Latest on MJJC

Should I make a documentary?

MsAshley

MsAshley

Bryan Loren's Only Fan
Joined
Jul 6, 2016
Messages
167
Points
63
Location
Never Never Can Say Goodbye Land
Country
Japan
I don't really have much faith in the upcoming pro-MJ docs (in the sense they'll happen at all). I've been thinking that, I could comb over every court document and do a play-by-play of every event in 1993. It would use existing footage, and maybe some new of the documents needed, but I don't know, Leaving Neverland was what, 70% drone shots? I can do professional editing, so that wouldn't be a big deal. Given where I live though, I wouldn't be able to spend copious funds flying out to interview people. I'm not even sure if there's much of a point beyond emotional manipulation for the documentary itself, given the relevant information is already out there. There's a few ways it could be done, one long project ranging from 93 until today, or episodically, with each episode focusing one set of accusations or something adjacent (i.e., settlements). I'm partial to the latter, a sort of series. I wouldn't expect Netflix to pick it up or anything, but it feels like we could really use some more pro-MJ content that's as "put together" as Dan's bullshit, especially given the fact he's working on something new.

Maybe it's a bad idea and I'm just being optimistic. Would love to hear some ideas.
 
In this day and age, I think interviews could also be done by Zoom, if you are able to get someone to be interviewed. 🤔 Have you seen the ”Michael jackson and Wade Robson: The Real Story” on YouTube? That’s a great documentary. I think there are so many interviews that most of the people who have accused Michael have given, all contradicting themselves, and the interviews are out there free to be used as clips (I think). So you could collect and use those.

I think episodes would be better. That way you could do a deep dive and could get into each one properly, and people would be more prone to watch and more willing to commit if it’s not hours long. Then once they’ve seen one episode, they could get into the next one, if intrigued (YouTube suggest it anyways). I think it is such a complex matter with so many facts to go through, that a thorough deep dive would be better.
 
MsAshley said:
У меня не очень-то есть вера в предстоящие документальные фильмы в поддержку Майкла Джексона (в том смысле, что они вообще появятся). Я думал, что мог бы тщательно изучить все судебные документы и подробно описать каждое событие 1993 года. Для этого я бы использовал существующие видеоматериалы и, возможно, новые документы, но не знаю, «Покидая Неверленд» был, наверное, на 70% снят с дрона? Я умею профессионально монтировать, так что это не составило бы труда. Однако, учитывая место моего проживания, я не смог бы тратить огромные средства на поездки для интервью. Я даже не уверен, есть ли вообще смысл в самом документальном фильме, кроме эмоционального манипулирования, учитывая, что соответствующая информация уже есть. Есть несколько вариантов: один большой проект, охватывающий период с 1993 года по настоящее время, или эпизодический, где каждый эпизод будет посвящен одному набору обвинений или чему-то смежному (например, урегулированию споров). Мне больше нравится последний вариант, своего рода сериал. Я не ожидаю, что Netflix возьмется за это, но мне кажется, нам действительно не помешало бы больше контента в поддержку Майкла Джексона, такого же "продуманного", как вся эта чушь от Дэна, особенно учитывая, что он работает над чем-то новым.

Возможно, это плохая идея, и я просто слишком оптимистичен. Было бы здорово услышать ваши предложения.
Click to expand...
summer said:
В наше время, я думаю, интервью можно проводить и по Zoom, если удастся найти человека, который согласится дать интервью. 🤔 Вы видели документальный фильм «Майкл Джексон и Уэйд Робсон: Реальная история» на YouTube? Это отличный фильм. Я думаю, есть множество интервью, которые дали большинство людей, обвинявших Майкла, и все они противоречат друг другу, а эти интервью доступны бесплатно для использования в качестве фрагментов (насколько я понимаю). Так что вы могли бы собрать и использовать их.

Думаю, лучше было бы разделить на эпизоды. Так можно было бы подробно разобрать каждый из них, и люди с большей вероятностью стали бы смотреть и охотнее смотреть, даже если бы это не длилось несколько часов. А после просмотра одного эпизода, если бы заинтересовались, могли бы перейти к следующему (YouTube, кстати, это и предлагает). Мне кажется, это настолько сложный вопрос, требующий тщательного изучения, что лучше было бы сделать подробный анализ.
Click to expand...
 
Who is this bot?

image.png
 
summer said:
In this day and age, I think interviews could also be done by Zoom, if you are able to get someone to be interviewed. 🤔 Have you seen the ”Michael jackson and Wade Robson: The Real Story” on YouTube? That’s a great documentary. I think there are so many interviews that most of the people who have accused Michael have given, all contradicting themselves, and the interviews are out there free to be used as clips (I think). So you could collect and use those.

I think episodes would be better. That way you could do a deep dive and could get into each one properly, and people would be more prone to watch and more willing to commit if it’s not hours long. Then once they’ve seen one episode, they could get into the next one, if intrigued (YouTube suggest it anyways). I think it is such a complex matter with so many facts to go through, that a thorough deep dive would be better.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think episodes work. I'm currently considering if I should still, but also outlining things. In the midst of it, I've come into some strange information. The conflicting information about Jordan's description of MJ's genitals. I think I should take a methodological approach while also explaining the legal system, if I do this. Like how probable cause works, how grand juries work, etc. It's weird to me how much deviation on this one piece of evidence is. I also need to verify the maid stating that Jordan called Michael crying saying he didn't know why his father was doing it. Gotta be as meticulous as possible in planning. I'm seriously considering it though, a definitive pro-MJ doc that people reference...
 
Hi, do you know the series by Jael Rucker on medium, " "How Come Nobody Ever Apologizes to Michael Jackson" ? It's kinda what you describe but in writing and very extensive. She has recently started a small media company "decked out" and states to be planning a book to be published in August and apparently a documentary (was mentioned on her site previously, now it sais she would become director without details).
If you are serious you should contact her imo.

I like the idea. Like I am researching for more than a year now and still don't get everything straight, the story is so complex and information spread out everywhere in bits and pieces.
 
MsAshley said:
Yeah I think episodes work. I'm currently considering if I should still, but also outlining things. In the midst of it, I've come into some strange information. The conflicting information about Jordan's description of MJ's genitals. I think I should take a methodological approach while also explaining the legal system, if I do this. Like how probable cause works, how grand juries work, etc. It's weird to me how much deviation on this one piece of evidence is. I also need to verify the maid stating that Jordan called Michael crying saying he didn't know why his father was doing it. Gotta be as meticulous as possible in planning. I'm seriously considering it though, a definitive pro-MJ doc that people reference...
Click to expand...
Can you explain what exactly you mean by that?
 
summer said:
What you meant with ”conflicting information” on the description of his genitals and ”how reasonable doubt works”, etc?
Click to expand...
There's a lot of secondary sources claiming that the description did not match and that it was the reason the grand jury did not indict Michael. However, guilters have been spamming the fact that Sneddon and the cops that photographed Michael stated Jordan's description matched, going as far to say that these are the only primary sources. Sneddon can be discredited as unreliable, especially in his framing: he says it "mostly" matches, which is unconcise. Fans have replied saying that if they had probable cause for the search warrant of Michael's naked body, they would have had probable cause to arrest him if the description matched. Guilters responded that given Michael's popularity at the time, it would have taken more evidence to actually arrest him. Fans replied that is irrelevant to the law, but the guilters were not convinced, stating that even if that were true, a matching description, while damning, would not be a smoking gun (because Jordan could have seen it by some other means). My job in the documentary would be going through all these arguments and actually finding what all the primary sources say, and then evidencing how probable cause would work in this scenario (I think I'd likely need to call someone involved, or at the least speak with a DA in the area). The grand juror transcripts are sealed, which makes this more annoying. I don't think someone like me would be able to get a court order to release them either. What we do know is that Sneddon referred the case to two grand juries, and they both declined to indict Michael on basis of the lack of evidence. Where does Jordan's description fit into that? Some fans have also stated how Michael spoke publicly by then about his vitiligo, and so it wouldn't be unreasonable for the Chandlers to rehearse and guess he would have spots down there if it turned out to be true. I am most interested in the photographer from the county claiming the description matched, or at least the claim of him claiming it. How much liberty is given? It would seem a fair bit given how Sneddon appeared to have embellished. I will also need to verify if this was admitted into the 2005 trial, as there appears to be a lot of misinformation about that in these debates.
 
Here's how I would go about this, and if you decide to do so, this may help.

I think people nowadays expect an MJ documentary that focuses solely on the accusations, the trial or his death and almost nothing else. After all, those are the only documentaries we've seen from the corporate media nowadays. Plus, if I were going to have the subjects be about the accusations and trial, it would likely have to be a docuseries. Everything can't be presented in one film that will likely take a few hours to cover.

Overall, it will have to be everything that "Leaving Neverland" isn't.

However though, I think it's something most people desire. Deep down, people yearn for the truth. A docuseries that thoroughly investigates the MJ accusations and trial through an independent and unbiased lens will be a major middle finger to corporate media's obsession with painting MJ as a pedophile without question. It will probably renew the public's faith in journalism. From what I've seen, most regular people agree that MJ was innocent, and they want something from any media to say, "You're right, and here's why."

It'll also probably make them consider that false allegations are a real and devastating thing. Yes, we need to believe victims. But that's not all to it. We also need to investigate and research just like any other crime. We need to see if there are other victims of the same accused. But we also need to realize that there are people who sink low enough who make up horrible lies about someone else for attention, spite, revenge and/or money.

Conducting investigations will see if that's the case or not.

And since MJ was a black man, I would also note where a racialized version of "believe victims" was used to justify racist interpersonal and institutionalized violence against African American communities.

However, above all, the docuseries must strongly emphasize that false accusations should not and must not damage any cause or movement in support of actual survivors.

Again, this is just how I would go about creating the narrative for the project.
 
Last edited:
MsAshley said:
There's a lot of secondary sources claiming that the description did not match and that it was the reason the grand jury did not indict Michael. However, guilters have been spamming the fact that Sneddon and the cops that photographed Michael stated Jordan's description matched, going as far to say that these are the only primary sources. Sneddon can be discredited as unreliable, especially in his framing: he says it "mostly" matches, which is unconcise. Fans have replied saying that if they had probable cause for the search warrant of Michael's naked body, they would have had probable cause to arrest him if the description matched. Guilters responded that given Michael's popularity at the time, it would have taken more evidence to actually arrest him. Fans replied that is irrelevant to the law, but the guilters were not convinced, stating that even if that were true, a matching description, while damning, would not be a smoking gun (because Jordan could have seen it by some other means). My job in the documentary would be going through all these arguments and actually finding what all the primary sources say, and then evidencing how probable cause would work in this scenario (I think I'd likely need to call someone involved, or at the least speak with a DA in the area). The grand juror transcripts are sealed, which makes this more annoying. I don't think someone like me would be able to get a court order to release them either. What we do know is that Sneddon referred the case to two grand juries, and they both declined to indict Michael on basis of the lack of evidence. Where does Jordan's description fit into that? Some fans have also stated how Michael spoke publicly by then about his vitiligo, and so it wouldn't be unreasonable for the Chandlers to rehearse and guess he would have spots down there if it turned out to be true. I am most interested in the photographer from the county claiming the description matched, or at least the claim of him claiming it. How much liberty is given? It would seem a fair bit given how Sneddon appeared to have embellished. I will also need to verify if this was admitted into the 2005 trial, as there appears to be a lot of misinformation about that in these debates.
Click to expand...
In addition to that:

Was it not confirmed that the during the grand jury proceedings Katherine Jackson was called as a witness and asked if Michael could have altered the looks of his genitals by surgery or any other way? Meaning that the images did not match and they wanted to try and explain that away with MJ surgically altering the looks of his genitalia.

Also Evan Chandler, he had given MJ pain medication with syringes in his buttock area, meaning some of the information could be coming from him as well. Its very complicated, that is probably why nobody has completed a good project on this - because it will be a challenge! If you are up to it, its badly needed!
---
Also, how much faith can you put into a witness statement from law enforcement doctors or police believing 100% MJ was a child molester when they claim there was a match? If that person says there was no match it hurts their case and credibility enormously, so would we really expect them to admit that if it were the case? They also know the information is sealed so if they lie they know they wont be held accountable.

We have to remember, most of the people working against MJ with Sneddon truly believes that MJ was guilty and therefore they can "cut some corners" to get him!
 
Last edited:
Lightbringer said:
In addition to that:

Was it not confirmed that the during the grand jury proceedings Katherine Jackson was called as a witness and asked if Michael could have altered the looks of his genitals by surgery or any other way? Meaning that the images did not match and they wanted to try and explain that away with MJ surgically altering the looks of his genitalia.
Click to expand...
This sh*t is so laughable🤣
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top