Latest on MJJC

5 upcoming documentaries?

Insane that’s it’s 2026 and people are STILL after this man. I feel so sorry for him ☹️ It’s very sad. We as fans shouldn’t be paying attention to any of this BS!
 
MJ5 said:
Are they 100% negative bs? Or anything positive/new in these?
Click to expand...
The first one is okay. The second one is all tabloid BS, but there is some new footage of Michael with his kids, which is the only thing worth watching in it. Nothing interesting in the third one.

Harun said:
!??? !????

This is so confusing. I thought Jordan's descriptions of Michael's genitals were inaccurate, and now it's being said they were!? This And Jordan never claimed that Mike was circumcised? So what's the truth??These statements come directly from the senior officials who led the case at the time.
Click to expand...
Of course the description was not accurate, the only thing they ever said that was approximately in the same area was one spot. Notice how they just conveniently never mention circumcision or the other spots that didn't match? In Chandler's book, he says that Jordan described "numerous distinctive markings and discolorations on Michael’s privates". So how come only one spot matched? Can we talk about the numerous spots that didn't match?
 
Harun said:
!??? !????

This is so confusing. I thought Jordan's descriptions of Michael's genitals were inaccurate, and now it's being said they were!? This And Jordan never claimed that Mike was circumcised? So what's the truth??These statements come directly from the senior officials who led the case at the time.

But by the way wow how great rare stuff’s in this quality

Shana is such a b…
Click to expand...
They officials lied. And you know this.

Jordan did say he was circumsized.

Even dan reed admitted it

And I happen to know that there is ironclad evidence that the "liden report" mentioned on the smoking gun article was real and it quoted directly from that report The right people have the evidence.

These crooked cops can lie all they want. They are digging themselves into a hole.
 
etoile 37 said:
The first one is okay. The second one is all tabloid BS, but there is some new footage of Michael with his kids, which is the only thing worth watching in it. Nothing interesting in the third one.


Of course the description was not accurate, the only thing they ever said that was approximately in the same area was one spot. Notice how they just conveniently never mention circumcision or the other spots that didn't match? In Chandler's book, he says that Jordan described "numerous distinctive markings and discolorations on Michael’s privates". So how come only one spot matched? Can we talk about the numerous spots that didn't match?
Click to expand...
The footage of the kids has already been stripped is available on several fan pages, so theres no need to watch this trash to see it.
 
etoile 37 said:
The first one is okay. The second one is all tabloid BS, but there is some new footage of Michael with his kids, which is the only thing worth watching in it. Nothing interesting in the third one.


Of course the description was not accurate, the only thing they ever said that was approximately in the same area was one spot. Notice how they just conveniently never mention circumcision or the other spots that didn't match? In Chandler's book, he says that Jordan described "numerous distinctive markings and discolorations on Michael’s privates". So how come only one spot matched? Can we talk about the numerous spots that didn't match?
Click to expand...
Its so dumb because common sense says MJ had spots down there if he had vitiligo. The fact that they pretend like that was some top secret info is insane. Also Evan saw MJs butt and knew there were spots on them and lo and behold jordan said it too, cause Evan coached him.
 
etoile 37 said:
The first one is okay. The second one is all tabloid BS, but there is some new footage of Michael with his kids, which is the only thing worth watching in it. Nothing interesting in the third one.


Of course the description was not accurate, the only thing they ever said that was approximately in the same area was one spot. Notice how they just conveniently never mention circumcision or the other spots that didn't match? In Chandler's book, he says that Jordan described "numerous distinctive markings and discolorations on Michael’s privates". So how come only one spot matched? Can we talk about the numerous spots that didn't match?
Click to expand...
thats a good point no one brings up. can you cite the page from chandlers book?
 
etoile 37 said:
The first one is okay. The second one is all tabloid BS, but there is some new footage of Michael with his kids, which is the only thing worth watching in it. Nothing interesting in the third one.

Of course the description was not accurate, the only thing they ever said that was approximately in the same area was one spot. Notice how they just conveniently never mention circumcision or the other spots that didn't match? In Chandler's book, he says that Jordan described "numerous distinctive markings and discolorations on Michael’s privates". So how come only one spot matched? Can we talk about the numerous spots that didn't match?
Click to expand...

So this new 3 episode series says that Jordan never claimed MJ was circumcised? Is that correct? I mean if they are saying that in the program with no evidence then its really shitty of BBC to include it as they are re-writing history and the evidence to their own liking to suit their narrative, but I guess we should not be surprised.

And probably because they know they can get away with saying anything? There is also the possibility of people believing MJ was guilty and therefore have a motive to lie and take evidence out of context etc without feeling bad about it. On the opposite they would feel good about doing it as they think they are exposing a child molester!
 
etoile 37 said:
They say that the photos matched, and they don't mention circumcision at all, precisely because it didn't match.
Click to expand...
Its so silly, the photos did "match" but they call Catherine to the grand juries and ask if MJ could have had cosmetic surgery on his genitals. Meaning it did not match. And they did not even introduce it as evidence before the grand jury in 1994. And then they sit today and pretend it was bomb shell evidence etc, its just very tiring!

How they claim it was a match when they did not even bother to use it in court? If people just used common sense they would see right through it!
 
Last edited:
I went through every document and statement about whether the photos "match". There is a claim by Sneddon and the people he hired that they do, but if you actually read what's written it's constructed as "good enough," meaning Jordan said there was a splotch but his description of the splotch itself was wrong. This makes sense when you think about it, because Evan knew about Michael's vitiligo and coached Jordan prior to this. The fact he could not give a nuanced description and what he did give was an incorrect map is also supported by Katherine being subpoenaed to ask about the possibility of plastic surgery on the genitalia. It is common practice for religious nuts like Katherine to have their children circumcized, so it seems especially strange they would try to frame it this way. Clearly, if Jordan had identified the nature of Michael's genitals correctly, then Michael's team would have adjusted to something like "Jordan walked in on him in the bathroom" or something to that effect. But that did not happen because there was never any worry of that.

Also lol, Jordan bragged in college that nothing ever happened. Those friends have given interviews, which should tell you all you need to know. Michael was innocent and this is the biggest distraction from the Epstein class out there.
 
etoile 37 said:
The first one is okay. The second one is all tabloid BS, but there is some new footage of Michael with his kids, which is the only thing worth watching in it. Nothing interesting in the third one.


Of course the description was not accurate, the only thing they ever said that was approximately in the same area was one spot. Notice how they just conveniently never mention circumcision or the other spots that didn't match? In Chandler's book, he says that Jordan described "numerous distinctive markings and discolorations on Michael’s privates". So how come only one spot matched? Can we talk about the numerous spots that didn't match?
Click to expand...
But does it say he is guilty afterall?

The series will be shown in mainstream German tv tomorrow.
 
MsAshley said:
I went through every document and statement about whether the photos "match". There is a claim by Sneddon and the people he hired that they do, but if you actually read what's written it's constructed as "good enough," meaning Jordan said there was a splotch but his description of the splotch itself was wrong. This makes sense when you think about it, because Evan knew about Michael's vitiligo and coached Jordan prior to this. The fact he could not give a nuanced description and what he did give was an incorrect map is also supported by Katherine being subpoenaed to ask about the possibility of plastic surgery on the genitalia. It is common practice for religious nuts like Katherine to have their children circumcized, so it seems especially strange they would try to frame it this way. Clearly, if Jordan had identified the nature of Michael's genitals correctly, then Michael's team would have adjusted to something like "Jordan walked in on him in the bathroom" or something to that effect. But that did not happen because there was never any worry of that.

Also lol, Jordan bragged in college that nothing ever happened. Those friends have given interviews, which should tell you all you need to know. Michael was innocent and this is the biggest distraction from the Epstein class out there.
Click to expand...
I finally agree with you about something.

Funny that.
 
Glanni said:
where???
Click to expand...
ZDF Mediathek I think. They just call it differently. Der Jahrhundert Prozess or so

If I am not mistaken. So I want to know: Does the docu want that people think MJ is guilty?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top