Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

Soundmind · Mar 4, 2019

I am telling u a rebuttal will kill them.

ILoveHIStory · Mar 4, 2019

Korgnex · Mar 4, 2019

What "wonderful" times we are leaving in, right? A notorious liar and violator of the constitution being the US Americans' President, the media frenzy at their height of unverified bogus stories everyday, the infamy of people who are too bugged to live a righteous life, instead seduced by the profit of ratings / fast deals / attention.

It's interesting how biased the so-called "critics" are with sensationalized crap like Dan Reed chose to deliver - going the same route of evil as Martin Bashir who preferred ratings through shady remarks and manipulative editing over actual documental work - that cannot even remotely be compared to the true work of investigative journalists such as Bob Woodward.

As you can see, Michael Jackson is being lynched in the court of public opinion - as it has ever been popular since the first bogus allegations. In the USA and other countries there are CURRENTLY no laws that would stop the (malicious) exploitation of popular figures in death by defamation / slander / libel...

... HOWEVER(!) even in the USA there are laws that protect the immediate family.

Before explaining the legal situation in the USA:
In Germany the defamation of dead people CAN be sanctioned by court since it is defined as a criminal act [named "Verunglimpfung des Andenkens Verstorbener", literally translated as "defamation of the memory of deceased people"] which according to German sections of the law §§189, 194 (2), 77 (2) StGB can be excercised by the dead person's relatives as defined by the law. However it depends whether the public's interest (and as such the freedom of the press which opens the door for con artists, unfortunately) or the relatives' interest is bigger. With unproven serious allegations by defacto proven liars (via publicly available court documents) the family's interest might weight more. It would have to be determined by a court.

AND IN THE USA:
First, the good news: In the USA the defamation of dead people CAN also result in penalties.
And now to the bad news: Since the USA have different state laws in each state, you must look at them individually.

In general, even in the USA, deceased people, especially public figures such as Michael Jackson may still enjoy a "right of publicity" that survives death. For a good example, one that is VERY relevant to the complaints about the unfair treatment regarding Michael Jackson, there was a recent letter from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference which was founded by Martin Luther King, Jr., that gave a little insight in the core of the issue here: they found the unproven allegations "incongruent with the principles of justice and reconciliation". And guess what? The SCLC is preserving the image and legacy of its founder Martin Luther King, Jr., a deceased human being that has also been a public figure.

Then there's the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center which has been found - via court - to have a right to protect Martin Luther King's image.

In short: the Michael Jackson Estate as Michael Jackson's legal successor can excersise these very same rights!
(for Michael's immediate family read further below)

NOW IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT each US state HANDLES THIS DIFFERENTLY!!!

In those US states where defamation claims do NOT terminate upon death (and therefore cannot apply to an estate or heirs), you have to do the following:
(Example: Texas Civil Practice Code 71.021 states: "A cause of action for personal injury to the health, reputation, or person of an injured person does not abate because of the death of the injured person")

1) file a defamation suit
2) prove that a statement was made with the actual intent to harm the public figure [= Michael Jackson] (eg it was NOT an honest mistake)

You can prove "actual malice" if the person [= Dan Reed / Wade Robson / James Safechuck] who made such a statement knew that this statement was not true at the time they made it OR if they had reckless disregard for if it was true or not.

The US Supreme Court case of New York Times v Sullivan from 1964 has established that:
- it is necessary for a claimant/plaintiff to prove actual malice
- if it can, press reports about public figures - such as Michael Jackson - then qualify as libellous
- and VERY IMPORTANTLY: the burden of proof rests more on the defendant (= Dan Reed / Wade Robson / James Safechuck) who has to prove that what they made public was true (rather than the claimant having to prove it was false)

Also of note:
- Any media could argument that they reasonably believed their publication to have been in the public interest.
- you can counter this by showing that what they stated/published has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to your (or the deceased person's) reputation
- a court can then infer from the seriousness of the allegations

There are a very few exceptions - where you cannot be sued (="privileges"), let's look at them:
There is eg the act of testifying at trial. NOT the case here.

Now precisely to US Californian law and regarding the "documentary":
Anyone has the right to
- make a "fair and true report"
- in a public journal (also via communication)
- of (A) a judicial, (B) legislative, or (C) other public official proceeding
- or (D) of anything said in the course thereof
- or (E) of a verified charge or complaint made by any person to a public official
- upon which complaint a warrant has been issued.

Well, NOT the case concerning the "documentary" since it wasn't about their lawsuits (of course it's a result of them being dismissed, though), it was an "independent" story of these two liars.

But this US Californian "privilege" has extended to
- fair and true reports of public meetings
- IF it was for the public benefit.

Well, how do you define a "fair and true report"?
You need to capture the substance, gist, or sting of the proceeding. The report need not track verbatim the underlying proceeding, but should not deviate so far as to produce a different effect on the reader/viewer.

Well, isn't Dan Reed deliberately creating quite a different effect on his audience by selling a "survival story of alleged victims" when he doesn't even look at their real life issues such as Robson's mental breakdowns - that are again in the public space - and how their stories came to be? I'd argue the public could benefit from the truth, though Reed's earnings probably could not.

Please note that a study by the US Media Law Resource Centre had concluded that media defendants in the USA such as HBO usually prevail on appeal, thus paying no damages in 55.8% of cases.

Regarding Michael's immediate family:
Please note that the Michael Jackson Estate does not replace the immediate family's rights since Michael Jackson's family, especially his three children as heirs, are also affected by the bogus allegations and therefore could sue for defamation of their deceased father.

Michael Jackson was a resident of California. Now let's take a look at California Civil Code, section 3344.1
"Any person who uses a deceased personality's name , voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods, or services, without prior consent from the person or persons specified in subdivision (c), shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof."

IN GENERAL, for a first summary
Yes, you can - also in the USA - file a defamation claim, even for a deceased person.
Both the Michael Jackson Estate and Michael's immediate family could properly set up such lawsuits.

It is not that easy to prove malice, HOWEVER(!) with the well documented lies by the two persons in the documentary - available via publicly(!!!) viewable documents that are the result of court cases - and with an dishonest director named Dan Reed himself portraying as an investigative journalist with years of experience etc., yet knowingly breaking basic principles of close examination and clearly understanding how to build up a story that sells to networks and the media, there's potential for a seminal US Supreme Court verdict in favor of Michael Jackson's innocence.

Staffordshire Bullterrier · Mar 4, 2019

ManBehindTheMirrOr - Dona said:
Little one was the name for wade right?
I think MJ wrote this fax during the bad times after his fathers death to make him feel better that he can sleep at night.

How evil to use this against him!!!

Its bad that the faxes have no dates on it to bring them in a time context!

Is that for sure? Because even for Wade that would probably be a new low, to use something that was more or less about his father's death.

Either way, that's it? That's ****ing it??? These are the so called love letters? I guess if you really try hard you can make it look odd, with the right way of tricking people, which I'm sure Dan Reed did his best for on this mockumentary.

This is their evidence then? LMFAO!

ManBehindTheMirrOr - Dona · Mar 4, 2019

WildStyle said:
Forgive me, but just got to the MJ showing Wade porn section. Sorry to be graphic, but apparently a grown mans penis in his mouth was ok and something he "looked forward to" when visiting with Michael again after being away in Australia. But later when he got back and MJ started showing him porn (a "new thing" straight from the Arvizo trial)... that wasn't ok. That wasn't so fun. And he still looks so troubled by it. Ok, Wade.

Remember that Wade choosed a few months later after this disturbing oral expirinces with MJ to dance after MJ singing "The way you make me feel..." What is absolutly strange for a child abuse victim after such an expirinces, i guess.

I mean he could have chossed every other dancesong from every other artist and every other MJ song as well... but it had to be the way you make me feel?
Come on!!

Staffordshire Bullterrier · Mar 4, 2019

WildStyle said:
Forgive me, but just got to the MJ showing Wade porn section. Sorry to be graphic, but apparently a grown mans penis in his mouth was ok and something he "looked forward to" when visiting with Michael again after being away in Australia. But later when he got back and MJ started showing him porn (a "new thing" straight from the Arvizo trial)... that wasn't ok. That wasn't so fun. And he still looks so troubled by it. Ok, Wade.

Excuse me? So Wade claims he had to perform oral sex on him and that was all fine, but then to be shown porn material and he was disgusted by it? Did he actually say he looked forward to that? How are there even still people that don't see through this?

Carmour260 · Mar 4, 2019

Good morning guys from the USA, Atlanta, GA. After everything that went on last night, I still believe God is on Michael’s side, but at the same time, I’m outraged that this is still happening. I will blast Michael’s music in my car today!

Keep fighting guys, this is only round one

Andymachine · Mar 4, 2019

Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
Excuse me? So Wade claims he had to perform oral sex on him and that was all fine, but then to be shown porn material and he was disgusted by it? Did he actually say he looked forward to that? How are there even still people that don't see through this?

I think the spin they are trying to take in this so called documentary is that the boys were in " love " with MJ and it was like a reciprocated relationship.

WildStyle · Mar 4, 2019

Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
Excuse me? So Wade claims he had to perform oral sex on him and that was all fine, but then to be shown porn material and he was disgusted by it? Did he actually say he looked forward to that? How are there even still people that don't see through this?

From the sequencing of the film, that is how it comes across. Anyway.... on to part 2.

Staffordshire Bullterrier · Mar 4, 2019

WildStyle said:
From the sequencing of the film, that is how it comes across. Anyway.... on to part 2.

You guys all watching via the leaked one? So HB HO doesn't get a single hit/view? That is great.

Proud of ya'll watching this, I just can't.

La74 · Mar 4, 2019

Korgnex;4245069 said:
What "wonderful" times we are leaving in, right? A notorious liar and violator of the constitution being the US Americans' President, the media frenzy at their height of unverified bogus stories everyday, the infamy of people who are too bugged to live a righteous life, instead seduced by the profit of ratings / fast deals / attention.

It's interesting how biased the so-called "critics" are with sensationalized crap like Dan Reed chose to deliver - going the same route of evil as Martin Bashir who preferred ratings through shady remarks and manipulative editing over actual documental work - that cannot even remotely be compared to the true work of investigative journalists such as Bob Woodward.

As you can see, Michael Jackson is being lynched in the court of public opinion - as it has ever been popular since the first bogus allegations. In the USA and other countries there are CURRENTLY no laws that would stop the (malicious) exploitation of popular figures in death by defamation / slander / libel...

... HOWEVER(!) even in the USA owever there are laws that protect the immediate family.

Before explaining the legal situation in the USA:
In Germany the defamation of dead people CAN be sanctioned by court since it is defined as a criminal act [named "Verunglimpfung des Andenkens Verstorbener", literally translated as "defamation of the memory of deceased people"] which according to German sections of the law §§189, 194 (2), 77 (2) StGB can be excercised by the dead person's relatives as defined by the law. However it depends whether the public's interest (and as such the freedom of the press which opens the door for con artists, unfortunately) or the relatives' interest is bigger. With unproven serious allegations by defacto proven liars (via publicly available court documents) the family's interest might weight more. It would have to be determined by a court.

AND IN THE USA:
First, the good news: In the USA the defamation of dead people CAN also result in penalties.
And now to the bad news: Since the USA have different state laws in each state, you must look at them individually.

In general, even in the USA, deceased people, especially public figures such as Michael Jackson may still enjoy a "right of publicity" that survives death. For a good example, one that is VERY relevant to the complaints about the unfair treatment regarding Michael Jackson, there was a recent letter from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference which was founded by Martin Luther King, Jr., that gave a little insight in the core of the issue here: they found the unproven allegations "incongruent with the principles of justice and reconciliation". And guess what? The SCLC is preserving the image and legacy of its founder Martin Luther King, Jr., a deceased human being that has also been a public figure.

Then there's the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center which has been found - via court - to have a right to protect Martin Luther King's image.

In short: the Michael Jackson Estate als Michael Jackson's legal successor can excersise these very same rights!
(for Michael's immediate family read further below)

NOW IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT each US state HANDLES THIS DIFFERENTLY!!!

In those US states where defamation claims do NOT terminate upon death (and therefore cannot apply to an estate or heirs), you have to do the following:
(Example: Texas Civil Practice Code 71.021 states: "A cause of action for personal injury to the health, reputation, or person of an injured person does not abate because of the death of the injured person")

1) file a defamation suit
2) prove that a statement was made with the actual intent to harm the public figure [= Michael Jackson] (eg it was NOT an honest mistake)

You can prove "actual malice" if the person [= Dan Reed / Wade Robson / James Safechuck] who made such a statement knew that this statement was not true at the time they made it OR if they had reckless disregard for if it was true or not.

The US Supreme Court case of New York Times v Sullivan from 1964 has established that:
- it is necessary for a claimant/plaintiff to prove actual malice
- if it can, press reports about public figures - such as Michael Jackson - then qualify as libellous
- and VERY IMPORTANTLY: the burden of proof rests more on the defendant (= Dan Reed / Wade Robson / James Safechuck) who has to prove that what they made public was true (rather than the claimant having to prove it was false)

Also of note:
- Any media could argument that they reasonably believed their publication to have been in the public interest.
- you can counter this by showing that what they stated/published has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to your (or the deceased person's) reputation
- a court can then infer from the seriousness of the allegations

Please note that a study by the US Media Law Resource Centre had concluded that media defendants in the USA such as HBO usually prevail on appeal, thus paying no damages in 55.8% of cases.

Regarding Michael's immediate family:
Please note that the Michael Jackson Estate does not replace the immediate family's rights since Michael Jackson's family, especially his three children as heirs, are also affected by the bogus allegations and therefore could sue for defamation of their deceased father.

Michael Jackson was a resident of California. Now let's take a look at California Civil Code, section 3344.1
"Any person who uses a deceased personality's name , voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods, or services, without prior consent from the person or persons specified in subdivision (c), shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof."

IN GENERAL, for a first summary
Yes, you can - also in the USA - file a defamation claim, even for a deceased person.
Both the Michael Jackson Estate and Michael's immediate family could properly set up such lawsuits.

It is not that easy to prove malice, HOWEVER(!) with the well documented lies by the two persons in the documentary - available via publicly(!!!) viewable documents that are the result of court cases - and with an dishonest director named Dan Reed himself portraying as an investigative journalist with years of experience etc., yet knowingly breaking basic principles of close examination and clearly understanding how to build up a story that sells to networks and the media, there's potential for a seminal US Supreme Court verdict in favor of Michael Jackson's innocence.

Good to know!

marc_vivien · Mar 4, 2019

more BS

https://twitter.com/i/status/1102549024639500288

Lightbringer · Mar 4, 2019

Okay. I am going to state now the most problematic part of this story. its not good, not good at all.

Its the fact that Wade & Safechuck claims all their lies were made because they loved Michael and wanted to protect him. Thats their explanation for all that happened after the abuse. And the film SELLS THAT EXTREMELY WELL. The entire 2nd half of the film is explaining that theory and its also the theory Dan Reed is going to details about in interviews etc.

So basicly what it comes down to is the following, did Robson & Safechuck copy the "man & boy love" stories från Victor Gutierrez FANTASY book "Michael Jackson Was my lover"? The book that were made based on Jordan Chandlers diarys THAT DID NOT EXIST.

Or are Robson and Safechuck telling the truth? Thats really what it comes down to. Because its very hard to attack Wade & Safechuck for all their lies, if they indeed lied to protect Michael.

Just watch the following clip and understand its not going to be an easy sell to doubters, its a very complex story which most people wont bother to study at all. But its very important for any Jackson fans to watch this video and be aware of the story!

I am convinced its all a hoax, but from the comments I can see people are falling for it and they cant be convinced to change their minds because the narrative of the boys being in love is so strong. (its an excellent video btw)

[video=youtube;qb5UVMwTC5g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb5UVMwTC5g&[/video]

Staffordshire Bullterrier · Mar 4, 2019

Someone earlier posted a video of a fan who was now on the fence and more steering towards the liars. I've noticed that he's liked all my comments with the facts and videos and he has liked all the other comments that are in favor of Michael. That is really nice to see.

This youtuber.
https://youtu.be/INq0k0zbqMk

WildStyle · Mar 4, 2019

At the start of part 2, Wade claims that there was a big sleepover in 1993 with him Mac and Jordan, and that Michael disappeared into the bathroom with Jordan to (in his belief) have sex.

This is the hardest they have ever come at Michael in the public forum. In my opinion, this is all finally going to come to a head in the coming months. I believe Michael will be vindicated and this mockumentary will be the set off point for it.

La74 · Mar 4, 2019

Lightbringer;4245079 said:
Okay. I am going to state now the most problematic part of this story. its not good, not good at all.

Its the fact that Wade & Safechuck claims all their lies were made because they loved Michael and wanted to protect him. Thats their explanation for all that happened after the abuse. And the film SELLS THAT EXTREMELY WELL. The entire 2nd half of the film is explaining that theory and its also the theory Dan Reed is going to details about in interviews etc.

So basicly what it comes down to is the following, did Robson & Safechuck copy the "man & boy love" stories från Victor Gutierrez FANTASY book "Michael Jackson Was my lover"? The book that were made based on Jordan Chandlers diarys THAT DID NOT EXIST.

Or are Robson and Safechuck telling the truth? Thats really what it comes down to. Because its very hard to attack Wade & Safechuck for all their lies, if they indeed lied to protect Michael.

Just watch the following clip and understand its not going to be an easy sell to doubters, its a very complex story which most people wont bother to study at all. But its very important for any Jackson fans to watch this video and be aware of the story!

I am convinced its all a hoax, but from the comments I can see people are falling for it and they cant be convinced to change their minds because the narrative of the boys being in love is so strong. (its an excellent video btw)

[video=youtube;qb5UVMwTC5g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb5UVMwTC5g&[/video]

But it was during a time then Wade was dating Brandi, Michael was married to Lisa Marie Presley and still investigated for the 93 case and they loved him so much that they are going to hurt his family beyond belief.

MJLife · Mar 4, 2019

Hey MJ Fam!

Longtime fan here and former member (just can't remember old login lol).

In any case, testing times has brought me back. Obviously not the best of circumstances. But taking solace in us weathering this storm together.

Just wanted to share a few observations:

As someone who has worked closely in media, I'm not at all surprised at how some outlets are approaching this. The salacious will always be more attractive than the truth. Whether that be clicks for a website or selling of newspapers. That agenda will always take top billing, regardless of whether the outlet even believes what they're propagating. Morally astounding as that is, it's just the way it is. And I've pretty much made peace with it, sadly.

From that lens though, the broadcast was always going to be a sh*tstorm. It's clear HBO have timed it in such a way to maximize press coverage in US and then the wave carries to UK where it airs slightly later in the week. And I really think this was deliberate. They could have aired it same/similar day everywhere, but it extends the "cancel MJ" narrative into a full week of mayhem.

Or so they thought.

I don't know, and I know we're not out of the woods just yet, but yesterday's broadcast honestly "feels" much more muted than they anticipated. Definitely no R. Kelly for sure. Sure, it trended. But a lot of "woke" folk are calling out the BS. I also noted next to no dialogue about it on my Instagram or Facebook feed, and where present was actually slamming it (and no, not even ardent MJ fans either). It's worth mentioning that my sample size is of course limited to my social and pop cultural make-up, which I can best summarize as being "black Twitter". Noteworthy because (and forgive the essay)...

"Black Twitter" effectively control the Pop cultural "cool" + conversation and thus the broader narrative. Not even to play the race game per se, but we needn't look further than the major pivot in the Jordyn Woods/Kardashian's scandal, the mass cancellation of R. Kelly, the #JanetJacksonAppreciationDay pivot during Justin's Halftime, and more broadly the hyper-spotlight now on the #BlackLivesMatter movement.

The importance of that here, IMO, is that they are largely Team MJ. Something we saw pre, during, and post the 2005 trial. I've seen many poke holes in Wade and co's case, stress the lack of empirical evidence, and generally subscribe to the mentality of "let Michael rest".

So hopefully that wave of consciousness carries. On top of that, I'm personally noticing a lot of the Urban outlets taking a similar stance (for example, Complex and a lot of the Black blogs). Note also how most celebs have been radio silent on the matter too?

There's still concern about some of the mainstream sites. For instance Variety, Deadline, and Billboard. All of whom seem keen to milk it. Pay attention to their wording. They are pushing a lot of the accusations as semi-veiled fact and when reporting on the Estate's efforts are using terms like "scrambling" etc. It's subtle but persuasive bias. They just shared a story about LN "going global" and being sold to worldwide 130 markets. They are actively promoting its diffusion. Notably all of those sites are owned by the same parent company. So it could very well come from the top. Again, all for clicks and views.

Moving forward, I'm really intrigued about a few things. The first, of course, being where the public opinion will eventually land (though, at worst, it feels like it'll be split rather than full-on anti-Michael). But mainly what the Estate's fight-back will be.

I know we can get frustrated with them, but the reality is that (putting all emotion about his legacy to one side) Michael is a billion dollar empire. One which pays the salaries, bonuses, and all in between of a lot of people (at his Estate and Sony). So I highly doubt there isn't a master plan. I guess I'm just anxious and kind of want to see it play out. Like mentioned above, they/we know the broadcast will be the worst part of this episode. After that, it has to be game time. They have to fight fire with fire. They have the means, both financially and in ways we probably couldn't comprehend. I get how it's a little tricky right now because of the climate we're in (#MeToo), so they can't be seen to outrightly incinerate Wade (as much as they're in their rights to) and have to make aspects of the fight look fan/grass-roots initiated. They also probably won't want to go too hard too soon because it may backfire and actually promote the doc the more. But whatever the plan, they need to go guns blazing at some point. And I hope/feel they will. They need to. For us, for them, for MJ.

Sorry for essay. Probably needed to get a lot of that off my chest and also hopefully share a little insights from my experience with the media.

Stay strong.

Staffordshire Bullterrier · Mar 4, 2019

WildStyle said:
At the start of part 2, Wade claims that there was a big sleepover in 1993 with him Mac and Jordan, and that Michael disappeared into the bathroom with Jordan to (in his belief) have sex.

This is the hardest they have ever come at Michael in the public forum. In my opinion, this is all finally going to come to a head in the coming months. I believe Michael will be vindicated and this mockumentary will be the set off point for it.

Because you think Wade is laying it on too thick there? That people will just go "yeah right" about that part?

Lightbringer · Mar 4, 2019

La74 said:
But it was during a time then Wade was dating Brandi, Michael was married to Lisa Marie Presley and still investigated for the 93 case.

Safechucks abuse started 1987, so he was before all of that pretty much. Wade will have a tougher case to present, thats correct. But the "man & boy" love story is still their strongest card, people are very convinced by that.

ILoveHIStory · Mar 4, 2019

Reconsidering Michael Jackson
How could a documentary change everything when a criminal trial changed nothing?
By MARY HARRIS

If you’re watching the Leaving Neverland documentary about Michael Jackson’s alleged child sexual abuse, you probably want to talk to someone about it: what it left out, what it wants to accomplish, and how it complicates our view of victimhood.

Guest: Slate senior writer Seth Stevenson.

Tell us what you think by leaving a review on Apple Podcasts or sending an email to whatnext@slate.com.

Follow us on Instagram for updates on the show.

Podcast production by Mary Wilson, Jayson De Leon, and Anna Martin

https://megaphone.link/SLT2297135840

... well... really?

Lightbringer · Mar 4, 2019

Norway official radio channels has banned Michael Jacksons music for 2 weeks to start with:

https://www.vg.no/rampelys/i/P3kRWX...cvqAgNUGigWxI1MY62_2qSm7I0tLnX9SI0oszxTku0g_M

Staffordshire Bullterrier · Mar 4, 2019

marc_vivien said:
more BS

https://twitter.com/i/status/1102549024639500288

Let me just go there and post some facts. Up till now I didn't bother with sources like that on Twitter but hey, what bad could it do? None.

La74 · Mar 4, 2019

Lightbringer said:
Safechucks abuse started 1987, so he was before all of that pretty much. Wade will have a tougher case to present, thats correct. But the "man & boy" love story is still their strongest card, people are very convinced by that.

Maybe but the thing is I have read reactions from several real victims who do see through it.

WildStyle · Mar 4, 2019

They show Michael's statement live from Neverland and then Safechuck talks about how Michael has been absent from his life and now all of a sudden he is back in it because he needs something from him (to testify). They then show a picture of him and his parents with Michael on the set of Ghosts, which appears to be the 1993 version. As we all know, that was before the allegations hit.

ManBehindTheMirrOr - Dona · Mar 4, 2019

Taj needs witnesses in his documentary who were around with MJ Wade and James and can discredit their storys!

aqwsz · Mar 4, 2019

Judging from the reviews on various film websites the race has been run. I'd say most of them are supportive of Robson and Safechuck. The only ones that aren't are clearly coming from fans. I personally won't see it as it will air the 4 hours straight in one go which is is exhaustive and repetitive. I'll have better things to do than waste my time from 8.30 till 12.30...
Let's see how European viewers rate the film...

I don't really understand the protect Michael narrative that is present in the film. Why would they want to protect Michael when they knew they were being abused? I'm curious about that angle as that is the part that most reviewers refer to as the part where they believed Robson and Safechuck. Why is that part so convincing?

La74 · Mar 4, 2019

I confess I am not well updated in Safechucks case because I thought it was so obviously fake but I have seen documents compering that it very similar to Victors book and he just changed the name to Jimmy. And all contradictions. Did he tell his mother in 2005 or 2013 and he did promowork for this is it in 2009 even though his mother danced then she heard Michael was dead. And again they loved him so much that they are doing this to his family.

aqwsz · Mar 4, 2019

Lightbringer said:
Norway official radio channels has banned Michael Jacksons music for 2 weeks to start with:

https://www.vg.no/rampelys/i/P3kRWX...cvqAgNUGigWxI1MY62_2qSm7I0tLnX9SI0oszxTku0g_M

Obviously we can't read the text. Why just 2 weeks ?

ManBehindTheMirrOr - Dona · Mar 4, 2019

La74 said:
I confess I am not well updated in Safechucks case because I thought it was so obviously fake but I have seen documents compering that it very similar to Victors book and he just changed the name to Jimmy.

Yeah... watch this video. There they explain everything very well:
https://youtu.be/qb5UVMwTC5g

Harun · Mar 4, 2019

That feeling when we get more rares in this documentary then what the estate has done for us in years lol

Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member

Proud Member