Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

Blondie

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2019
Messages
88
Points
0
Those tabloids linked with stories that there are 11 accusers are tabloids that make stuff up about all subjects and all people, they are not credible sources, I wouldn't believe it from them.
Also the thing saying he could be exhumed is highly likely to be complete bulls--- and clickbait. They don't even say what the point would be of getting the DNA. The only point in this is if they had smoking gun evidence like one of the boys underwear or clothes with what they claim to be MJs semen on it and they want to prove it was really his. Which I don't think would even be likely to still exist after all this time.

Yeah and a court would have to order a body to be exhumed as far as I'm aware, we're hardly on the cusp of that happening are we? lol
 

magic

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
294
Points
18
Location
Latvia
About this pic. I do think it is fake. Look at Shafechuck's hand. It seems odd and not comfortable for him to put on Michael's shoulder like that at all. Usually ppl hold it around the waist if they are so small. Also look at their hairlines as well. Hair is the most difficult to cut off. It looks blurred where the fair touched Michael.
D1CNzqkU4AAW1NF_1.jpg
 

gregson1

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
239
Points
18
Location
Göteborg
I've looked and searched but there was a great post either yesterday or the day before about the difference in Wades accounts from the first draft of his book, to the second draft of his book to his allegations when suing to his allegations now.. does anyone know the timeline or the post I am referring to?
 

Lightbringer

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
798
Points
18
AG5050;4246948 said:
UK tabloids are now reporting that allegedly 11 more victims have come forward claiming Michael abused them as children. Do we know any more about this, any truth or reliable sources?

This story broke the 6th february by radaronline and was TOTAL BULLSHIT.

The MJ Estate even sent a response to radaronline that they went public with, here it is:


February 7, 2019

Radar Online
American Media, Inc.
Attention: General Counsel
4 New York Plaza
New York, NY 10004
Fax: (212) 743-6590
E-Mail: DMCA@amilink.com
Re: Puported Radar Online Artice re “Exhumation of Michael Jackson”
Gentlepersons:

"We are counsel to the Co-Executors of the Estate of Michael J. Jackson, as well as
various wholly-owned entities which own intellectual property and other intangible rights
associated with the late Michael Jackson (collectively the “Estate” or the “Jackson Estate”).

The Estate asked me to alert you to the fact that your website, Radar Online, appears
to have fallen victim to a hack by online pranksters who are posting utterly ludicrous articles on it. In particular, we refer you to the “article” that appeared on your site at 9:30 a.m. on February 6, 2019, entitled Michael Jackson’s Body May Be Exhumed As 11 More Sex Assault Victims Come Forward.1

The only thing about the article that struck us as genuine—and not a
hack—was the fact that it was attributed to “Radar Staff.” No individual, of course, would
attach their personal name to such a trashy article full of obvious lies.

In the very unlikely event that this article was indeed a genuine article by “Radar
Online,” could you please ask your “source” when Mr. Jackson’s body will be exhumed? Asthe successors to Mr. Jackson’s legal interests, the Estate’s representatives were surprised no one told them about this unusual development. We see that the source is identified as “an insider”—can you let us know what asylum he is inside?

1 https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2019/02/michael-jackson-grave-ripped-fromcrypt-
sexual-assault-scandal-buried-proof/

Likewise, the article refers to an “army of shell-shocked victims” with “at least 11 new
victims who claim they were molested and even raped by Jackson.” We are shocked that the Santa Barbara District Attorney’s Office—which spent over a decade on a virtual jihad against Jackson trying to prove that he was a molester without success, because he was not—never found this “army of shell-shocked victims.” Perhaps your source—the “insider”— should start working for law enforcement and finding real child molesters.

The article continues that “Radar has also learned the FBI was accused of covering up
evidence that Jackson was a sex trafficker!” It continues that “Secret files obtained by Radarshow a journalist claimed in 1993 that a starstruck FBI official ‘did not pursue the allegations because Jackson was to receive an honor at the White House.’” The article states that Mr. Jackson was at one time being considered for prosecution under “the White Slave Traffic Act” yet “[d]espite the claims of witnesses who saw him smuggle a 12-year-old across America by train, the U.S. Attorney dropped the case.” These are shocking accusations of government misconduct indeed.

Of course, nothing in the article is true. The article is full of maliciously and provably
false statements. If you have fact-checkers—and, frankly, we find that hard to believe in light of this article—they should be fired on the spot. (We cannot offer you legal advice, but we believe you have good cause for terminating them.) The only “redeeming” thing we can say about your “fact checking” here is that the assertions in your article are so absurd that the article (perhaps) might not “reasonably be understood as describing actual facts.”
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 57 (1988).

In closing, it is not our usual practice to tell persons in other professions how to do
their jobs, but we will make an exception here. May we suggest that you try something
different in the future and talk to real, sane, and credible sources? If you had any modicum of credibility left, you would retract this ridiculous “article.” We hereby demand that you do so.

We understand that your business is failing, but perhaps it would be doing better if you
stopped publishing this ridiculous garbage.

One final point, and lest there be any doubt, nothing stated in this letter should be
construed to waive any of the Jackson Estate’s rights and remedies in connection with thisarticle—all such rights are expressly reserved."

Kindest regards,
Jonathan Steinsapir
cc: Howard Weitzman, Esq.
Bryan Freedman, Esq.
Jon Fine, Deputy General Counsel, American Media Inc.
10386.00347/620948
 

travis3000

Proud Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
260
Points
18
It's still not enough. Lawsuits take time. There really should have been a defence set up right from the start. Sorry but I think the damage has already been done.

You clearly haven't seen the recent charts ;) MJ is surging into the Best selling albums across the I-Tunes!
 

byyourside

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
10
Points
0
Grace brings up a very important information in her letter. Why would Wade want to have his wedding, his wedding held at Neverland back in 2005 if this place holds such horrifying memories. His story is just not believable to me. His explanation of not processing it as abuse makes absolutely no sense to me.
 

Ramona122003

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,447
Points
0
I said earlier I am on the fence, i haven't made an opinion on it yet. Unless the estate comes out with something really big about it then I'll always be on the fence. Let's be real. A grown man sharing his bed with children who aren't members of his family is bound to raise concerns, which it is, it doesn't matter if it is Michael Jackson or Charles Manson. None of us know what happened, we weren't there, but to publicly come out and say you share your bed with pre pubsent children? Come on. Obviously there is gonna be a backlash over it. I'm not naive. If Michael is indeed found guilty and solild evidence is presented people will still defend MJ.

So somehow Michael abused children, but no physical evidence was found despite his house being raided twice and the FBI looking in on him?

Michael sleeping in bed with children is irrelevant. It's an emotional argument, not one based on fact. These are the facts:

- Michael was looked into back in 93 and his house was raided and the FBI was involved. Despite two Grand juries, they couldn't find anything.
- He was accused again in 2003 and this went to trial, along with his house raided again by at least 70 polices. Still found nothing, not even a child porn magazine or questionable sites. Just porn magazines that you can buy at any store.
- At the end of the trial, they couldn't even get him on a misdemeanor.
- Serial pedo usually have dozen of abused kids, not just a handful. Especially if Michael was abusing kids as far back as the 80s with all his money and power. For example, just looked at the Subway guy.
- Pedo have a pattern, and Michael's keeps changing. Like we have Wade painting Michael as careless and raped him the first chance he got with people near the area who can catch him and let him go home with blood on his underwear vs Safechuck who he took his time with.
- Michael somehow knew that all his 'victims' wouldn't go to the police, but instead would try to sue him. What are the chances?
- Finally, we have court documents showing that Wade and Safechuck are lairs.
 

Soundmind

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,667
Points
0
While I am so upset at the naivety of MJ, I still believe in his innocence simply because Wade is a sociopath and I do not believe for a one second he was abused and safe chuck is a mentally unstable drug addict with an overly protective mother who never allowed him to travel with mj alone and was never pictured alone without her but we are now being led to believe that she did not know anything and when she knew she did absolutely nothing. That was her only child. Her reaction alone is evidence nothing happened.

So Safecuck was facing a $270,000 lawsuit in relation to his family business when he first realised he was 'abused'. Nice.
 

travis3000

Proud Member
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
260
Points
18
Bad news, the creators of The Simpsons have decided to remove the episode with Michael Jackson in it. They apparently watched the documentary and decided to eliminate MJ from the series. That episode will be removed from all future DVD box sets, online streaming services, and any other digital platform. The only way to watch it going forward is from existing box sets or bootlegs.
 

john13th

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
561
Points
18
Yeah to me it doesn't make sense that he goes molesting Robson, Safechuck, Chandler and Arvizo. But refrain himself from doing so on Lennon, Feldman, Culkin and Barnes.
Safechuck lies about being threatened by Michael to testify for him, while in reality he wasn't even allowed by the judge to be introduced as a witness in 2005 trial. This also contradicts the claim he suddenly remember that he got molested by Michael in 2013 when learning about Robsons lawsuit. And AFTER he got sued by that company for fididucary duty during the same year for 200,000 - 1 million dollars. How convenient.
 

ShipOfFools

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2011
Messages
546
Points
18
Location
Cincinnati OH, USA
I watched it. I wasn't going to, but I felt that I needed to know what they were saying. I even watched Oprah's shameful 1 hr special.

- While I think the documentary is bad, especially in the way that it uses Michael's own faxes and voice recordings and photos and videos against him to paint him as a groomer, those things could go one way or the other. They could show a "predator", or they could show a man who's childlike and treats a 10 year old as an equal. I've always had a problem with this way that Michael acted, but I have an easier...acceptance of the "regressed 30 year old man" than the "30 year old child predator." I don't see how this doesn't portray Mike as a big kid?
- Some of the doubts I noticed I had were from the explicit graphic sex content. Was all of that necessary? I think most of the reason so many people are being swayed by this "documentary" is the explicit sex descriptions, like you would hear in an explicit pornographic movie. It shocks people into believing that, if they had to say it, then it must be true. You're almost punched in the face with it.
- I am entirely unconvinced by the presentations of the mothers, wives, and other family members who definitely were showing excitement when talking about being in Michael Jackson's life, but were completely unconvincing (and even almost joyful) when talking about the alleged abuse that their family members had received. Oh, and don't get me started on Wade's wife, who almost seemed utterly excited that her husband was, allegedly, molested. If my spouse told me that they were sexually abused, and then I had to tell it on camera, I would have tears in my eyes. The only thing I was convinced by was that Michael might have accidentally broken up two families in the way he behaved, but knowing Michael he probably had no clue. That may be why those two families are so angry at Michael, but that has nothing to do with sexual abuse.

If no new accusers come forward, then this hopefully will die down. So many people still love Michael, including me, and I'm not ready to stop playing his music or watching his videos. Also, if this is all about "them telling the story", and then Wade and Jimmy go to court to get money...well, it's all about money. Hence, the documentary was made to get them into court to sue the estate, and the validity of it is in question.

Also, it's a documentary, one sided, made by a guy who has documented pedophilia and grooming in the past, starred in by two men who could have lied on the stand (if it was true) and who don't seem the most stable of individuals. Wade said that he had gotten to the point where he had forgiven himself, and then couldn't explain why he had (in the Oprah interview after the show.) I think it's entirely plausible that the director wrote the whole thing up, all around Michael's voice recordings and faxes and all the photos, made some stuff up (and included some real stuff to make you wonder if the fake stuff was true), and framed Michael. It's not like people haven't been talking about the allegations for the past 25 years.

Also, I find it completely odd that two men would have mental breakdowns in the exact same year, find themselves at the same time, and then sue the estate together. It seems almost too perfect.
 
Last edited:

somewhereinthedark

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
894
Points
28
Staffordshire Bullterrier;4246686 said:
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?



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?

I don’t believe that Frank Cascio said that. Sounds like a tabloid rumor.
 

somewhereinthedark

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
894
Points
28
Those tabloids linked with stories that there are 11 accusers are tabloids that make stuff up about all subjects and all people, they are not credible sources, I wouldn't believe it from them.
Also the thing saying he could be exhumed is highly likely to be complete bulls--- and clickbait. They don't even say what the point would be of getting the DNA. The only point in this is if they had smoking gun evidence like one of the boys underwear or clothes with what they claim to be MJs semen on it and they want to prove it was really his. Which I don't think would even be likely to still exist after all this time.

The estate lawyer has already shot down the exhumation rumor, WEEKS ago.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2019
Messages
1,676
Points
0
Brett Barnes, Frank & Eddie Casio, Mc, Emanuel Lewies , Omar Bhathi should be informed from us that MJFacts portrait them on their site and in YouTube videos as MJs victims to bring this site down!
Cause this site is active now and constantly supports again the imagination that these are all victims from Michel.
This site run by crazy people must find an end!
There are active chats under their posts.
 
Last edited:

Mikky Dee

Sunset Driver, Midnight Rider
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Messages
2,964
Points
48
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.

Chandler's description of Michael's penis was commensurate with it being circumsized. Except Michael Jackson wasn't circumsized....therefore the description did not match. Saying it had brown spots on it also wasn't a good enough description, because it's logical to assume that as a vitiligo sufferer, MJ had brown spots everywhere.....not just on his penis. Put simply, Jordan Chandler had no idea what Michael's penis looked like, because he never saw it. The drawing he did looked like something a five year old would make and was probably produced under duress, after being badgered by police, psychologists and his own father.

I cannot believe that we are still talking about that poor man's genitalia, twenty-six years after the Chandler allegation, fourteen years after the trial and ten years since he's been in his tomb.
 

pierpinto1

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
153
Points
0
About this pic. I do think it is fake. Look at Shafechuck's hand. It seems odd and not comfortable for him to put on Michael's shoulder like that at all. Usually ppl hold it around the waist if they are so small. Also look at their hairlines as well. Hair is the most difficult to cut off. It looks blurred where the fair touched Michael.
D1CNzqkU4AAW1NF_1.jpg
I am not expert in photo editing, but it is pretty clear that it is fake.
 

Mikky Dee

Sunset Driver, Midnight Rider
Joined
Mar 8, 2016
Messages
2,964
Points
48
So with all the inconsistencies, all the lies, all the changed stories, a jury finding him not guilty on every single count, the FBI tracking him for years..fans are actually falling for this garbage and beginning to think he was guilty? Unbelievable.

These fans either weren't actually fans to begin with, or they are not well read and familiar with the FACTS, or they are lazy, weak-minded and gullible. Either way, they need to express their doubts and their negativity somewhere else. I have already spoken about this. We are receiving a much higher volume of reports than usual, almost every day and they are almost ALL emanating from this thread.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2019
Messages
1,676
Points
0
I cannot believe that we are still talking about that poor man's genitalia, twenty-six years after the Chandler allegation, fourteen years after the trial and ten years since he's been in his tomb.

Its very sad!!! Its only because Wade Dan and James can stay to tell people about their case. They mist questing every other cases and other chidren who befrinded Michael as children but always said it happend nothing to them.
I find this an very ego evil manner to make people publically to victims and to people who let a "serial pedetor" go away and criminal liears under oath.

I mean how silly whould MJ be to not only put Wade Robson on the stand as a victim but to fill the whole defensewitnessstand with victims in cluding James!

Crazy people from MJFacts....?
 
Last edited:

PoP

Proud Member
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
6,495
Points
48
Bad news, the creators of The Simpsons have decided to remove the episode with Michael Jackson in it. They apparently watched the documentary and decided to eliminate MJ from the series. That episode will be removed from all future DVD box sets, online streaming services, and any other digital platform. The only way to watch it going forward is from existing box sets or bootlegs.

:ranting:WHAT!!? Well that f:censored:ing TEARS IT!!! The Simpsons are dead to me!!!:ranting::banghead::banghead::banghead:
 

LLCz

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
1,064
Points
0
I watched the entire (pirated) documentary and seen enough clips to have seen it a second time. It didn't sway a fiber of my being to believe Michael was not innocent. Just highly produced lies.
 

1nn5

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2014
Messages
1,008
Points
38
I'm still on the fence if Michael is innocent or guilty. Obviously I'd like to think he's innocent, but with the lack of response from the estate, it's not looking good.
What ! So how they won the case against them in 2017 !
Your comment is a pure ignorance.
 

1nn5

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2014
Messages
1,008
Points
38
Speed_Demon87;4247043 said:
Pure ignorance? You’ve been listening to Michael too much.

We all have our opinions so respect them please.
What does it mean " You've been listening to Michael too much"!
I respect all the opinions, I just want to know from him how the Estate won the case if there is a lack of evidence ?
 

PoP

Proud Member
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
6,495
Points
48
I felt a little better hearing Paris suggesting to calm down and chill after my rant about the Simpsons. Still mad at them, but felt better thanx to her.
 

elusive moonwalker

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2003
Messages
26,815
Points
48
?at how some of you are acting like you just found put that mj shared his bed. 25 plus years to late on that one.

Yet more evidence against robson. Thanks grace

So very little twitter intrest for part two. Viewing figures should be intresting. At least its over with now for the UK waiting on arbitration and a judge been picked
 
Top