Latest on MJJC

Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

MJRemixed;4245833 said:
UK FANS: do not watch the documentary on channel 4 tomorrow. Don’t add to the viewing figures which is what they want.

Also please keep streaming Money on YouTube via mjs official channel ONLY, and via Spotify and iTunes. We need this track in the top 20 at least. I’ve had it repeated a lot of times today. THIS is THE track that explains this whole mess.
Click to expand...

The documentary can be downloaded everywhere, why is people even considering watching it on TV?
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
I just saw Razorfist's tweet about Safechuck's mom and his comment made me laugh. But at the same time it's insanely PATHETIC how far this mockumentary has come when it contains ridiculous shit like that, shit that would get debunked instantly in a court of law.

"I danced when Michael died" Safe****'s mom says in the mockumentary. Michael died in 2009. Safe****'s memory came back in 2013.

Razorfist jokes that she must have been a time traveler.

This frustrates me to no end. This is so easy to debunk.
Click to expand...

is that this is not correct, james says in his demand that he told his mother in 2005 that Michael "was bad" with him when he was child.
He told his mother about this without going into detail or talking directly about the abuse because he was not prepared to speak and he had not been prosecuted, that counts in his demand. He still had contradictory feelings between what he felt had been wrong and also hiding it by michael for what he meant for him on past and on the other hand had not processed the abuse yet because in his head he still contradicted himself because he had internalized it as something "normal" and without malice that was supposedly what michael told him as a child. Still, he always knew that something was not right but he was not prepared to accept it and reveal it until years later.
this happened in 2005 after michael called him several times to "supposedly" make sure he was not going to give it away.
in 2005 his mother already knew about something wrong happened, that's why his mother says that I dance about his death in 2009, because she already knew. Razorfist did not read the transcript of James' request well because he explains it well there.
 
Last edited:
So both John Legend and Sia believe he’s guilty. Another couple of artists to boycott lol. Not that I would listen to them anyway mind you.

It’s amazing just how many people have been taken in by this, kinda scary when you think about it. A lot of dumb people in the world.
 
I think it got such low ratings because MJ has been passed away for so long.

There was no, in a sick way, "excitement of what was going to happen next"

Haters couldn't expect anything afterwards. "Oh what will happen to Jackson now?"

There is no continuation to the Michael Jackson story that interests casual people.
 
Anybody see the clip of R Kelly going off when he was interviewed by Gayle King. I didn't even know Oprah got her lapdog a gig.

I wish Michael went off once like how Kelly did lol. With the amount of sh** thrown at Michael, he had some patience.
 
magic said:
I don't think Chandler will even come out. I've read that he tried hard to not be found so he never wanted anything to do with any of this. I don't think he will risk his peaceful life now to save Michael's name. I don't think he even cares. If he did, he would come out in 2003.
Click to expand...

But did he really? Read this Chandler timeline, scroll down to there it ends and then Google..
https://turningthetableonthechandlerallegations.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/chandler-timeline/
 
Does any one have any proof that the secret rooms ever existed? Safechuck talks about being molested in a room above the arcade. Apparently there was a bed in there. A castle with a bedroom upstairs and with a small bed in it. Above the train station. The only pictures I have seen of the "secret rooms" is just a walk in closet (he claims to have been molested there as well). By the sounds of it, he makes it seem like Michael had beds everywhere.
 
StephluvsMJ said:
Does any one have any proof that the secret rooms ever existed? Safechuck talks about being molested in a room above the arcade. Apparently there was a bed in there. A castle with a bedroom upstairs and with a small bed in it. Above the train station. The only pictures I have seen of the "secret rooms" is just a walk in closet (he claims to have been molested there as well). By the sounds of it, he makes it seem like Michael had beds everywhere.
Click to expand...

The secret room is a myth from 93-03 one of those provern lies that becomes reality.
 
It has been over four years since I've posted here, although most of that is because I now get my MJ news on Twitter and haven't felt the need to post. Overall, I'm not surprised Leaving Neverland more-or-less flopped despite the pushing of some big names and airing on HBO.

One big reason is that Robison made his claimed back in 2013 and despite some coverage at the time, he quickly faded from mainstream view. People didn't believe him, plain and simple. They found him more creditable in 2005 when he was grilled by the DA and under oath to tell the truth and said nothing happened. Now he's coming out with these allegations after the man died four years ago (from the time he made his claim) and was suing his estate. Even people who questioned Michael smelled a rat and those who did believed Robison are the usual suspects. So with Robison already being considered unbelievable back in 2013, it was extremely unlikely that he would be more convincing in 2019 after his failed lawsuit. In fact, it's worst for him since we have court documents of him lying and changing his story under oath. So when people go on about Robison's believability, it's easily rebutted by just posting the court documents.

Another big reason, Michael is dead. Part of the reason why the pedo hunt got so much buzzed when he was alive was seeing what reaction Michael would have and the whole 'will he go to jail'. It's sick and twisted, but it's schadenfreude. But since Michael isn't here anymore, people are just not as invested. There is no schadenfreude to be have kicking a corpse. In fact, people have a dim view of those who disparage the dead, justly or not, especially from someone who did nothing but praised the person in life.

Also in the US at least, we have far biggest issues than re-trialing if Michael was a pedo given that our president is under investigating among other things.

Finally, the doc was too freaking long. How many people are honestly going to watch four hours of two men talking about how they were rape? And it's extremely one-sided. Most docs of this nature at least try to present a rebutted to the other side, but this didn't even bother. From the lay person, it was boring.

The fandom did also help, although I personally wouldn't even heard of this doc before it aired if it wasn't for my Twitter feed. When it did aired, my mom talked about it and was pissed, but the story seemed to almost died in 24 hours. No major networks like CNN or MSNBC to my knowledge really covered it either. And the ones that did more or less had a shrugged reaction and moved on to something else.

So yeah, not surprised at all, and I do hope Brett do sue for dragging his name into this mess. I also think the estate did the right thing to downplay the documentary, while also given a scatting letter to HBO over what they've done. I think if the estate made a bigger deal of this, more people would have watched out of curiosity.
 
It's so sad to see more artists backing this filth. So we have Sia on board with that trash now too. The problem with all this is, they were there when MJ was acquitted in 2005, but that's likely also the one and only thing they know about it all. I'm willing to bet they have no idea what a insane witch hunt it really had and has, still is for MJ. All they saw was that he was found not guilty on all counts by a jury in a court of law. They have zero knowledge of these two liars.
 
Lovepeace1 said:
is that this is not correct, james says in his demand that he told his mother in 2005 that Michael "was bad" with him when he was child, he says to his mother dont say nothing about this.this happened in 2005 after michael called him several times to "supposedly" make sure he was not going to give it away, in 2005 his mother already knew, that's why his mother says that I dance about his death in 2009, because she already knew. Razorfist did not read the transcript of James' request well because he explains it well there.
Click to expand...

To my understanding it said he denied any kind of abuse but that Michael was a bad man. For whatever reason he meant with that. Anyway, if his mom already knew all that time, she was just keeping that secret? She was basically knowingly protecting the person that abused her son. That's what it comes down to right?
 
Viewing figures are low

General public for the most part don’t care as MJ dead. A few stations banning his music but that’ll hopefully be reversed

This isn’t the bombshell they hoped it’d be. Like other posters have said, all my friends and colleagues knows I’m a big mj fan and no one has mentioned the doc to me. People who I’ve directly asked about it aren’t interested really. Shrug and say he’s dead why bother.

Sia and John legend have spoken up. So what. Think of how many people are not willing to believe these money grabbers.

Let’s not get sucked in by media negatively. This too shall pass.
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier;4246055 said:
To my understanding it said he denied any kind of abuse but that Michael was a bad man. For whatever reason he meant with that. Anyway, if his mom already knew all that time, she was just keeping that secret? She was basically knowingly protecting the person that abused her son. That's what it comes down to right?
Click to expand...

James’ case was that he said to his mum in passing after verdict in 2005 that mj is a “bad man” but that that was it. His mum asked no further questions. Absolutely ridiculous

Then he’s meant to have told her properly years after MJs death.

The scenario makes no sense and James’ morher’s Statement makes no sense
 
KOPV said:
inside edition had 2 jurors from 2005 speak.. 1. spoke of him as a predator 1. said they don't believe it



Just a note, I finished part 1.... The ONLY time people shed tears in the documentary was the robsons talking about leaving their family in Australia. The rest of the doc, stone faces with mixed smiles and signs of adoration towards Michael.
Click to expand...

Hold up! And both jurors were the ones that acquitted him? So does this one juror now think of him as a predator because of this mockumentary, that I'm guessing she's supposedly has seen?

Because if not, and he/she believed this in 2005 too, why join the others in agreeing he's not guilty?
 
MJJ2theMAX;4246056 said:
Viewing figures are low

General public for the most part don’t care as MJ dead. A few stations banning his music but that’ll hopefully be reversed

This isn’t the bombshell they hoped it’d be. Like other posters have said, all my friends and colleagues knows I’m a big mj fan and no one has mentioned the doc to me. People who I’ve directly asked about it aren’t interested really. Shrug and say he’s dead why bother.

Sia and John legend have spoken up. So what. Think of how many people are not willing to believe these money grabbers.

Let’s not get sucked in by media negatively. This too shall pass.
Click to expand...
What I find there frustrating it then people go oh he has been accused and then they are discussing if his music should be banned but they are doing it without doing any kind of background check. I mean if you heard the interview with Charles Thomson yesterday the guy in the end, who I understand was a journalist sounded really surprised, like what Charles said was news to him.
 
Themidwestcowboy;4245950 said:
I have thought about this. What will it take for the public to see the truth and denounce Wade and safechuck? At this point i'm not sure what will. A documentary? An incriminating video/audio of them? A smoking gun? ..
Click to expand...

We need to be patient

There’s been loads of people saying Wade’s a perv and people in dance world wanting to steer clear of him. He’s been seen snogging his sister for goodness sake. Shagging Prince’s wife. And that’s just in the last 2 days. Let’s let the madness die down. This isn’t the end of this story.... There’s plenty of skeletons in his closet.

Just try and put yourself in the position of the general public. The public that mostly don’t care enough about this to comment on Facebook or newspaper articles. They’ll just shrug this off in a couple of weeks and probably not give it a second thought.

If mj is banned from radio, that’ll have to be consistent. What about elvis? There’s a huge list of people to ban if they start down that route.
 
L.T.D said:
I think Corey has received some abuse from people calling him a hypocrite for not believing people claiming to be sexual abuse victims and it's got to him.

Hes not going to be changing his own story about Michael, but hes going to be leaning towards believing Michael could have possibly abused other kids, including Robson and Safechuck. That's how I'm interpreting it.
Click to expand...

Well maybe this is a little insensitive of me, I don't think it is but I don't like this at all. Why bring this statement at all? Ignore the hate messages and stand strong along with the fans. He's been a good friend of Michael for years, Michael basically protected him from actual evil people and gave advice, he knew the man. What good is there to bring a statement like this when he already also in his Twitter response said that these two men deserve their voices to be heard? I definitely get what some people have been saying about him here, being a flip flopper.

He doesn't see through their lies and bad acting? He's not aware of Wade's very, very shady history? Why do this? Nah sorry, not with it at all. And this right after he went loose on Twitter with capslock enabled to make a point, nah fam.
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
To my understanding it said he denied any kind of abuse but that Michael was a bad man. For whatever reason he meant with that. Anyway, if his mom already knew all that time, she was just keeping that secret? She was basically knowingly protecting the person that abused her son. That's what it comes down to right?
Click to expand...

He did not deny in 2005 that there was no abuse, he was not required to testify at that time and anyway he says that he didnt want defend Michael in 2005.
When he denied the abuse was in 1993 in a sign document when he was still a child, so in the eyes of the people this is not very valid because it was a child and it is known that the victims of abuse do not process the abuse until an average of 20 years later.
so in this case he could be hiding it then in 1993.
in 2005, however, he did not defend michael, nor years before. he lost contact with michael in 96 and never came out to defend it publicly after that, he simply retired from public life and in his lawsuit says that in 2005 michael personally called him several times to "supposedly" make sure everything went well between them and that did not give him away, and that was when he "insinuated" his mother that something was wrong with Michael when he was a child without going into details or naming the word abuse, but his mother as a mother seemed to understand that something it was good between michael and him, but without knowing the magnitude of what had happened because he did not give more details or talk more about the subject.
There he was already 26 years old, so his mother knew that something was wrong but I respect his son in the decision to remain silent because he was already an adult.
 
Last edited:
Lovepeace1 said:
The problem here is that the demands are not read well. He did not deny in 2005 that there was no abuse, he was not required to testify at that time. When he denied the abuse was in 1993 when he was still a child, so in the eyes of the people this is not very valid because it was a child and it is known that the victims of abuse the do not process the abuse nor they are prepared to speak until an average of 20 years later.
so in this case he could be hiding it then in 1993.
in 2005, however, he did not defend it, nor years before. he lost contact with michael in 96 and never came out to defend it publicly after that, he simply retired from public life and in his lawsuit says that in 2005 michael personally called him several times to "supposedly" make sure everything went well between them and that did not give him away, and that was when he "insinuated" his mother that something was wrong with Michael when he was a child without going into details or naming the word abuse, but his mother as a mother seemed to understand that something it was good between michael and him, but without knowing the magnitude of what had happened because he did not give more details or talk more about the subject.
There he was already 26 years old, so his mother knew that something was wrong but I respect his son in the decision to remain silent because he was already an adult.
Click to expand...

Hmmm I see. I guess I can see why Safechuck could be seen as more credible then. However, his credibility is shot down at the same time in my opinion, because it was 2013 when he spoke to Wade again, that's correct right? And Wade lied about that. Way too much of a coincidence. And he claims he spoke to Michael that way in 2005 but that's something he can never prove, but is easy to claim.
 
Lovepeace1 said:
He did not deny in 2005 that there was no abuse, he was not required to testify at that time and anyway he didnt want defend Michael in 2005.
When he denied the abuse was in 1993 in a sign document when he was still a child, so in the eyes of the people this is not very valid because it was a child and it is known that the victims of abuse do not process the abuse until an average of 20 years later.
so in this case he could be hiding it then in 1993.
in 2005, however, he did not defend michael, nor years before. he lost contact with michael in 96 and never came out to defend it publicly after that, he simply retired from public life and in his lawsuit says that in 2005 michael personally called him several times to "supposedly" make sure everything went well between them and that did not give him away, and that was when he "insinuated" his mother that something was wrong with Michael when he was a child without going into details or naming the word abuse, but his mother as a mother seemed to understand that something it was good between michael and him, but without knowing the magnitude of what had happened because he did not give more details or talk more about the subject.
There he was already 26 years old, so his mother knew that something was wrong but I respect his son in the decision to remain silent because he was already an adult.
Click to expand...
But he did do promotion work for This is it in 2009.
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
Hold up! And both jurors were the ones that acquitted him? So does this one juror now think of him as a predator because of this mockumentary, that I'm guessing she's supposedly has seen?

Because if not, and he/she believed this in 2005 too, why join the others in agreeing he's not guilty?
Click to expand...
It may not be because of this documentary. I've read some article before, years ago there is somebody from jury who thinks he was guilty but didn't think so back then. But I didn't care what they think now cause it didn't change anything. The article may be false though knowing how so many things are false in the net.
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
Hmmm I see. I guess I can see why Safechuck could be seen as more credible then. However, his credibility is shot down at the same time in my opinion, because it was 2013 when he spoke to Wade again, that's correct right? And Wade lied about that. Way too much of a coincidence. And he claims he spoke to Michael that way in 2005 but that's something he can never prove, but is easy to claim.
Click to expand...

In the lawsuit there is nothing about Wade and James talking about their experiences in 2013 . I dont know about this.
he only says that james saw on television the news that wade had told about his abuse and then he went into panic, had an anxiety crisis and decided to go to the psychiatrist because he need help. then with the psychiatrist it was the first time that he speaks on the subject and was diagnosed a posttraumatic stress due to the abuses, severe anxiety disorder and depression, all due to their "supposed" abuses. He was in therapy and there he understood the magnitude of what he had lived. And a year after this episode and the therapy with the psychiatrist he decided to sue.
 
Guys I need a little help with this. On Twitter someone asked why Wade and Safechuck's stories have changed so much if you claim to have been abused. So I told her it's best to do some actual research on these guys to find out about their lies, contradictions etc.

This other woman replies to me and asks about what Wade lies in this "documentary". She's playing it like this, while I clearly was talking about everything leading up to this. What lies in LN can be proven to be lies from him?
 
Personally I don’t tend to waste time getting into one on one arguments with people. More important to get some facts out there in the comment section and then just leave it and comment on other articles elsewhere. You’re never going to convince that one person that is determined to have an argument. It’s a waste of time
 
Actually this is not so bad as feared...

Views were extremely low - less than 1 million on part 2 - and part 2 is the worst part I think.

Many have not heard about the doc. - Many who has do not believes it - why would they come now if not money? Those who always thought MJ was a pedo still does.

Not much changed - but very sad and unfair MJ had to be dragged thru the mud once again... But on the long run I actually don't think this will do as much bad as I first feared. I really thought this could destroy his legacy and eventually maybe even get his music removed from Spotify, iMusic, Youtube etc. - BUT simply because the "doc" is so bad and so one-sided and not believable - it's not so bad, I think many people do not believe a word they are saying, and then maybe those in doubt have seen all the things/videos fans have posted with facts. 2-3 radio stations have stopped playing his music for a few weeks. - if that's it... then no damage is done in the big picture really.

What I am most sad about (me being selfish) is there will not be released new music this year I guess.
 
Ramona122003 said:
It has been over four years since I've posted here, although most of that is because I now get my MJ news on Twitter and haven't felt the need to post. Overall, I'm not surprised Leaving Neverland more-or-less flopped despite the pushing of some big names and airing on HBO.

One big reason is that Robison made his claimed back in 2013 and despite some coverage at the time, he quickly faded from mainstream view. People didn't believe him, plain and simple. They found him more creditable in 2005 when he was grilled by the DA and under oath to tell the truth and said nothing happened. Now he's coming out with these allegations after the man died four years ago (from the time he made his claim) and was suing his estate. Even people who questioned Michael smelled a rat and those who did believed Robison are the usual suspects. So with Robison already being considered unbelievable back in 2013, it was extremely unlikely that he would be more convincing in 2019 after his failed lawsuit. In fact, it's worst for him since we have court documents of him lying and changing his story under oath. So when people go on about Robison's believability, it's easily rebutted by just posting the court documents.

Another big reason, Michael is dead. Part of the reason why the pedo hunt got so much buzzed when he was alive was seeing what reaction Michael would have and the whole 'will he go to jail'. It's sick and twisted, but it's schadenfreude. But since Michael isn't here anymore, people are just not as invested. There is no schadenfreude to be have kicking a corpse. In fact, people have a dim view of those who disparage the dead, justly or not, especially from someone who did nothing but praised the person in life.

Also in the US at least, we have far biggest issues than re-trialing if Michael was a pedo given that our president is under investigating among other things.

Finally, the doc was too freaking long. How many people are honestly going to watch four hours of two men talking about how they were rape? And it's extremely one-sided. Most docs of this nature at least try to present a rebutted to the other side, but this didn't even bother. From the lay person, it was boring.

The fandom did also help, although I personally wouldn't even heard of this doc before it aired if it wasn't for my Twitter feed. When it did aired, my mom talked about it and was pissed, but the story seemed to almost died in 24 hours. No major networks like CNN or MSNBC to my knowledge really covered it either. And the ones that did more or less had a shrugged reaction and moved on to something else.

So yeah, not surprised at all, and I do hope Brett do sue for dragging his name into this mess. I also think the estate did the right thing to downplay the documentary, while also given a scatting letter to HBO over what they've done. I think if the estate made a bigger deal of this, more people would have watched out of curiosity.
Click to expand...

Nice to see you again ramona. A name from the past
 
Never thought I'd be on the same side as Piers Morgan, but I dont care I love him right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top