit the incident into the statute of limitations, so the judge saw right through it,” a source familiar with the case told Page Six. “Bruce and his team had records and evidence that contradicted Krueger’s story each time he changed it, and the judge called Bruce’s evidence ‘indisputable.’ ”

Bloom did the same thing in the E. Taylor (not the filmstar) v. Alki David case, in which a jury issued a decision in favor of David 8-4, saying Taylor’s testimony was not credible. Taylor was caught in numerous lies on the stand.....

And, as Page Six reports, in June, Bloom was ordered to pay Weber over $28,000 in legal costs after one of her key witnesses refused to answer certain questions at a deposition in the case brought by model Jason Boyce, another plaintiff. Unlike other “Expert Witnesses” Bloom and her mother Gloria Allred use regularly, she seems to have accidentally hired one with a shred of ethics left, one who wouldn’t lie to support false claims. Allred was under fire recently when it was exposed that her go-to hack shrink, Cindy Buf Meyers “from UCLA” lied to the jury in the Khan v. David case about how much she would be paid for her testimony. She said it would be a few thousand dollars when in fact it was $36,000.

Both Lisa Bloom and Gloria Allred are said to be under investigation by the California State Bar.

https://www.shockya.com/news/2020/09...ce-weber-case/

it never fails those who are quick to judge others without substance are often the ones hiding or doing something. An this tramp had the nerve to try to judge MJ fans and now look at her. Yeah she know MJ fans do research and do not buy BS. That is why these people fear MJ supporters

[ScreenOrigami]

Throwing stones to hide their hands

This, and I also believe that a lot of this is also projection. Because they lack a moral compass, they automatically assume that others don’t have one either.

[PoP]

it never fails those who are quick to judge others without substance are often the ones hiding or doing something. An this tramp had the nerve to try to judge MJ fans and now look at her. Yeah she know MJ fans do research and do not buy BS. That is why these people fear MJ supporters

I had no idea that b was that men hating feminist daughter. That woman had no spine and messes with us supporters of Michael, bet ya she like her mother kissed the mouth of the devil.

[Staffordshire Bullterrier]

This year we've had quite a few people that talked shit about Mike last year, turning out to be very, very shady people themselves actually. Here we have former rapper Joe Budden, apparently or.... I guess allegedly (let's give him the benefit of the doubt, even though he didn't for Mike) likes to....pleasure his dog.

https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/joe-bud...ws.117485.html

[terrell]

This year we've had quite a few people that talked shit about Mike last year, turning out to be very, very shady people themselves actually. Here we have former rapper Joe Budden, apparently or.... I guess allegedly (let's give him the benefit of the doubt, even though he didn't for Mike) likes to....pleasure his dog.

https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/joe-bud...ws.117485.html

Again, it never fails. Those who judge MJ have something to hide or they will get falsely accused to see how it feels.

[Paris78]

This is Jeff. He calls himself a journalist. He takes movies as facts without any further investigation. Don’t be a Jeff. #NotAJournalist https://t.co/B182fNW13u

— Brett Barnes 🖤✊🏽 (@IAmBrettBarnes) September 18, 2020

Or maybe, you don’t know jack 🤬**t Jeff.
Wasn’t there a huge boycott & a failed cancellation of MJ that certain media eagerly helped create & distribute. Common sense & FACTS are why people STILL rock and defend MJ now. The movie’s been debunked and the accusers are known liars https://t.co/LtP95MTcKr

— Taj Jackson (@tajjackson3) September 17, 2020

[elusive moonwalker]

😆 nice one brett👍

[NatureCriminal7896]

Like Brett said forget this dude block and move on.

[JichaelMackson]

So do we want another trial or not? I'm not disputing his innocence but I would be a bit anxious about the outcome either way. When it does eventually happen I think that will be the end of it, whether the verdict will be positive or negative.

[NatureCriminal7896]

Nobody knows for sure but it's gonna be another trial i think next year. we still got a long way to go.

[myosotis]

So do we want another trial or not? I'm not disputing his innocence but I would be a bit anxious about the outcome either way. When it does eventually happen I think that will be the end of it, whether the verdict will be positive or negative.

Ideally not, for two reasons:
1. Finaldi and co (aided enthusiastically by press and worldwide media) will make a huge circus out of it, and as with 2005 everything will be mis-reported, and papers and TV will fill their pages and schedules with re-hashed rubbish from 1993 onwards. The 'D Dimonds' and their ilk will have another bonanza payday.

2. Civil trials (which this would be) have a lower standard of proof (which is why - along with the monetary compensation- all MJ accusers prefer civil trials). For civil cases the standard of proof is only 'on the balance of probabilities' (ie 'more likely than not), while for a criminal trial (as in 2005) the standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
It would be difficult to find jurors who have not seen / read about LN and all the media stories and celebrity (Oprah etc) endorsements of the film. And who also don't know about the 2003 allegations. Selecting an unbiased jury is also likely to be difficult given the influence of the 'Me too' movement.

A guilty verdict would indeed be 'the end of' MJ for most entertainment purposes. (It would also be a complete travesty of justice.)

[JichaelMackson]

Alright there's nothing we can do but it feels like the "endgame" here. Let's hope as in the Hollywood films the ending will be good and satisfactory. In the meantime we can only hope that "square one" can silence LN further.
I don't know how Taj's doc is proceeding but if it gets a release at the right time (before the trial) it might be an uppercut for Reed and co.

[terrell]

Alright there's nothing we can do but it feels like the "endgame" here. Let's hope as in the Hollywood films the ending will be good and satisfactory. In the meantime we can only hope that "square one" can silence LN further.
I don't know how Taj's doc is proceeding but if it gets a release at the right time (before the trial) it might be an uppercut for Reed and co.

I think Square One is doing a great job and Danny Wu is an outsider/independent who did it which makes it even better

[terrell]

Ideally not, for two reasons:
1. Finaldi and co (aided enthusiastically by press and worldwide media) will make a huge circus out of it, and as with 2005 everything will be mis-reported, and papers and TV will fill their pages and schedules with re-hashed rubbish from 1993 onwards. The 'D Dimonds' and their ilk will have another bonanza payday.

2. Civil trials (which this would be) have a lower standard of proof (which is why - along with the monetary compensation- all MJ accusers prefer civil trials). For civil cases the standard of proof is only 'on the balance of probabilities' (ie 'more likely than not), while for a criminal trial (as in 2005) the standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
It would be difficult to find jurors who have not seen / read about LN and all the media stories and celebrity (Oprah etc) endorsements of the film. And who also don't know about the 2003 allegations. Selecting an unbiased jury is also likely to be difficult given the influence of the 'Me too' movement.

A guilty verdict would indeed be 'the end of' MJ for most entertainment purposes. (It would also be a complete travesty of justice.)

Well, we are also in the BLM movement and seen the lies and injustice done to blacks (and many in BLM are keeping their eye on this case now with all the lies that have been revealed about LN an these liars). This is a new day and time than last year. Also, Oprah has been called out and all of her hypocrisy with the Weinstein/John the God issues and she does not have the "creditability" she once had and folks know that as well.

[myosotis]

This isn't about 'LN', but I wanted to post it here because it has relevance to MJ documentaries.

This is a letter from a TV producer to Joe Jackson asking if he and Katherine would be interested to be interviewed for this doc. being made for British TV (Channel 4) prior to the 2005 trial.



The text of the letter is as follows:

To: Mr Joe Jackson

26th July 2004

Dear Mr Jackson,

I am writing to request an interview with you and your wife Katherine for a major high-profile documentary due for transmission on British network television about your son Michael.

The programme will be a balanced examination of Michael's extraordinary life and career from his phenomenal success at an early age with the Jackson 5, through to his days of record-breaking achievements in the Eighties, to a more recent period which has been dominated by stories of eccentric behaviour and controversy. This is going to be an exploration of a singularly unusual individual who has lived his life in the public eye.

Mixing contributions from friends, colleagues and experts with a wealth of archived sources, we will attempt to provide an in-depth portrayal of a talented musical genius. We will be concentrating on key issues in Michael's early life such as his extraordinary upbringing as a child star, and analyse how these have shaped his life and career.

We have already had a positive response from some of Michael's associates and those have been approached whose opinions are sympathetic to Michael as it is important to us to make a programme that is both objective and fair.

We will be coming to film in California in August and would be delighted to talk to you both about your incredible influence on Michael at such an early age in humble beginnings in Gary, Indiana, and how you were able to nurture him into a superstar. Needless to say there will be a substantial fee on offer if you would like to participate with the programme, and I would be grateful if you could contact us to discuss your availability and interest in this major project.

Sincerely

Sam Dwyer

The 'documentary' was 'Michael Jackson's Boys'. Dwyer was one of the producers.

This was a 2005 TV documentary made by Tiger Aspect Productions, and first aired in the UK on Channel 4 in January 2005 and in the USA on ABC in February 2005 under the title "Michael Jackson's secret world" narrated by Martin Bashir, featuring addition interviews. The documentary was released just prior to the Trial of Michael Jackson, and it focuses on a "supposed history" of Michael Jackson's interest in boys.

Interviewees included:
Ray Chandler, D Dimond, Terry George, P leMarque, LaToya, Maureen Orth, Bill Dworin (detective who said the drawings matched), Frank Cascio, a friend of Arvizo's who said Arvizo said Mj did nothing wrong (this teen was subsequently accused of assaulting a 14 yr old girl, but his mother said the accusation was part of a plot to convict MJ), and archive footage of Culkin, J. Chandler, Safechuck, Oprah, Sneddon and others.

There is one review on IMDB, which says:

''I am at one with the previous comment by Theo. This so-called 'documentary' is one of the most biased pieces of television I've seen in a long time. Irrespective of your opinion on the current case against Michael Jackson, you would still be hard pressed not to find this programme leaving a nasty taste. I find it hard to believe this could ever be shown if the case was taking place in the UK, as the whole tone implicitly suggests that Jackson grooms his young male friends, before rejecting them once puberty hits. There are a few interviewees who support Jackson, however, the editing and script are predominantly misrepresentative. There's a plethora of archive footage to back up the director's agenda, but very little in the way of investigative journalism. Indeed, a very dangerous film.''

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443586/

I'm wondering (with all this filming in court that DR will be doing) if he is planning another doc. IF these cases go to trial, before the trials?