Latest on MJJC

Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

horselightning;4251907 said:
Now this ticks me off. Juror no. 5 is against michael. https://www.inquisitr.com/5359208/m...ade-robson-macaulay-culkin-leaving-neverland/
Click to expand...

Nevermind what I said about that juror. Just did a search on Cook on VindicateMJ and it turns out it wasn't just a tabloid story years ago. Three jurors actually backstabbed MJ and tried to get books released. There's a whole lot more on them here. Seems RO is either bringing this old shit as new news, or she really spoke to RO.

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2...website-part-3/comment-page-1/#comment-126412
 
@Staffordshire Bullterrior If you look at most of the people like you are describing Twitter time line and follow list you will usually see that they are a hater. That person saying that they have read all of the documents is a huge red flag. Most of the general public who think that Michael was guilty don't even know about those websites.
 
AG5050 said:
Wow, I actually tried to stick up to for this guy. Well and truly shown his true colours now.
Click to expand...

Wow, I just saw his/her edited post. Hopefully the mods and admins can see the unedited post.
 
terrell said:
There is always going to be one of those in all high profile cases. And look who he is talking to. TABLOID.
Click to expand...

Yeah this isn't really anything new. I remember a few years after the trial there were one or two jurors that said they believed MJ was guilty but that there just wasn't enough evidence to convict him. I don't care what they say at this point anyway. They voted not guilty in 2005 and that's that.

They're lame for talking to tabloids and trying to get money and their 15 seconds of fame.

Losers.
 
Does anyone know what day the Razorfist interview with Taj and Brandi supposed to be released this week?
 
Cinnamon234 said:
Yeah this isn't really anything new. I remember a few years after the trial there were one or two jurors that said they believed MJ was guilty but that there just wasn't enough evidence to convict him. I don't care what they say at this point anyway. They voted not guilty in 2005 and that's that.

They're lame for talking to tabloids and trying to get money and their 15 seconds of fame.

Losers.
Click to expand...

This is the old woman juror whose grandchildren were negotiating a book deal before the verdict while she was fighting during jury deliberations to vote guilty to boost the chances of getting book deal.
 
Thanks to anyone who may have checked out my Michael episode of the podcast I posted in here. Part 2 is out now if you want to finish it...

www.soundcloud.com/goodcallout/michaelpart2

Again - explicit language etc etc.

It’s exhausting having to explain to regular folks about why this “doc” is such a waste of time. Good that I can just send them this pod and just say “shut up and listen!”

Thanks again! Follow us if you’re into @goodcallout
 
Soundmind said:
This is the old woman juror whose grandchildren were negotiating a book deal before the verdict while she was fighting during jury deliberations to vote guilty to boost the chances of getting book deal.
Click to expand...

Also seem to remember the older juror with grey hair had is doubts about 93 turned out he had a book earl too.
 
TheChosenOne said:
A random thought just occurred to me - what media decides to fixate on can be very puzzling.

There has been no real coverage of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. And where is the hue and cry about the Sackler family? Has there been any meaningful discussion/coverage about refusing or returning their money since is clearly tainted with the scandal of the opioid crisis?

Instead two hucksters get to make outrageous, unchallenged claims about Michael Jackson and we get people crawling from the woodwork to milk the situation for all its worth.

Things that make you go hmmm.
Click to expand...

I often wonder that. But have come to the conclusion it's because MJ is the biggest star in the world and stories about him make them money. Up until now I never heard of the Sacklers. Most people around the world wouldn't have.

But what gets me is that Weinstein, Spacey and Singer are all getting a pass while the media is fixated on a dead man. It just shouts out the bias and racism in this world to me.

People have been brainwashed to believe Michael was some weirdo before the allegations and due to that it's easier to believe these allegations for them Their mindset was already programmed by the media.
 
volitional said:
But what gets me is that Weinstein, Spacey and Singer are all getting a pass while the media is fixated on a dead man. It just shouts out the bias and racism in this world to me.
Click to expand...

Um, they aren't getting a pass. They just don't have a documentary with first hand accounts of people for people to see.
 
horselightning said:
Now this ticks me off. Juror no. 5 is against michael. https://www.inquisitr.com/5359208/m...ade-robson-macaulay-culkin-leaving-neverland/
Click to expand...

She was always against mj. She should have never been on the jury as her grandaughter was shopping a book as soon as she was picked as a jurror. There was also some other connection aswell regarding her or the other jurror who wanted to convict regardless. The book called free as a bird guilty as sin never got released. There were two jurrors intent on convicting mj regardless but the other jurrors stopped them
 
AtlasAir said:
Um, they aren't getting a pass. They just don't have a documentary with first hand accounts of people for people to see.
Click to expand...

Weinstein had a documentary about him in Sundance around same time as LN do you hear anything about that? Why didn't Oprah interview those Women.

Also in 1993 and 2005 there was no documentary about MJ then but allegations and compare the media coverage for him then and for those three now. Who knows when they go trial it might change.

On another note it's interesting to see that Avenatti has been charged with extortion trying to blackmail Nike. People ask why would people make up allegations and surely they wouldn't do it for the money. Wouldn't they?!
 
For the people who read this.

In this short video you can find anouther inconcistancy between the story Wade tells in his lawsuit and in LN:

"Wade Robson Can't Keep His Story Straight" from " Leaving Neverland Facts"
56 views on March 26 2019


In this video you can find informations about the E-mail Dan Reed mentioned in the french TV show where wade didn't want to do the Cirque De S. Show which did exist.
The part comes At 42:00.
It is very important to know the complatee E-mail you can read here when the haters, tabloids and Wade Supporters bring this up in discussions.

"The Ultimate Rebuttle against EVERY Michael Jackson Allegation" from "Danny Wu (Part2)"
1637 views March 25 2019


New video from HISory in the Mix to LN:


His Leving Neverland Theme song Parody is sadly now blocked.
I think Reed, Wade & James didn't like it.
 
Last edited:
AtlasAir said:
Um, they aren't getting a pass. They just don't have a documentary with first hand accounts of people for people to see.
Click to expand...
Weinstein does have a documentary, premiered at the same time/same place as LN, fittingly titled "Untouchable" (it deals not only with the accusations, but how he had the power to stop those claims from becoming public. Fun fact: according to the NYT one of his tactics was spreading gossip about others as a distraction, among his main targets was guess who? MJ).

"Untouchable" was going to be big news, then came the surprise inclusion of LN at the last minute, and suddenly everybody talks about and propagates LN while forgets Weinstein (google "Untouchable" and you'll mainly find articles from January, and not even that many. Now google LN...).

The "they just don't have a documentary" isn't a good argument anyway, it should rather be a question: why don't they have one (or: why does LN exist)?

volitional said:
Weinstein had a documentary about him in Sundance around same time as LN do you hear anything about that? Why didn't Oprah interview those Women.

Also in 1993 and 2005 there was no documentary about MJ then but allegations and compare the media coverage for him then and for those three now. Who knows when they go trial it might change.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
Last edited:
elusive moonwalker said:
She was always against mj. She should have never been on the jury as her grandaughter was shopping a book as soon as she was picked as a jurror. There was also some other connection aswell regarding her or the other jurror who wanted to convict regardless. The book called free as a bird guilty as sin never got released. There were two jurrors intent on convicting mj regardless but the other jurrors stopped them
Click to expand...

Yeah I read that they told the tabloids they were more or less forced to go with the verdict, sure sure. One tried to prejudice the other jurors with some tape too and were a big fan of Nancy Grace and Dimond. I think that says it all. I also find it telling how they were able to get interviews and the jurors who were legit didn't get them.

This Eleanor Cook is apparently in her 90s and if she truly spoke to RO recently... I'm just like, give up already woman. You are in your 90s,you are more or less on your way out. Let this crap rest already.
 
Sometimes I truly what went wrong for some people on Twitter. Where did they lose their minds this badly?

Just now this woman on Twitter and with a straight face (well as much as that is possible on Twitter) saying "yes they found child porn in his house. The fbi."

How I ask you? How? Logic and common sense would tell any sane person that if such a thing is found... the man would have been behind bars.
 
Someone also posted a picture which was meant to be Jordan Chandler sitting on Michael's lap but hes in the seat next to him.
 
L.T.D;4251970 said:
Someone also posted a picture which was meant to be Jordan Chandler sitting on Michael's lap but hes in the seat next to him.
Click to expand...

That has always been the case. The f@#$&* media perpetuated that lie. It was Lillian, Jordan’s sister who was sitting in Michael’s lap. It was also Lillian who Michael carried in his arms. These scum in the media turned it into something sinister and gullible sheep fell for it.
 
somewhereinthedark;4251971 said:
That has always been the case. The f@#$&* media perpetuated that lie. It was Lillian, Jordan’s sister who was sitting in Michael’s lap. It was also Lillian who Michael carried in his arms. These scum in the media turned it into something sinister and gullible sheep fell for it.
Click to expand...

No it's a different one to that, this is genuinely Jordan but it's just a picture of him sitting in a chair next to Michael.
 
Did you guys noticed that Wade went from "Everytime when we were together it happened. There were no night that went by that I was with him that he did not sexually abused me." In the Inside Edition Interview
to (I don't have the exaxt quote) "Evertime when I was ALONE together in a room with Michael he did sexual abuse me in LN?
I guess he don't use the word night anymore when he described were the whole molestations did happen cause he discribs also cirqumstances in daytime (when MJ played with the kids in his bedroom suit and kidnapped him in closed rooms to molest him ( and maybe Jordan and others).

Did he described this last szenarios as well in his lawsuit or was it maybe Dan Reeds idea to give Jordan Chandlers story more credibility?
 
L.T.D said:
Someone also posted a picture which was meant to be Jordan Chandler sitting on Michael's lap but hes in the seat next to him.
Click to expand...

Doesn't surprise me at all. Notice how the MSM and tabloids always talk about boys and never girls? They are pushing that agenda of MJ being into boys ever since Chandler. Or actually before that already really. It's crystal clear.

Nevermind that he had many families with their children, boys and girls at Neverland and with him on trips/travels.
 
Whoa! I am now hearing about this Untouchable documentary!!!!

This is unbelievable. I am going to have to process this.
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
Sometimes I truly what went wrong for some people on Twitter. Where did they lose their minds this badly?

Just now this woman on Twitter and with a straight face (well as much as that is possible on Twitter) saying "yes they found child porn in his house. The fbi."

How I ask you? How? Logic and common sense would tell any sane person that if such a thing is found... the man would have been behind bars.
Click to expand...


The only sensible response to such a nonsensical claim is tell them MJ was NEVER charged with owning that kind of material. They can easily check that if they want, and if they continue to believe some of that stuff was found then they're just beyond help anyway.

Of course you can get even further into it and explain none was entered into evidence, and also that the judge in the trial officially approved a statement from T Mez in which he confirmed none was found (to counter inaccurate reports being spread in the media in 04).

Even having said all of that I have found some people STILL believe illegal material was found. It's crazy but some people really do believe the media more than the charge sheet, court documents, and official statements etc.

I think they get so invested in their long-held beliefs that they can't even contemplate everything they knew may be wrong. Maybe it's human nature.

I laugh when I hear/see people say "it's undeniable he was a pedo", "all the evidence shows he was", "accept the facts", "there's so much proof". What are they talking about?

Of course they're talking about the illegal child porn (that wasn't found).
they're talking about $200million in settlements (that don't exist)
They're talking about dozens of accusers (that don't exist)
they're talking about MJ only hanging around with boys (that isn't true)
They're talking about Jesus juice (that MJ didn't give to kids)
They're talking about the settlement (that didn't stop the criminal trial in '93)
They're talking about MJ admitting to sleeping in bed with kids (misquoting the Bashir interview)
they're talking about Wade and James' convincingly graphic stories (and not the mountain of lies they've told)

I could go on and on.

I've spent 23 years on the net arguing with these fools and it's made no difference. I'm sick of it.
 
Shout out to whoever made Leaving Neverland Take two, I watched 10 minutes last night, I was going to listen to it on the drive to work this morning and surprise surprise it's been taken down by copyright infringement, yet leaving neverland part 2 is still up on YouTube in HD. We are living in the ages of spin and this deck of cards is shuffled funny
 
Just read on Twitter (with proof) that Dan Reed still claims the memorabilia was legit, even when we have proof it was all sold to Julien's Auctions. Also, he claimed in the past that he did a deep research on the 90s and 2005 cases and in the French interview he says he didn't look much up.

He learned from the "best" when it comes to lies and contradictions, wow. In the French interview he actually says of course he's guilty, he paid off the family in the 90s. He's just a general hater really. He also says there are 5 victims.

Sigh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top