Latest on MJJC

Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

dam2040;4238920 said:
I am becoming more and more convinced that the people so loudly throwing stones at Michael are pedophiles themselves. Dan Reed’s language regarding this is very worrying and leads me to believe there is something very sinister happening here. In no circumstances should these relationships be explained or normalised, if they were real.

I also love Mr Reed’s you haven’t seen it yet comment. We’ve only seen the court documents for the last 20 odd years, lol. There’s nothing new in this documentary it has just been displayed in a very graphic way to convince viewers Michael was the worst child predator known to man. Evil to the core.

I pray every night that justice will prevail.
Click to expand...
And look how he is going after the Jacksons. Dan is trying to lecture the Jacksons on two guys they knew for YEARS unlike his couple months to do this doc.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I truly believe in one thing:

The last few years I'm actually just an active reader, following the news as far as possible.


But this time it was different somehow. It hit me personally a lot!!!
And for exactly this reason, I couldn't stand still and will follow this matter very closely and counteract by all means.
I also believe that not only do I feel that way!


Our love for MJ and believe in his innocence is just too strong!

And that's our force!
We owe that MJ and his children!
Now is the time to unite and fight back strongly!

So, let's get ready for the final round. Don't be afraid!
Put on your gloves and step into the ring!

@WadeRobson + JamesSafechuck: Take it very seriously!
 
Last edited:
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

terrell said:
Even on the internet. Do you know some people are paid to go into treading topics to start trouble.
Click to expand...

Oh, definitely! Even when you could be out there marching for whatever issue you're protesting about, they have actors out there and extremists.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

terrell said:
MJ was given no special treatment due to being the biggest star, the most to make money from, viewed as being eccentric, etc. And look who are the true guilty ones.
Click to expand...
The treatment whould be very different til this days when he was born with white skin. I'm absolutly sure in this! It has always racial resons together with others!
I will mention only one subject which I absolutly won't discuss afterwards.
Mostly white people won't accept that a black man (who has not a full black background and had a dark history of slavery) can produce a white child when it is proven that it happens all the time in the world. Even not when they saw Janets baby and some other Jackson siblings!
I don't know if Dan Reed whould have made this documentery when MJ whould be the biggest white superstar.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

1. Michael's celebrity worked against him while r kelly it worked for him..

2. There is hard evidence against r kelly

3. These allegations have been out on both them for years and Michael was more prosecuted by the public (without evidence) than r kelly was (with evidence)

They are totally different stories and issues..
 
JCO8;4238944 said:
English is not my native language. This word doesn't have the same signification in french.



This is exactly my point, thank you. Being moderated in what we say. Trying not to affirm things as if we did know what happened or what did not.
As you say, we will never have evidence in one way or another, it's all about believing, trusting, feeling. We have to admit that.

Today for the first time in my life I have more than serious doubts on Michael's innocence and it is haunting me. For many years I have studied the 2 others cases. I have read the transcripts, I have listened to people, I have read books, including Aphrodite Jones', I have seen all the bullshit that was around those cases, the interested people, the twisted media, the mentally sick families, the dishonnest Tom Sneddon... Michael's acquital, in the middle of this circus, was just logical and I felt released when it happened, although I knew, even at the time, that a justice decision does not mean that the truth has been found. But I trusted Michael, I believed in him.

Today, I have a feeling when I look at these 2 guys. When I look at their background, I can see no reason why they would do such a horrible thing as accusing their dead friend of child molestation if it was not true. And I felt this time it was different as soon has Wade Robson accused Michael in 2013. The fact that he had always defended Michael, the fact that he was this young man, having a baby, a family, living what were supposed to be the best years of his life... I just did not see how someone like this, apparently clever, successful and respected in his job, was going into something like that if it wasn't true. Why puting his whole family into that ? Why risking to waste his whole life and career for a lie (because he knew he was going to be hated by so many) ? It just didn't make sense to me. I just waited to see what was going to happen.

Then there was James Safechuck. Same profile, the difference being that he never seemed interested in fame. Same age, a bit older. Very close to Michael as a child, apparently so happy of it at the time. Having a baby, a family, a good job. Why ?

Then they filled this lawsuit. Asking for money. Alright. This is one of the main elements that make people say that money is all they are after. I'm not sure about that. Asking for money can be a way, for many victims, to find a bit of recognition in what they have been through. We know that. Some say Robson was furious because he didn't get engaged into the Cirque du Soleil thing. Well, why not. I don't know. Is it worth sacrificing the rest of your life and insulting your once best friend who happens to be dead ? I'm not sure. Some say he defended MJ under oath and don't understand how this could have been possible if he was a victim. Again, this has been discussed and we know this is understandable. Loverpeace wrote very clever things about that, a few pages earlier. Someone here says there are no "normal victims" and thinks it's very strange if Michael is guilty. I wanna ask : what is a normal victim ? As long as a child has been abused, therefore you cannot expect from the adult he became to be exactly "normal". Especially if their abuser happened to be the biggest star the World has ever known.

Ok, then their case was rejected because the judge decided they could not accuse the Estate for someone else's alleged acts.

Right. Then came this documentary. This is what frightened me the most, before it was premiered. It means that 6 years after their claims, they are still into it. I mean they are now dedicating their whole adult life to this. What for ? money ? The film maker said they did not receive any money for making this documentary. Some say they hope their case to be reopened and therefore at the very end they still wanna get some money from the Estate. Ok, maybe they hope so. I still don't know. And I still believe they have the right to need to go there if they are victims.

What I know for sure is that opening yourself in a 4 hour documentary that is going to be seen all over the world and, I suppose, will be forever associated to the name of Michael Jackson, that is not something you do lightly. That is not something you do for fame or money. That is something you do when you have things to say and you absolutely want everyone to know, even if you know you are going to be hated by a lot of people. If you are taking that risk for something that is not good, you really are perverted minds.

Then there were the first feedbacks of the movie. Freaking shocking. Horrible things to read. So far from the Michael we knew. I knew from a long time that Michael was not the perfect magical character I thought he was when I was 12. I knew he has a very complex personnality. Of course I had asked myself more than once in the past "He was proven innocent about those charges, they couldn't find no evidence for 15 years... but what if some of it was true, after all ?"... But nothing convinced me at all. Even when I asked this to myself, I never could have imagined him doing what I read in those first reviews. I mean, come on... This is so extreme.

Then I watched the Q&A on video. That was hard but I had to because I felt I did not trust Michael like I once did, and I wanted to know if I believed these guys or not. When you know you will never have evidence in a way or another, all you have to do if you want to be as close to the truth as you can be, is checking facts, wich I did a million times, and listenning to what people have to say. I mean, really listenning. I did that. And I saw "normal people", as normal as they could be. I felt what I was afraid of feeling : their sincerity. And I just wanted to throw up because I happened to believe them.

I'm sorry guys. Call me what you want but I'm being honest. I have evidence of nothing and I won't try to convince anybody, this is not my role and this is not what I want. I won't fight for Michael this time, but I won't fight for Robson and Safechuck either because I know there's always a chance that I might be wrong. By expressing this I just wanted to say that nobody can act as if he knows the truth 100%. Thanks for reading.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? I would like to say a lot of things but I won’t. This isn’t the place for you
 
By Respect77

For example (it is from an article I am working on about Safechuck):


He claims that Jackson showed him heterosexual adult magazines, pornographic books (not just artistic books with nudity) AND on top of that “movies in which children were masturbating”. (SAC p 18, para 60) Safechuck claimed that the “pornographic books” were “foreign books”.

Here we have to note that no movies with children masturbating or any kind of child pornography has ever been found in Jackson’s possession. There is no evidence supporting the claim that Jackson ever had such material and his premises were thoroughly searched in both 1993 and in 2003. No other child – accuser or not – ever claimed such a thing, either.

While the child pornography claim of Safechuck does not have a precedent by Jackson’s other accusers, but it does have a precedent elsewhere, namely in Victor Gutierrez’s book, Michael Jackson Was My Lover. There Gutierrez claims that Jackson watched movies where children "ran around naked and masturbating" [4; page 57-58]. Compare that to Safechuck's allegation! Gutierrez also claimed that these were “foreign films”. In Safechuck’s complaint we have “foreign books”.
Click to expand...

Sex acts right out of Gutierrez’s book

In his complaint, among other things, Safechuck alleges that Jackson inserted his finger into his anus. Safechuck claims he told Jackson to stop and he did, although he later did it again (SAC p 13-14, para 38). This is a very similar story that we find in Gutierrez’s book, only the protagonists are Jordan Chandler and Brett Barnes (page 79). If Safechuck attempted to establish a certain pattern by Jackson with this story, he failed, because Jordan Chandler never actually has alleged such a thing. When making his allegations Jordan specifically denied any anal contact ever taking place with Jackson (Gardner interview). And Barnes has always denied any sexual abuse. This story is, once again, nothing but Gutierrez’s disturbing, child pornographic fantasy, so it is interesting that it found its way to Safechuck’s complaint.

Mind you, the only accusers to ever claim anal penetration with Jackson are Robson and Safechuck, represented by the same lawyers. Robson is the only accuser ever claiming that Jackson anally penetrated him with his penis and Safechuck claims digital penetration.
Click to expand...

The description of the relationship as a “marriage” and a romance

Safechuck claims in his complaint that Jackson called their relationship a "faux committed relationship" and they even had a fake “marriage ceremony”. (SAC 16, para 50) (SAC 17, para 54) No other accuser ever claimed any such thing, however in his fantasy tale about Jordan Chandler and Michael Jackson's alleged relationship, Gutierrez described them almost like a married couple. At one point in his story he has Jordan saying it felt like they were on a "honeymoon" (page 50).
Click to expand...

Gutierrez makes it out to be a love story between MJ and Jordan, lo and behold Robson and Safechuck describe their relationship with MJ as a "love story" ("we were in love with him").



The description of Jackson as a woman-hater

Safechuck alleges in his complaint that Jackson was jealous when he had a crush on the star's background singer, Sheryl Crow and told him that he should not like her. He also claims that Jackson consistently talked about women in a negative manner. [SAC 14, 39) This too echoes Gutierrez who portrays Jackson as a woman-hater.

Safechuck also alleges that when he was in fourth grade and had a girlfriend, Jackson told him that he could only have a relationship with him. [SAC 16, para 50) This echoes another story from Gutierrez’s book in which Jordan Chandler has a crush on one of the sisters of Albert von Thurn und Taxis and he gets mad at him for it (page 40) and the royal family even has to leave Neverland because of it. On contrary to this tale by Gutierrez, Elisabeth von Thurn und Taxis talked about her memories of Jackson after the singer’s death and had nothing but nice things to say about him. Needles to say, no such incident as what is described in Gutierrez’s book ever happened.
Click to expand...

Safechuck claims Jackson gave him alcohol

Safechuck claimed that Jackson served him "pink wine" while watching pornographic movies with him in his Los Angeles condo (SAC 18, 60). Now, this is again an interesting claim, because the only other accuser that claimed that Jackson gave him alcohol was Gavin Arvizo. It is through his allegations that the “Jesus Juice” myth entered public consciousness. However, like with the other claims of the Arvizos, this was a never proven allegation by an accuser with a heavily compromised credibility. Jackson was acquitted of this charge at the end of his trial, like of all other charges.

No other accuser of Jackson ever alleged that Jackson gave them alcohol. In actuality, when Wade Robson talked about the last time he had met Jackson before his death, in Las Vegas in 2008 (when Robson was 26 years old), he expressed surprise about Jackson drinking and wanting alcohol: "So, I remember talking about that saying, yeah, let us just bring some food, and Michael being really -- he just kept asking me to make sure I bring alcohol, which was also a really new, as far as to me, like, for him to talk about that and want that."

However, Gutierrez did claim in his fantasy book that Jackson frequently gave boys alcohol. (page 80)
Click to expand...


The whole idea of romanticizing child sexual abuse, saying that boys were in love with an adult man while having an "emotionally and sexually fulfilling relationship" with him, is totally VG's message. He is likely a pedophile and this is actually NAMBLA propaganda.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I deleted a link from the other forum about Reeds article about his pedo hunter film!

Somebody should inform the guys on that forum that its a really wrong wrong blog when you check the other posts there, the person is praising Garry Glitter and co, it is not a good blog!

WARN THEM PLEASE! not to spread any info from that blog and ask the mods/admins to delete the post of a user named - PG13 on page 39 of the LN thread
 
Last edited:
Goddess4Real;4238722 said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I really respect <a href="https://twitter.com/TaranaBurke?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TaranaBurke</a> and the metoo movement. She seems to educate herself before jumping on any mob train. Especially because false accusers and allegations could derail the importance and progress of this movement. If she ever wants or needs to talk to me, I am here. <a href="https://t.co/CQdL6pzfQL">https://t.co/CQdL6pzfQL</a></p>&#8212; Taj Jackson (@tajjackson3) <a href="https://twitter.com/tajjackson3/status/1088882311007854593?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 25, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Wishful thinking Taj :(

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">&#8220;I think &#8216;Leaving Neverland&#8217; will help shift the idea away that this just happens to women. This film is going to drop like a bomb and shock a lot of people, having people questioning things they believed for so many years.&#8221; &#8212; <a href="https://twitter.com/TaranaBurke?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TaranaBurke</a><a href="https://t.co/lAUaFEBm0U">https://t.co/lAUaFEBm0U</a></p>&#8212; Amy Kaufman (@AmyKinLA) <a href="https://twitter.com/AmyKinLA/status/1089752575409250304?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 28, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BTW, Tarana, I don't remember you releasing ANY statement when we learned recently that Les Moonves spent nearly a decade trying to sabotage Janet Jackson's career. I don't recall any statements from you on the racism and misogyny at the root of that.</p>&mdash; ithl123 (@ithl123) <a href="https://twitter.com/ithl123/status/1090277513501253633?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 29, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I noticed that too with all the so called actresses etc that support the #MeToo movement. There was NO support for Janet :censored: Its called "Selective Outrage."


<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Hypocrite, yes. As a founder of the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MeToo?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MeToo</a> movement &amp; in her position, she should look up facts &amp; evidence before being vocal about MJ. So, I understand you won&#8217;t support her. She clearly has preconceived judgments about MJ that is not founded on proof. Big mistake! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MJInnocent?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MJInnocent</a></p>&mdash; Kari (@KariHamre) <a href="https://twitter.com/KariHamre/status/1090312571117277186?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 29, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

@JCO8
I don't know if you are a real MJ Fan cause I don't know how long you are on this board.
But anyway when ALL the things we posted here didn't work for you to jump on MJs side bzw ouers.
I can only try to help you with something which I didn't saw in this thread already.

Body Language Analysis from experts reveals that WADE ROBSON is LYING but MICHAEL JACKSON spoke the TRUTH!

Body Language Analysis of Wade Robson:

https://youtu.be/VpTcU1bjkk4 + https://youtu.be/-w_QbTglW3E

https://youtu.be/hGmYs4Kg-JA +https://youtu.be/wHdGRrkesfY

Body Language Analysis of Michael Jackson:

https://youtu.be/ApWlJZOyu78
https://youtu.be/a_Yp1GZ05P8

You can find many other Bodylage Analysis of MJ from other interviews and all say the same!
 
Last edited:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Isn&#8217;t it funny that at a time when real powerful sex abusers and pedophiles in Hollywood could be exposed attention shifts to an exonerated man whose not alive to defend himself esp from former &#8216;defenders&#8217;? &#65533;&#65533; <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/LeavingNeverland?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#LeavingNeverland</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MichaelJackson?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MichaelJackson</a></p>&mdash; Antony Aris-Osula (@coconutprince) <a href="https://twitter.com/coconutprince/status/1090198637286776833?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 29, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">There is a reason why Terry Crew is aligning himself with <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/metoo?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#metoo</a> . Because that white funded/controlled movement takes the focus off white predators and deflect into targeting Black People. Even the founder of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/metoo?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#metoo</a> summed up their real agenda<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FirstThem?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#FirstThem</a> <a href="https://t.co/CvmQa3Osnb">pic.twitter.com/CvmQa3Osnb</a></p>&mdash; Tariq Nasheed (@tariqnasheed) <a href="https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/1089640311687507968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 27, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Last edited:
Smooth72;4238949 said:
Are you serious? I would like to say a lot of things but I won’t. This isn’t the place for you
Click to expand...

Exactly, this is not the place for you. Anyone who would believe that an adult man would rape a seven year old boy everyday and that kid with his mother AND sister right there in the same house is either ignorant or WANTS to believe it. Anyone who is stupid, yes I said stupid, enough to believe that Michael would do something like this while the entire WORLD was watching him is pathetic. Sorry, even a child could figure out these creeps are liars. These allegations are basically a SCRIPT wriiten by the pedophile/ NAMBLA member , Victor Guiterrez.
Robson is desperate for money and he will say and do anything to get paid. Safechuck jumped on the $$$ bandwagon, also. With all the proof and evidence that has been revealed about these liars\extortionists and you have doubts about Michael? Have you read any of the evidence against these vermin? No, I don’t think you have. There is no way that a normal, sane person could think a person who claimed he was raped everyday for 7 years, would get on a witness stand and say he had never been even touched. Let’s not forget, Wade said he never knew he was being abused. He said this was not repressed memory. He is saying that as a 27 year old man on the witness stand, he did not know that “being raped every night was about sex. Give me a f#@$&** break! Why did he suddenly remember this when he didn’t get the Cirque Soleil job? IF, this really were true, as a 27 year old man testing, he would have said do. This creep even invited Michael and his kids to a Bar B Q at a family picnic, Months before his death? Would you do that? I wouldn’t. Stop being manipulated by this one-sided mockumentary. Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if this sleaze director would have juxtaposed all of the proof and evidence of Michael’s innocence, along side of the perverted pedophilic fantasy of the director, Robson and Safechuck? If that had happen, you wouldn’t be here talking about doubts, and you can be sure that the media wouldn’t be saying what they are now saying. Btw, this seazeball. Dan Reeves told a fan that he didn’t want to show another side. So, that means he only wanted to show the pedophilic fantasy side of Roberson and Safechuck. I guess you don’t find that strange?
If you doubt Michael’s innocence after all the evidence and proof that shows these pieces of trash for what they are, then you certainly don’t need to be on a MJ fan board.

Hmmm, I wonder why you can’t see through obvious lies. Makes you wonder.&#65533;&#65533;
 
Last edited:
 
 
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ThatAwkwardMoment?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ThatAwkwardMoment</a> when you inadvertently admit how little research you did on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MichaelJackson?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MichaelJackson</a> and use a racial slur to defend your &quot;documentary.&quot; <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MJfam?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MJfam</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MJFamUNITE?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MJFamUNITE</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/LeavingNeverLandFrauds?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#LeavingNeverLandFrauds</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DigAHole?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DigAHole</a> <a href="https://t.co/Rcs75i29Xb">pic.twitter.com/Rcs75i29Xb</a></p>&mdash; KerryWard (@FallAgainMJ) <a href="https://twitter.com/FallAgainMJ/status/1090363670398418944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 29, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
 
 
JCO8;4238944 said:
English is not my native language. This word doesn't have the same signification in french.



This is exactly my point, thank you. Being moderated in what we say. Trying not to affirm things as if we did know what happened or what did not.
As you say, we will never have evidence in one way or another, it's all about believing, trusting, feeling. We have to admit that.

Today for the first time in my life I have more than serious doubts on Michael's innocence and it is haunting me. For many years I have studied the 2 others cases. I have read the transcripts, I have listened to people, I have read books, including Aphrodite Jones', I have seen all the bullshit that was around those cases, the interested people, the twisted media, the mentally sick families, the dishonnest Tom Sneddon... Michael's acquital, in the middle of this circus, was just logical and I felt released when it happened, although I knew, even at the time, that a justice decision does not mean that the truth has been found. But I trusted Michael, I believed in him.

Today, I have a feeling when I look at these 2 guys. When I look at their background, I can see no reason why they would do such a horrible thing as accusing their dead friend of child molestation if it was not true. And I felt this time it was different as soon has Wade Robson accused Michael in 2013. The fact that he had always defended Michael, the fact that he was this young man, having a baby, a family, living what were supposed to be the best years of his life... I just did not see how someone like this, apparently clever, successful and respected in his job, was going into something like that if it wasn't true. Why puting his whole family into that ? Why risking to waste his whole life and career for a lie (because he knew he was going to be hated by so many) ? It just didn't make sense to me. I just waited to see what was going to happen.

Then there was James Safechuck. Same profile, the difference being that he never seemed interested in fame. Same age, a bit older. Very close to Michael as a child, apparently so happy of it at the time. Having a baby, a family, a good job. Why ?

Then they filled this lawsuit. Asking for money. Alright. This is one of the main elements that make people say that money is all they are after. I'm not sure about that. Asking for money can be a way, for many victims, to find a bit of recognition in what they have been through. We know that. Some say Robson was furious because he didn't get engaged into the Cirque du Soleil thing. Well, why not. I don't know. Is it worth sacrificing the rest of your life and insulting your once best friend who happens to be dead ? I'm not sure. Some say he defended MJ under oath and don't understand how this could have been possible if he was a victim. Again, this has been discussed and we know this is understandable. Loverpeace wrote very clever things about that, a few pages earlier. Someone here says there are no "normal victims" and thinks it's very strange if Michael is guilty. I wanna ask : what is a normal victim ? As long as a child has been abused, therefore you cannot expect from the adult he became to be exactly "normal". Especially if their abuser happened to be the biggest star the World has ever known.

Ok, then their case was rejected because the judge decided they could not accuse the Estate for someone else's alleged acts.

Right. Then came this documentary. This is what frightened me the most, before it was premiered. It means that 6 years after their claims, they are still into it. I mean they are now dedicating their whole adult life to this. What for ? money ? The film maker said they did not receive any money for making this documentary. Some say they hope their case to be reopened and therefore at the very end they still wanna get some money from the Estate. Ok, maybe they hope so. I still don't know. And I still believe they have the right to need to go there if they are victims.

What I know for sure is that opening yourself in a 4 hour documentary that is going to be seen all over the world and, I suppose, will be forever associated to the name of Michael Jackson, that is not something you do lightly. That is not something you do for fame or money. That is something you do when you have things to say and you absolutely want everyone to know, even if you know you are going to be hated by a lot of people. If you are taking that risk for something that is not good, you really are perverted minds.

Then there were the first feedbacks of the movie. Freaking shocking. Horrible things to read. So far from the Michael we knew. I knew from a long time that Michael was not the perfect magical character I thought he was when I was 12. I knew he has a very complex personnality. Of course I had asked myself more than once in the past "He was proven innocent about those charges, they couldn't find no evidence for 15 years... but what if some of it was true, after all ?"... But nothing convinced me at all. Even when I asked this to myself, I never could have imagined him doing what I read in those first reviews. I mean, come on... This is so extreme.

Then I watched the Q&A on video. That was hard but I had to because I felt I did not trust Michael like I once did, and I wanted to know if I believed these guys or not. When you know you will never have evidence in a way or another, all you have to do if you want to be as close to the truth as you can be, is checking facts, wich I did a million times, and listenning to what people have to say. I mean, really listenning. I did that. And I saw "normal people", as normal as they could be. I felt what I was afraid of feeling : their sincerity. And I just wanted to throw up because I happened to believe them.

I'm sorry guys. Call me what you want but I'm being honest. I have evidence of nothing and I won't try to convince anybody, this is not my role and this is not what I want. I won't fight for Michael this time, but I won't fight for Robson and Safechuck either because I know there's always a chance that I might be wrong. By expressing this I just wanted to say that nobody can act as if he knows the truth 100%. Thanks for reading.
Click to expand...

Does anyone know if this is a real fan or some bandwagon “fan” really not a fan at all.&#128527;
 
somewhereinthedark;4238963 said:
Does anyone know if this is a real fan or some bandwagon &#8220;fan&#8221; really not a fan at all.&#65533;&#65533;
Click to expand...

It is hard to tell these days......but in the words of Questlove......

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This forbes piece on on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MichaelJackson?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MichaelJackson</a> should be read. That&#8217;s all. <a href="https://t.co/fTOrmCOKOu">https://t.co/fTOrmCOKOu</a></p>&mdash; Questlove (In E flat) (@questlove) <a href="https://twitter.com/questlove/status/1090426713220116481?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 30, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

And watch this Defaming the Dead: The Michael Jackson Rebuttal again!

[video=youtube;9yTTEwBLfUQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yTTEwBLfUQ&feature=youtu.be[/video]

Finally.......

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Michael Jackson was not a predator. He was prey. <a href="https://t.co/AAd9rMOT9L">pic.twitter.com/AAd9rMOT9L</a></p>&mdash; MJJ Thriller 777 (@mjjthriller777) <a href="https://twitter.com/mjjthriller777/status/1081428770203099137?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 5, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Last edited:
Goddess4Real;4238954 said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Isn&#8217;t it funny that at a time when real powerful sex abusers and pedophiles in Hollywood could be exposed attention shifts to an exonerated man whose not alive to defend himself esp from former &#8216;defenders&#8217;? &#65533;&#65533; <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/LeavingNeverland?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#LeavingNeverland</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MichaelJackson?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MichaelJackson</a></p>&#8212; Antony Aris-Osula (@coconutprince) <a href="https://twitter.com/coconutprince/status/1090198637286776833?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 29, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">There is a reason why Terry Crew is aligning himself with <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/metoo?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#metoo</a> . Because that white funded/controlled movement takes the focus off white predators and deflect into targeting Black People. Even the founder of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/metoo?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#metoo</a> summed up their real agenda<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FirstThem?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#FirstThem</a> <a href="https://t.co/CvmQa3Osnb">pic.twitter.com/CvmQa3Osnb</a></p>&#8212; Tariq Nasheed (@tariqnasheed) <a href="https://twitter.com/tariqnasheed/status/1089640311687507968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 27, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">this from <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/metoo?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#metoo</a>@movement founder <a href="https://twitter.com/TaranaBurke?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TaranaBurke</a> <a href="https://t.co/6edEDSLADN">https://t.co/6edEDSLADN</a></p>&mdash; Dan Reed (@danreed1000) <a href="https://twitter.com/danreed1000/status/1090055677748293634?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 29, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/StopLeavingNeverland?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#StopLeavingNeverland</a> After we Chinese fans furiously organized a wide protest, now the director hit back and singled us out. We will never stop. Justice for Michael Jackson, truth will win! Link: <a href="https://t.co/e59xJuiO1f">https://t.co/e59xJuiO1f</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/TheMJCast?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TheMJCast</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/tajjackson3?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@tajjackson3</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/andjustice4some?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@andjustice4some</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/tjjackson?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@tjjackson</a> <a href="https://t.co/7hYZaqdUYj">pic.twitter.com/7hYZaqdUYj</a></p>&mdash; Keen Zhang (@mkgenie) <a href="https://twitter.com/mkgenie/status/1090205310420115457?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 29, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">He mentions cut &amp; paste... is he upset that his own tactics, the very tactics of the tabloids that are supporting him, are being used by fans? Boo fukin hoo. <a href="https://twitter.com/danreed1000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@danreed1000</a> has compromised &amp; devalued <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/metoo?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#metoo</a> to make a movie &amp; thinks we should roll over &amp; condemn Jackson? No chance</p>&mdash; WannaBMartinSomethin (@invinciblekop) <a href="https://twitter.com/invinciblekop/status/1090251482635685889?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 29, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Last edited:
After reading the Joe Vogel article, I realized the tide had turned in Michael Jackson's favor. :clap:
So I'm reposting it. :wub:Thank god for joe vogel. Spread this article.:angel:

www.forbes.com/sites/joevogel/2019/...new-michael-jackson-documentary/#3fb0b959640f

Jan 29, 2019, 08:39am
What You Should Know About the New Michael Jackson Documentary
Joe Vogel
Forbes Contributor

When Michael Jackson died in 2009, Wade Robson—the former choreographer whose allegations of abuse are at the center of a controversial new documentary, Leaving Neverland—wrote in tribute to his friend:

"Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music, and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of humankind. He has been a close friend of mine for 20 years. His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever. I will miss him immeasurably, but I know that he is now at peace and enchanting the heavens with a melody and a moonwalk."

Robson was twenty-seven years old at the time. Four years earlier, he testified at Jackson’s 2005 trial (as an adult) that nothing sexual ever happened between them. Prior to the trial Robson hadn’t seen Jackson for years and was under no obligation to be a witness for the defense. He faced a withering cross-examination, understanding the penalty of perjury for lying under oath. But Robson adamantly, confidently, and credibly asserted that nothing sexual ever happened.

What changed between then and now? A few things:

- In 2011, Robson approached John Branca, co-executor of the Michael Jackson Estate, about directing the new Michael Jackson/Cirque du Soleil production, Immortal. Robson admitted he wanted the job “badly,” but the Estate ultimately chose someone else for the position.
- In 2012, Robson had a nervous breakdown, triggered, he said, by an obsessive quest for success. His career, in his own words, began to “crumble.”

That same year, with Robson’s career, finances, and marriage in peril, he began shopping a book that claimed he was sexually abused by Michael Jackson. No publisher picked it up.

- In 2013, Robson filed a $1.5 billion dollar civil lawsuit/creditor’s claim, along with James Safechuck, who also spent time with Jackson in the late ‘80s. Safechuck claimed he only realized he may have been abused when Robson filed his lawsuit. That lawsuit was dismissed by a probate court in 2017.

- In 2019, the Sundance Film Festival premiered a documentary based entirely on Robson and Safechuck's allegations. While the documentary is obviously emotionally disturbing given the content, it presents no new evidence or witnesses. The film's director, Dan Reed, acknowledged not wanting to interview other key figures because it might complicate or compromise the story he wanted to tell.

It is tempting for the media to tie Jackson into a larger cultural narrative about sexual misconduct. R. Kelly was rightfully taken down by a documentary, and many other high-profile figures have been exposed in recent years, so surely, the logic goes, Michael Jackson must be guilty as well. Yet that is a dangerous leap—particularly with America's history of unjustly targeting and convicting black men—that fair-minded people would be wise to consider more carefully before condemning the artist. It is no accident that one of Jackson’s favorite books (and movies) was To Kill a Mockingbird, a story about a black man—Tom Robinson—destroyed by false allegations.

The media’s largely uncritical, de-contextualized takes out of Sundance seem to have forgotten: no allegations have been more publicly scrutinized than those against Michael Jackson. They elicited a two-year feeding frenzy in the mid-90s and then again in the mid-2000s, when Jackson faced an exhaustive criminal trial. His homes were ransacked in two unannounced raids by law enforcement. Nothing incriminating was found. Jackson was acquitted of all charges in 2005 by a conservative Santa Maria jury. The FBI, likewise, conducted a thorough investigation. Its 300-page file on the pop star, released under the Freedom of Information Act, found no evidence of wrongdoing.

Meanwhile, dozens of individuals who spent time with Jackson as kids continue to assert nothing sexual ever happened. This includes hundreds of sick and terminally ill children such as Bela Farkas (for whom Jackson paid for a life-saving liver transplant) and Ryan White (whom Jackson befriended and supported in his final years battling AIDS); it includes lesser-known figures like Brett Barnes and Frank Cascio; it includes celebrities like Macaulay Culkin, Sean Lennon, Emmanuel Lewis, Alfonso Ribeiro, and Corey Feldman; it includes Jackson’s nieces and nephews; and it includes his own three children.

The allegations surrounding Jackson largely faded over the past decade for a reason: unlike the Bill Cosby or R. Kelly cases, the more people looked into the Jackson allegations, the more the evidence vindicated him. The prosecution’s case in 2005 was so absurd Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi described it like this:

Ostensibly a story about bringing a child molester to justice, the Michael Jackson trial would instead be a kind of homecoming parade of insipid American types: grifters, suckers and no-talent schemers, mired in either outright unemployment… or the bogus non-careers of the information age, looking to cash in any way they can. The MC of the proceedings was District Attorney Tom Sneddon, whose metaphorical role in this American reality show was to represent the mean gray heart of the Nixonian Silent Majority – the bitter mediocrity itching to stick it to anyone who’d ever taken a vacation to Paris. The first month or so of the trial featured perhaps the most compromised collection of prosecution witnesses ever assembled in an American criminal case – almost to a man a group of convicted liars, paid gossip hawkers or worse…

In the next six weeks, virtually every piece of his case imploded in open court, and the chief drama of the trial quickly turned into a race to see if the DA could manage to put all of his witnesses on the stand without getting any of them removed from the courthouse in manacles.

What’s changed since then?

In Robson’s case, decades after the alleged incidents took place, he was barbecuing with Michael Jackson and his children. He was asking for tickets to the artist’s memorial. He was participating in tributes. “I still have my mobile phone with his number in it,” Robson wrote in 2009, “I just can’t bare the thought of deleting his messages.”

Then, suddenly, after twenty years, his story changed and with his new claims came a $1.5 billion dollar lawsuit.

As an eccentric, wealthy, African American man, Michael Jackson has always been a target for litigation. During the 1980s and 1990s, dozens of women falsely claimed he was the father of their children. He faced multiple lawsuits falsely claiming he plagiarized various songs. As recently as 2010, a woman named Billie Jean filed a frivolous $600 million paternity lawsuit against Jackson’s Estate.

As someone who has done an enormous amount of research on the artist, interviewed many people who were close to him, and been granted access to a lot of private information, my assessment is that the evidence simply does not point to Michael Jackson as the “monster” presented in Leaving Neverland. In contrast to Robson and Safechuck’s revised accounts, there is a remarkable consistency to the way people who knew the artist speak of him—whether friends, family members, collaborators, fellow artists,recording engineers, attorneys, business associates, security guards, former spouses, his own children—people who knew him in every capacity imaginable. Michael, they say, was gentle, brilliant, sensitive, sometimes naive, sometimes childish, sometimes oblivious to perceptions. But none believe he was a child molester.

A fair documentary would allow those voices to be heard as well. Instead, Leaving Neverland presents a biased, emotionally manipulative hit piece that dismisses the perspectives of hundreds of first-hand witnesses in favor of allegations by two men contradicting their own sworn testimonies.


 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

JC08, let me tell you something. When it comes to money, do not put nothing past no one. I seen people fake in court. I seen family members fake things, I seen even co workers fake thing for far less and yes they look creditable; the bottom line, what adds up. Look at MJ actions in fighting this and dealing with this and look at Wade and James and how they are dealing with this. Do not question why anyone would do what they do when it comes to accusing. Again, you are trying to judg people base on YOUR logic. I judge all of this based on WHOSE BEEN THE MOST HONEST? Whose story change, who story reminded the same? Look at the behavior of an accused. Look at the behavior of someone who is claiming to be a victim. You talk about seeing and hearing. Did you see Michael's interviews? What have he ever said that changed? NOTHING and he is the accused. I understand what u saying but again, you are feeling for the moment. As this case goes on, things are going to be reveal even more about these guys. Even when someone said James was asked to come to the trial but did not, why would someone if they really abused you who KNOWS the WORLD is watching ASK someone who they are abusing to testify? That NEVER happens not even with mobsters so you think that will happen with Michael. Let me tell you something, I have NEVEr seen anyone treated the way Mike was treated for the same accusations (and the people I have seen were guilty and the evidence backed it up and some go ahead and admit it when caugh. I have seen men falsely accused-one man served 8 months in jail for claims by his step daughters and yes, the girls lied, changed stories, etc. They were bustered when another classmate heard what they did while talking in the bathroom and told. That is what made them confess and the guy was let go later. So you see, I will judge this based on what I know because I have dealt in this area for many years in seeing suspects, prisoners, etc on both sides. Michael was given NO easy treatment so when peopel want to say "his money got him off", that is a lie; what his money did was NOT let a system throw anything at him. Do you know people go to prison for this kind of crime just on word of mouth even if they are innocent-that would be another reason why I would understand MJ settling because he knew it was about money and he gave it and look, the money hunger left. Settlements DO NOT STOP criminal trials and offensive from going forward. Settlements are done for many reason even by the innocent. I am not going by what I heard, I am going by what I have seen in my line of work and dealing with people in courts for over 25 years. Do not underestimate what people wont do for money. $100 million dollars on appeal to lie. People KILL for $100 and ruin lives and their so it is not unimagable. I say, if MJ was alive, these guys would not be doing what they are doing and if MJ was guilty, it would NOT take some documentary to overshadow a lOOOOONNGG trial which also had the FBI involved and a media, a public, and a all white majority jury ready to convict, etc going against MJ. To me, this doc is no different than a Grand jury-it is a one sided DA tool use to get an indictment and a DA throws everything at the wall to see what sticks; but when trial starts, BOTH sides are heard. This doc was one sided with nothing to show the opposite. ​
 
Last edited:
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

ILoveHIStory said:
I DO BELIEVE that Robson and Safechuck as well as Reed ARE ON THIS BOARD (and all over the twitter net), reading all the info about them, they are collecting all the info, their lawyer is getting ready for the trial, they NEED US to fix their bs and fit them into new claims.
Click to expand...
Reed has said that he is reading what we say. I wish that it was possible to make this thread private, but he may already be a member. They knew this mockumentary was coming, we didn't.
JCO8 said:
English is not my native language. This word doesn't have the same signification in french.



This is exactly my point, thank you. Being moderated in what we say. Trying not to affirm things as if we did know what happened or what did not.
As you say, we will never have evidence in one way or another, it's all about believing, trusting, feeling. We have to admit that.

Today for the first time in my life I have more than serious doubts on Michael's innocence and it is haunting me. For many years I have studied the 2 others cases. I have read the transcripts, I have listened to people, I have read books, including Aphrodite Jones', I have seen all the bullshit that was around those cases, the interested people, the twisted media, the mentally sick families, the dishonnest Tom Sneddon... Michael's acquital, in the middle of this circus, was just logical and I felt released when it happened, although I knew, even at the time, that a justice decision does not mean that the truth has been found. But I trusted Michael, I believed in him.

Today, I have a feeling when I look at these 2 guys. When I look at their background, I can see no reason why they would do such a horrible thing as accusing their dead friend of child molestation if it was not true. And I felt this time it was different as soon has Wade Robson accused Michael in 2013. The fact that he had always defended Michael, the fact that he was this young man, having a baby, a family, living what were supposed to be the best years of his life... I just did not see how someone like this, apparently clever, successful and respected in his job, was going into something like that if it wasn't true. Why puting his whole family into that ? Why risking to waste his whole life and career for a lie (because he knew he was going to be hated by so many) ? It just didn't make sense to me. I just waited to see what was going to happen.

Then there was James Safechuck. Same profile, the difference being that he never seemed interested in fame. Same age, a bit older. Very close to Michael as a child, apparently so happy of it at the time. Having a baby, a family, a good job. Why ?

Then they filled this lawsuit. Asking for money. Alright. This is one of the main elements that make people say that money is all they are after. I'm not sure about that. Asking for money can be a way, for many victims, to find a bit of recognition in what they have been through. We know that. Some say Robson was furious because he didn't get engaged into the Cirque du Soleil thing. Well, why not. I don't know. Is it worth sacrificing the rest of your life and insulting your once best friend who happens to be dead ? I'm not sure. Some say he defended MJ under oath and don't understand how this could have been possible if he was a victim. Again, this has been discussed and we know this is understandable. Loverpeace wrote very clever things about that, a few pages earlier. Someone here says there are no "normal victims" and thinks it's very strange if Michael is guilty. I wanna ask : what is a normal victim ? As long as a child has been abused, therefore you cannot expect from the adult he became to be exactly "normal". Especially if their abuser happened to be the biggest star the World has ever known.

Ok, then their case was rejected because the judge decided they could not accuse the Estate for someone else's alleged acts.

Right. Then came this documentary. This is what frightened me the most, before it was premiered. It means that 6 years after their claims, they are still into it. I mean they are now dedicating their whole adult life to this. What for ? money ? The film maker said they did not receive any money for making this documentary. Some say they hope their case to be reopened and therefore at the very end they still wanna get some money from the Estate. Ok, maybe they hope so. I still don't know. And I still believe they have the right to need to go there if they are victims.

What I know for sure is that opening yourself in a 4 hour documentary that is going to be seen all over the world and, I suppose, will be forever associated to the name of Michael Jackson, that is not something you do lightly. That is not something you do for fame or money. That is something you do when you have things to say and you absolutely want everyone to know, even if you know you are going to be hated by a lot of people. If you are taking that risk for something that is not good, you really are perverted minds.

Then there were the first feedbacks of the movie. Freaking shocking. Horrible things to read. So far from the Michael we knew. I knew from a long time that Michael was not the perfect magical character I thought he was when I was 12. I knew he has a very complex personnality. Of course I had asked myself more than once in the past "He was proven innocent about those charges, they couldn't find no evidence for 15 years... but what if some of it was true, after all ?"... But nothing convinced me at all. Even when I asked this to myself, I never could have imagined him doing what I read in those first reviews. I mean, come on... This is so extreme.

Then I watched the Q&A on video. That was hard but I had to because I felt I did not trust Michael like I once did, and I wanted to know if I believed these guys or not. When you know you will never have evidence in a way or another, all you have to do if you want to be as close to the truth as you can be, is checking facts, wich I did a million times, and listenning to what people have to say. I mean, really listenning. I did that. And I saw "normal people", as normal as they could be. I felt what I was afraid of feeling : their sincerity. And I just wanted to throw up because I happened to believe them.

I'm sorry guys. Call me what you want but I'm being honest. I have evidence of nothing and I won't try to convince anybody, this is not my role and this is not what I want. I won't fight for Michael this time, but I won't fight for Robson and Safechuck either because I know there's always a chance that I might be wrong. By expressing this I just wanted to say that nobody can act as if he knows the truth 100%. Thanks for reading.
Click to expand...

People have killed family members for less than $20, but you find it hard to believe that Robson and Safechuck would lie for millions? Okay, you give them far more credit than I do. If I thought that Michael might be guilty I wouldn't be here on a board dedicated to him.
 
Tarana Burke, the founder of the #MeToo movement, attended the &#8220;Leaving Neverland&#8221; premiere and in an interview two days later said she was still processing the film. While she noted that her campaign has dealt with child sexual abuse &#8212; she herself is a survivor &#8212; she acknowledged that boys and men have not been at the center of the conversation.


&#8220;I think &#8216;Leaving Neverland&#8217; will help shift the idea away that this just happens to women,&#8221; said Burke. &#8220;This film is going to drop like a bomb and shock a lot of people, having people questioning things they believed for so many years.&#8221;


Hours after &#8220;Leaving Neverland&#8221; debuted in Park City, Burke met with Robson and Safechuck to offer her thoughts on how to deal with the public backlash that may emerge in the coming months.


&#8220;I am in the center of a lot of that criticism on a daily basis, and as a survivor, it&#8217;s hard to hold that,&#8221; she said. &#8220;One of the things we talked about is that there&#8217;s going to be so much more support than there is criticism. They said that being here, this is one of the first times they&#8217;ve ever felt supported in their allegations.&#8221;
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

moonchinking said:
I feel Piers Morgan would actually take Michael's side tbh. I'd love to see him going off on a rant about these accusers.
Click to expand...

Maybe we should contact him and tip him off?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top