Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

Reed said he would do a sequel if Gavin and Jordy were willing to do one. If he stated he is doing one for sure I’d like someone to post it here so I can Here it out of his fat mouth. Dan Reed thinks he is taking MJ down and this is his shining moment lol funny stuff only in the movies dose this shit happen. I mean come on
this is comical.
 
MJ brought it on himself. The estate will not be able to refute what they have alleged. Even in 2005 Mer could not refute the sexual stuff he just attacked the credibility of the accusers. Even after 1993 happened mj kept surrounding himself with kids. Omar Bhatti. Why did he have him around for God knows how long. Why? There was always a boy around always. How the estate is going to refute that? Frank Casico once claimed he used to sleep in mj's bed and they would speak about sex with women. Like seriously, why would a man get teenagers to lay in his bed and speak about sex with women with them. How the estate will address all of that?

Didn't the Estate refuted the allegations when they won the case against WR and JS !
What more to do ?
 
Smooth72;4246656 said:
Reed said he would do a sequel if Gavin and Jordy were willing to do one. If he stated he is doing one for sure I’d like someone to post it here so I can Here it out of his fat mouth. Dan Reed thinks he is taking MJ down and this is his shining moment lol funny stuff only in the movies dose this shit happen. I mean come on
this is comical.

Surely Chandler can't speak about it.
No doubt the Arvizos would be interested though.
 
Tbh i was dreading this documentary airing in the UK considering the UK Media's relationship with MJ. Most people after following it on twitter seem to think it's a load of crap, i do feel kinda relieved. One thing that's amsuing though is the amount of people who are suddenly expert child psychologists.
 
In the clip where Safechuck shows off his ring collection he looks to me as if he doesn't believe what he is saying himself. But goes through with it anyway. There is this embarrassed smirk on his face. But I read it not as shame but rather as if he cannot believe he is spewing these ridiculous stories but is in this mess too deep already so he goes through with it. They do not even remotely look credible to me.
That the part most people smelled BS on that "ring" espisole.
 
Most people in Uk online seem to think this documentary is total Bollo*** ! And that’s saying something given the onslaught of negative media hype and the nature of the crimes.

This documentary has not been the bomb Dan agreed expected it to be
 
Tbh i was dreading this documentary airing in the UK considering the UK Media's relationship with MJ. Most people after following it on twitter seem to think it's a load of crap, i do feel kinda relieved. One thing that's amsuing though is the amount of people who are suddenly expert child psychologists.
That happen during the trial as well. These are GROWN MEN still defending MJ so those psychologists can go hide and quick trying to get pay checks.
 
Who is this Omar? I’m not as up to speed on absolutely everything as most here are.
 
AG5050;4246679 said:
Who is this Omar? I’m not as up to speed on absolutely everything as most here are.

Same here. Heard of the name but that's about it. I do recall not seeing any support tweets from him, while we did get them from Mac, Brett etc.
 
Has Emmanuel Lewis commented on any of this ?(asking just out of curiosity )

Edit- Think I found his twitter which is using an endearing pic as a profile picture.
eqrxvkr9_400x400.jpg
(Taj follows the account) Again, Mr Lewis. another fantastic true friend. Michael truly had very few :(

https://twitter.com/thereal_elewis?lang=en&lang=en&lang=en

:)
 
Last edited:
Does anyone else feel like the massive build up and media coverage actually made the documentary less impactful. Everything they said and accused was already printed in numerous articles beforehand so there wasn’t really any real shock factor for me hearing them say it.
I was worried that watching it may cause me to begin to doubt as some others on here. I expected tears and really emotional testimony. I didn’t get that at all if anything their testimony’s felt flat, stale and rehearsed. The only time what they were saying seemed really genuine and motive was when they talked about meeting Michael and first going to Neverland etc, which of course were genuine experiences for them!
 
serendipity;4246682 said:
Please don't post stuff like this without providing a source. Where did you get this from?
News outlets are reporting he has expressed an interest in doing a sequel with Jordan and Gavin if either/both were to come forward.
That’s a big if, there is nothing to indicate this Is actually happening, way too soon for anyone to panic or get upset over this.
 
I wonder how Prince and Paris will navigate the fake Hollywood industry circles, knowing what they know now about whose side they are on.
 
Chandler is bound by the settlement he cannot speak with the media nor participate in any documentary.

That is 100% for sure? I do know he was allowed to have a criminal trial but didn't. So if Reed were to approach him, he could only say no I'm not allowed? And what if he does?

MJ brought it on himself. The estate will not be able to refute what they have alleged. Even in 2005 Mer could not refute the sexual stuff he just attacked the credibility of the accusers. Even after 1993 happened mj kept surrounding himself with kids. Omar Bhatti. Why did he have him around for God knows how long. Why? There was always a boy around always. How the estate is going to refute that? Frank Casico once claimed he used to sleep in mj's bed and they would speak about sex with women. Like seriously, why would a man get teenagers to lay in his bed and speak about sex with women with them. How the estate will address all of that?

It's not a crime to have buddies come along with you on travels because that's what they were to Michael, buddies, friends who he could trust. Sure it's unusual for a grown man to do it but it's not a crime and in no way do I believe it was sexual for him or because he was interested in boys the wrong way. Also he has had girls and their families with him. But I agree, when it comes to those things he did make himself a target and he was out of touch with those things.

Did Frank Cascio really claim that? Michael didn't seem like the person to do that, he appeared rather shy and held back when it came to discussing sexual matters. And who was it again that said Michael didn't like it one bit when someone put on a adult film? What sexual stuff are you referring to or was that what you meant?
 
They should ask Judges why they didn't believe WR and JS.
Wait why they will ask them, they knows better than them.

the difficult thing in this is that the judges did not judge the case wade and james, you say that they did not believe them but that is not correct. If you read the legal documentation in it, it states that this case could not be accepted for trial because many years had passed and the crimes expired in a few years so it was too late to sue and also the main reason was because it was concluded that the companies michael jackson can not be responsible for the crimes committed by michael jackson, for all this the case is dismissed
 
L.T.D;4246608 said:
Does anyone have the evidence that Chandlers description didnt match? Or is there actual evidence to say it did match. People keep sending me this vanity fair article of 10 undeniable facts and it's hard to fight against.

Its basically them saying the description did match, and me saying it didnt without any concrete to back it up.

It does not exist, or its never been accessed by anyone publicly at least.

Tom Meseareau was on King Jordan Radio and was asked about the 1993 case. Meseareau claimed he had dissected the 1993 allegations and everything about IN DETAIL. As you know he had to defend claims MJ molested Barnes, Culkin and Robson, so he had to dig through it all. He read the book "Michael Jackson was my lover" and everything he could find and also all the legal documents.

Then a caller asked him about the body search photos and the fact that to this day there are conflicting stories about it.

Meseareau responded that to get an answer they needed to ask the people in charge of that body search on Jacksons side as well as the procecution.

I was shocked! Meseareau did say that he was ready to defend that part of the story had the chandler come in to testify, but that does not mean Meseareau had witnessed any documents or conclusions about it!

Did you notice in the Leaving Neverland thread where I spent 3 pages discussing with people how to find RESOURCES that proof IT WAS NOT A MATCH - besides that the autopsy proves MJ was not circumcised.

We all know it did not match because Jordys lawyer Feldman barred it from evidence in the civil case and Sneddon did not use it during the Grand Jurys in Los Angeles and Santa Barbara in 1994. He did not use in 2005 either despite filing a motion saying it was match with nothing to back it up.

But the question remains, WHY ARE THERE POLICE/FORENSIC REPORT DOCUMENTING the findings and concluding they could not use it as evidence?
---
The best info:

Did Jordan Chandler’s description of Michael Jackson’s penis match the photographs taken of the star’s genitalia by the police?

https://themichaeljacksonallegation...s-taken-of-the-stars-genitalia-by-the-police/
 
Speed_Demon87;4246584 said:
Corey Feldman; I can no longer defend Michael Jackson.

He’s just did an interview and posted on Twitter that this is one of the hardest things he’s had to do.

Thats kind of a misleading title. Corey Feldman still emphatically says that Michael Jackson never abused him, but wants to refrain from calling Robson and Safechuck liars on the marginal outside chance that they're telling the truth.
 
Lovepeace1;4246690 said:
the difficult thing in this is that the judges did not judge the case wade and james, you say that they did not believe them but that is not correct. If you read the legal documentation in it, it states that this case could not be accepted for trial because many years had passed and the crimes expired in a few years so it was too late to sue and also the main reason was because it was concluded that the companies michael jackson can not be responsible for the crimes committed by michael jackson, for all this the case is dismissed
I’m not sure why I keep seeing people say they were dismissed because they were not true. I was also under the impression that it was because too much time had passed.
It’s really important that we don’t spread mis-information as that makes us just as bad as those we believe are lying.
 
Yes, this is sure.in the agreement it say it , so Jordan chandler can not talk about michael in any documentary. if he does the estate can take him to civil arbitration and lose the agreement money
 
Here’s Charles Facebook post... posting again


**FACT-BOMB: The evidence the media refuses to show you about Michael Jackson’s accusers**

I’ve felt total and utter shame at my industry as the coverage of tonight’s Michael Jackson TV show has grown increasingly dishonest and dangerous. I’ve worked in the media since I was a teenager. The whole media knows these two men are liars. But that’s not good for clicks or ratings.

For five years, these men – both professional actors – have been suing Michael Jackson’s estate for hundreds of millions of dollars. This lawsuit has generated thousands of pages of court records: witness statements, motions, depositions and disclosure. These public documents PROVE beyond any reasonable doubt that the men are lying. The whole media knows about these documents, but is refusing to report on their contents.

I’ve tried not to fill my Facebook feed with posts about this, but you are all being lied to from every direction. So this is my contribution to the debate on Facebook – a list of just some of the public record information the media is refusing to tell you.

*Both men strenuously defended Jackson, including under oath, for decades, and only decided they’d been molested years after his death, when they were both in financial trouble and filed a lawsuit seeking hundreds of millions of dollars. That lawsuit was thrown out of court – twice – but the men are in the middle of an appeal, giving them a gigantic financial motive to lie.

*Since filing their lawsuit, both men have repeatedly changed their stories, frequently telling directly contradictory versions of the same supposed events. For example, Wade Robson has told at least four directly contradictory stories about the first time Jackson supposedly abused him.

*In the lawsuit, Robson was caught lying under oath so brazenly that the judge threw out his entire witness statement and said no rational juror could ever believe his account.

*Between 2012 and 2014, Robson wrote two drafts of an abuse memoir and tried unsuccessfully to sell them to publishers. Meanwhile, he lied under oath and said he’d never discussed his allegations with anyone except his lawyers. When the Jackson estate discovered he’d actually been shopping books, the court ordered him to produce the drafts as evidence. They revealed the story of his abuse had changed significantly from one draft to the next.

*Robson was also ordered to release his emails as evidence. He breached the order repeatedly, first by claiming they didn’t exist, then by simply refusing to hand them over. Then he redacted all the emails between himself and his family members and cited ‘attorney-client’ privilege, even though none of his family are attorneys.

*When he eventually complied with the court order and released the emails, they revealed that at the time he was constructing his lawsuit and abuse memoir, he was researching and emailing himself links to old tabloid newspaper stories about abuse allegations against Michael Jackson.

*The emails showed Robson found one particular story from the early 1990s which specifically named he and his mother. He emailed it to his mother and asked whether it was true. She replied, ‘Wow, none of that is true’. He then included it in his story anyway.

*Emails also revealed that throughout 2011/12, Robson was lobbying Jackson’s estate for a job directing and choreographing an official Michael Jackson tribute show in Las Vegas. His campaign to secure this role had included sending emails explaining that his amazing friendship with Jackson meant nobody was better qualified for the role than he was, and he was devoted to doing the best job he possibly could ‘for Michael’. After being told someone else had got the job, he suddenly claimed he’d been abused and filed a creditor’s claim against the estate for millions of dollars.

*Months later, according to Jimmy Safechuck, he flipped on the TV and saw Wade Robson being interviewed about his lawsuit. In that moment, Safechuck suddenly remembered that he had been abused by Jackson as well, so decided to join the lawsuit. He didn’t mention that this epiphany coincided exactly with his inheritance circling the drain after a relative died and the surviving siblings started suing each other – including him – for control of the family business.

*Robson was also ordered to produce his diaries as evidence. In them, he’d written about how these allegations might rescue his failing career by making him ‘relatable and relevant’. He also wrote, ‘It’s time for me to get mine.’ When questioned under oath about what he’d meant when he wrote that, he refused to answer.

*Both men tell stories in the TV show which directly contradict stories told under oath in their lawsuit. In fact, they have continued to change their stories as recently as within the last week.

*For example, Jimmy Safechuck claims under oath in the lawsuit that he only remembered Jackson had abused him in 2013 when he turned on the TV and saw Robson. Yet in tonight’s TV show and interviews promoting it, he claims he knew he’d been abused in 2005 and thus, when asked to testify for Jackson’s defence ‘towards the end of the trial’, he refused to do so.

*But that’s a provable lie. Safechuck was never asked to testify for Jackson’s defence. The judge ruled long before the trial began that testimony could only be heard about certain children, and Safechuck was not one of them. All testimony about Safechuck was literally banned from the courtroom. So Jackson’s defence cannot have asked him to testify – and certainly not after the trial was already underway.

*Robson claimed in a BBC interview last week that Jackson had abused him ‘hundreds of times’. Yet his mother’s sworn testimony is that they went to Neverland roughly 14 times but Jackson was almost never there. She estimates the number of times they visited the ranch and he was actually there was four.

*Questioned about their financial motive, the men now say they don’t care about money and are only suing to embolden other abuse victims by holding the Jackson estate accountable. This is a provable lie. The lawsuit was originally filed under seal and Robson tried to extract a settlement from the estate with zero publicity. Only when the estate refused to pay a bean did he go public.

I could continue, but if you’re still on board with the TV show and its accusers at this point, you are irrational to the point of mania.

Tonight’s TV show covers up all of this information, instead presenting two professional actors’ heavily edited and completely unchallenged testimony without ever examining their credibility, their proven lies and perjury, their constantly changing stories or their financial motives.

It is a stain on the journalistic profession, as has been the rest of the media’s coverage.
 
After many bad and hateful videos who were uploaded today with the name Michael Jackson in it (I really won't see) and not great reactions in the commentsections ( I can't answer at the moment without YouTube account)....

This video from the Michael Jackson Inncent project liftet me up:


Glad to know that this channel owner who is not an MJ Fan is still on ouer sight after seeing the mokementary!

Sorry the framing will not work!
 
Last edited:
Has Emmanuel Lewis commented on any of this ?(asking just out of curiosity )
Yes he has, tweeted in support of Michael in the run-up to the airing of the documentary, and has been retweeting positive stuff about MJ.
 
I’m not quite sure what this part (below) refers to:

*In the lawsuit, Robson was caught lying under oath so brazenly that the judge threw out his entire witness statement and said no rational juror could ever believe his account.


I think Wades nonsense about not knowing about MJs Estate? But grateful for confirmation?
 
MJ brought it on himself. The estate will not be able to refute what they have alleged. Even in 2005 Mer could not refute the sexual stuff he just attacked the credibility of the accusers. Even after 1993 happened mj kept surrounding himself with kids. Omar Bhatti. Why did he have him around for God knows how long. Why? There was always a boy around always. How the estate is going to refute that? Frank Casico once claimed he used to sleep in mj's bed and they would speak about sex with women. Like seriously, why would a man get teenagers to lay in his bed and speak about sex with women with them. How the estate will address all of that?

Maybe Frank Cascio initiated that conversation?!! Are we going to put all of Michael's actions under the microscope now?
 
Back
Top