Latest on MJJC

Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

Making the date of the decision appeal like a new June 2005 is important.
 
Our international TV is going to show LN. I am going to write them an email. Is the material from Estate available in public that they sent out to the media that Billboard has mentioned in his article?

I also need to know what countries removed LN from airing apart from Russia?
 
Can you also share your letter you have sent to your TV station that may help me to inspire for my mail? I really don't know how to introduce myself, why they should listen to me. Did you say you are a fan for many years and has been following news behind the documentary? Wouldn't it look like I just blindly follow what I want to believe cause I am a fan?
 
Michael Skywalker said:
Hi Elusive, thank you for knocking this around a bit with me.

Do you feel the two theories are depletively contradicting eachother, or that they are more like parallell tracks overlapsing eachother in a (suspiciously) benefitting way for AEG? Of course I don't challenge the fact that Robson first tried under seal, I do however kind of feel like it would be a strangely big coincidence, if you know what I mean?
And also, do you know anything about the alleged business contracts between Robson and AEG at the time?

Btw, why wasn't it approved to go under seal? Doesn't it carry the exact kind of qualifications the seal is for, such as: sensetive act (sexual offense, alleged paedophilia and also of a man-boy nature), famous people (ie big press coverage), etc? Is it becuase Robson was the plaintiff and not the defendant?
Click to expand...

Do you think this has anything real to do with it (just saw it)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db7v40RwUnQ
 
I think that as it relates to 25 June and the 10th anniversary of his death, we need to be pro-active and reactive. Maybe we should set up a thread and plan what we can do to honour Michael and how we can get publicity for the activities. And also have a prepared response for the pushback we will get back from people who will want to dredge up this mess.
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
Great podcast (15 minutes long) with John Ziegler talking about LN. Really good stuff. But, I think he has one error at the end.

He talks about the "pay off" in the 90s and says that the insurance company did it and Michael objected to this. Now I'm confused, wasn't it actually with Mike's full consent?

https://whas.iheart.com/featured/te...-on-fraudulent-leaving-neverland-documentary/
Click to expand...
No, he is correct. The insurace company paid the settlement. Michael was against it. There is a document that proves this.
 
Robbsaber01 said:
No, he is correct. The insurace company paid the settlement. Michael was against it. There is a document that proves this.
Click to expand...

Oh wow, what the hell. I must have mixed that up with the Francia settlement. That was the only one with his consent. The other day I read that Pellicano didn't like how MJ and his team decided to settle. But it's clear there's a lot of misinformation on that.
 
Robbsaber01 said:
No, he is correct. The insurace company paid the settlement. Michael was against it. There is a document that proves this.
Click to expand...
This agreement needs to be talked about more and shown more to those who always want to bring up about settlement.
 
It is right that MJ and his people brought the silence of the Chandlers (exept from the right to testefy in a criminal trail) but unfourturtenatly the Chandlers bought MJs silence too that he never could persenally tell or wrote down the to the world the whole story from his perspective.
When he could have done this it would have made a huge diference.

So we only know the different story versions from other people but not from MJ himself.

It was maybe an mistake to bring MJ on the witness stand in 2005, I guess in this sitiuation he could have tell the story from his perspective without legal problems afterwards.
 
It's a bit conflicting. Apparently Michael didn't want to pay the settlement, but he also said that he paid the settlement because he just wanted to move on with his life, avoid a media circus, and that a trial wouldn't look right.
 
Anna said:
It's a bit conflicting. Apparently Michael didn't want to pay the settlement, but he also said that he paid the settlement because he just wanted to move on with his life, avoid a media circus, and that a trial wouldn't look right.
Click to expand...

He simply couldn't know what would happen to him at the trail after they made these photos of him.
I think he was very afraid and embaressed that the trail could be filmed and they showing these photos of him worldwide (like they are showed later autopsy and other photos of his dead body) on tv with his virtilego.
I would not want that.
I maybe would have settled too in his situation and many others also.

I don't blame him for his decission like many others. I can fully understand it.
 
Last edited:
Anna said:
It's a bit conflicting. Apparently Michael didn't want to pay the settlement, but he also said that he paid the settlement because he just wanted to move on with his life, avoid a media circus, and that a trial wouldn't look right.
Click to expand...

That's the thing exactly. That is what makes it all a bit confusing at times. The doc does show it wasn't within his control but if he actually said it himself that he wanted to move on with his life.... then it seems he does agree with it.

I did read somewhere last week that he ended up regretting this decision.

Oh by the way, Rabbi Smuleh or whatever said he believes Wade and James. Wasn't he a untrustworthy guy anyway?
 
Anna said:
It's a bit conflicting. Apparently Michael didn't want to pay the settlement, but he also said that he paid the settlement because he just wanted to move on with his life, avoid a media circus, and that a trial wouldn't look right.
Click to expand...

Everybody keeps forgetting one very important fact. There was the threat of a criminal trial while the civil trial would have been going on.. that is one thing you simply can't do.. have the civil trial first... it gives a HUGE advantage to the prosecution in the upcoming criminal trial. When the judge ruled that he wouldn't stop the civil trial to wait on the criminal trial, then they had no choice but to settle. Also remember that when Evan Chandler first was blackmailing MJ he asked for $20million.. close to what was ultimately paid.. so MJ could have paid that upfront and it would have never been heard of. So he refused to settle at that point and they were fine with a criminal trial. But once that civil trial was going to come first, they had no choice.
 
Speed_Demon87 who??? sorry...I have just scoured the whole forum and I don't see a single post nor even an account for whoever this person is...:laughing:
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
That's the thing exactly. That is what makes it all a bit confusing at times. The doc does show it wasn't within his control but if he actually said it himself that he wanted to move on with his life.... then it seems he does agree with it.

I did read somewhere last week that he ended up regretting this decision.

Oh by the way, Rabbi Smuleh or whatever said he believes Wade and James. Wasn't he a untrustworthy guy anyway?
Click to expand...

We know for a while that he was ready to see it through, so not wanting to settle makes sense. Perhaps his later explanations were an attempt to justify it in his own mind after he was convinced otherwise. Or he didn't want to discuss why he wasn't in control of the settlement.
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
I also forgot to mention that this woman refered to MJFacts to prove her point. MJfacts is (sadly) a 100% bullshit site, right? I say sadly because a site with a name like that should have actual facts.
Click to expand...

Goddamn, she is an idiot. So it's more like.

"That site is biased and full of LIEEESS!111. Biased is BAAAAADDDDD!11!!"
*promotes and cites a site that is biased*

The fact that she can't see the irony of her statement is mind-blowing. Unless she's a troll and is being deliberate in her ignorance, but that's still stupid. Just a different kind of stupid.

Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
Doesn't surprise me at all. Notice how the MSM and tabloids always talk about boys and never girls? They are pushing that agenda of MJ being into boys ever since Chandler. Or actually before that already really. It's crystal clear.

Nevermind that he had many families with their children, boys and girls at Neverland and with him on trips/travels.
Click to expand...

Yup, and I see this used as a "valid argument" at times, how he was "always around boys". Same goes with women who defend him, whether they knew him or are just fans. I actually saw someone who went to Neverland as a little girl that defended him get dismissed because "you're a girl, your experiences/opinions don't count".

travis3000 said:
*snipped for length*

-Overall lets move forward thinking optimistically. These past two months have been horrible for us fans BUT Im telling you..... things could have been worse. MJ survived this, battered and bruised yes.... but he will heal. Keep streaming his music and voicing support to companies that embrace him. I personally have been listening to the HISTORY album lots these past few weeks. I bought it on vinyl.

This whole fiasco simply proved that Michael Jackson is too big to take down.
Click to expand...

I think we all needed to read this. Thank you!

terrell said:
Again, it is not everybody. Even now, the main ones who are talking are entertain sites and tabloid so it is not as big as u think or feel. and remember MJ faced this kind of trash in 2005. And I agree about the "randomer" on the internet who are often trolls anyway. Who will want to dismiss facts that will show a person did not abuse someone. That mean the ones who want to believe that trash desired to think someone was harmed. Sick
Click to expand...

It would not surprise me if half of the people who think Michael is guilty are pedos themselves. I have held that belief for a long time that many of these people who scream about him being guilty are covering their own asses.

Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
You gotta love (not really) how you got some of these folks on Twitter saying Michael himself slept with many boys in bed and that he had said this himself many times. Which is just ridiculous in itself, he never said that. These people just flat out lie.

Then when we confront her on the nonsense she says she's been reading and writing a long time about MJ and basically anyone that goes against her(people using logic) she just ignores or blocks.
Click to expand...

More twisting of his words. He never explicitly said those words in the way the hater crowds say he did. They obviously took his statements about "sharing your bed" and twisted it into something it wasn't.

ozemouze said:
Twitter quote of the week for me:

What is happening with Michael Jackson is literally like an episode of Black Mirror.

https://twitter.com/Mizerygutz/status/1110305407388577795
Click to expand...

I like to compare it to Back to the Future 2 when they go back to 1985 and its all corrupted and messed up because Biff went back to 1955 and changed the timeline. Like Marty says in the film "It's like we're in hell or something".

Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
Oh by the way, Rabbi Smuleh or whatever said he believes Wade and James. Wasn't he a untrustworthy guy anyway?
Click to expand...

I believe he stole money from Michael or a charity they were working on. Years ago he released a book containing transcripts of conversations between himself and Michael that he had taped, with his commentary in-between. Apparently some his comments about Michael were... not very nice. So much so that someone made a PDF of the book that removes all the negative stuff he said about Michael.
 
ahsfsu said:
Everybody keeps forgetting one very important fact. There was the threat of a criminal trial while the civil trial would have been going on.. that is one thing you simply can't do.. have the civil trial first... it gives a HUGE advantage to the prosecution in the upcoming criminal trial. When the judge ruled that he wouldn't stop the civil trial to wait on the criminal trial, then they had no choice but to settle. Also remember that when Evan Chandler first was blackmailing MJ he asked for $20million.. close to what was ultimately paid.. so MJ could have paid that upfront and it would have never been heard of. So he refused to settle at that point and they were fine with a criminal trial. But once that civil trial was going to come first, they had no choice.
Click to expand...
I am not good with all the lawyer stuff. I knew before about what you wrote but can you explain? Why it is bad to have a civil trial first? Why didn't judge deny civil trial if it can't go before the criminal trial?
 
Again, they keep talking about this bullcrap as if it's fact. People are allowed to have differing viewpoints on things, and when it comes to MJ there are the FACTS, and then there's the speculative, sensationalized garbage that the media consistently tries to shove down the public's throat. So basically the media wants to say that anyone who doesn't agree with the agenda they are peddling is a horrible person and an abuse sympathizer.
 
magic said:
I am not good with all the lawyer stuff. I knew before about what you wrote but can you explain? Why it is bad to have a civil trial first? Why didn't judge deny civil trial if it can't go before the criminal trial?
Click to expand...

I'm no legal expert, but from what I understand the civil trial going first makes it easier for the prosecution to win (imagine everything in leaving neverland being used in court as "proof"). This is how Evan even got the settlement. He abused the law to benefit his extortion plot. Evan knew he had no real evidence and would lose in a Criminal trial. $$ was his motive, not prison. So in a civil suit, Evan could say and make up anything he wanted and he would have a higher chance of getting paid (civil trials almost promote settlements). This is why after the '93 case they actually changed the law so this could never happen again. So if this were to happen today, Michael would have had the criminal trial first (and win because Evan had nothing accept an inaccurate drawing and his sons Drugged up "confession" that isn't even acceptable in court). Michael never wanted to give that evil man anything, but the legal circumstances were in Evans favor unfortunately.
I hope that at least clears some of it up. More people might be able to describe the legal case better.

Edit: Geraldine Hughes on the 93 case. I haven't read her book (yet) but I heard its a really good take on the case.
 
Last edited:
Robbsaber01 said:
I'm no legal expert, but from what I understand the civil trial going first makes it easier for the prosecution to win (imagine everything in leaving neverland being used in court as "proof"). This is how Evan even got the settlement. He abused the law to his benefit his extortion plot. Evan knew he had no real evidense and would lose in a Criminal trial. $$ was his motive, not prison. So in a civil suit, Evan could say and make up anything he wanted and he would have a higher chance of getting paid (civil trials almost promote settlements). This is why after the '93 case they actually changed the law so this could never happen again. So if this were to happen today, Michael would have had the criminal trial first (and win because Evan had nothing accept an innacurate drawing and his sons Drugged up "confession" that isnt even acceptable in court). Michael never wanted to give that evil man anything, but the legal circumstances were in Evans favor unfortunately.
I hope that at least clears some of it up. More people might be able to describe the legal case better.
Click to expand...

Yep this is a good synopsis ... also remember a couple of things. Nothing stopped the chandlers from being able to help the DA with the criminal investigation . They chose not to... they got the $$$ they wanted. Also... so when people say that mj paid them off in order to avoid a trial they are wrong. If those two grand juries had any evidence at all they would have indicted him. So nothing came out of the raids ... the 100 interviews they did nor the body search of mj. The reason there was no criminal charges in 1993 is because there was no evidence ... period. It had nothing to do with the settlement. Granted if the chandlers agreed to testify before the grand jury that might have changed but they did not want to be investigated nor cross examined so they refused and walked away.
 
small update from the Razorfist interview, Taj is entertaining the idea of a theatrical release with the docu-series.. He is not sure how he wants to distribute it, he does not want to sell it to a major network because it may not be handled with care..

I personally think theatrical is silly, MJ fans go to watch MJ movies in the theater, it needs to be easier accessable.
 
Gaz said:
Speed_Demon87 who??? sorry...I have just scoured the whole forum and I don't see a single post nor even an account for whoever this person is...:laughing:
Click to expand...

Praise the LAWD!!

giphy.gif
 
That Trojan Horse Speed Speed demon is gone? It was probably Pedo Lover Penguin Dan The welfare Reed
 
L.T.D;4252027 said:
Had my appearance insulted on Twitter twice now, that's what I get for using a real picture I suppose ����
Click to expand...
Don't let them get to you. People do that because the facts are not on their side. I bet that you look better than them.

KOPV;4252109 said:
small update from the Razorfist interview, Taj is entertaining the idea of a theatrical release with the docu-series.. He is not sure how he wants to distribute it, he does not want to sell it to a major network because it may not be handled with care..

I personally think theatrical is silly, MJ fans go to watch MJ movies in the theater, it needs to be easier accessable.
Click to expand...

I hope that Taj will consider a streaming service like Netflix if he’s adamant about not selling it to a major network. We want the rebuttal to be accessible to the masses. I'm not sure if anyone other than fans would go to the movie theater to see a rebuttal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top