Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,225
Points
48
Is it not possible to confirm or deny whether Robson went along with family to the grand canyon in any way? Not just the court documents where Joy states that the whole family went there. Something more, some staff at Neverland maybe could remember if Wade was there 5 days with Jackson ALONE?

I'd have thought that if there was proof eg in the way of a guestbook or similar from Neverland, that it would have been one of the exhibits at the 2005 trial when Joy was questioned. It's a long time ago, and who knows if MJ's admin kept guest / housekeeping books 'forever'.

There's probably proof in Joy's family photo album, but she's not going to share it now. Pity a question about family photos etc wasn't asked in 2005.
 

elusive moonwalker

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2003
Messages
26,839
Points
48
Dont need anymore evidence than her testifying to it on two seperate occasions. Whats she gonna say. You dont get mixed up on which of your kids went on holiday with you
 

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,225
Points
48
Interesting how far some authors will go in their investigations- but overlook small things like court papers and train station plans.....
(NB remember the headline is clickbait - it's obviously not MJ doing 'lie detector' tests)
and yes, I'm aware of 'who' this author is, and his background. Interesting that he's not exactly supporting S'chuck though.

Inconsistencies’ found in Michael Jackson abuse testimony after lie detector test

......But now, a new book by investigative journalist Dylan Howard has claimed an advanced lie-detection algorithm has identified "inconsistencies" in the testimony of one of the alleged victims in the documentary.

The apparent twist in the case is revealed in an explosive new book, ‘Bad: An Unprecedented Investigation into the Michael Jackson Cover-Up’, which documents the rise and fall of the world’s biggest pop star.

In the text, the author claims he has results from what he describes as the "world’s most advanced digital behaviour analysis systems" to identify whether there are discrepancies in statements given by Mr Safechuck.

In 2019, Mr Howard says he had experts put the interviews Mr Safechuck had given through the system – which reportedly highlighted irregularities.

The test is called the ‘DecepTech Voice Stress Analysis Machine,' a computerised version of the Psychological Stress Evaluation used by over 50 law enforcement agencies in the US, although it is not permissible as evidence in court.

The words “lie detector” have become synonymous with any reference to voice stress analysis technology, due to the fact that it claims to detect deception in the human voice.

Mr Howard claims the system analysed a section of the documentary in which Mr Safechuck revealed that Jackson held a mock wedding ceremony with him and gave him jewellery in return for sexual favours.

The system reportedly concluded that Mr Safechuck was probably being truthful about the ceremony, but levels of stress in his voice indicated that he might not have been truthful about the "rewards" for sexual favours.

Mr Howard says the analysis also indicates that Mr Safechuck may have “embellished” his testimony.

In the book, Mr Howard writes: “We have to remember that the machine does not prove Safechuck’s version of events, nor does it exonerate Michael.

“Like so much of the controversies surrounding the King of Pop, it leaves us to be the judge.”

https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...-robson-james-safechuck-leaving-neverland-spt

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: It is not surprising that research on this technique has shown that it is unreliable.

eg this research paper says: ''The results are not promising. Although the LVA instrument tended to perform better than the CVSA instrument, both programs failed consistently to correctly identify respondents who were being deceptive. also ''the programs do not seem to have very high inter-user reliability even though the programs were relatively easy to learn and implement''.

Assessing the Validity of Voice Stress Analysis Tools in a Jail Setting

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219031.pdf
 

ScreenOrigami

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,682
Points
48
Oh, the book we’ve all been waiting for. I remember seeing it mentioned here a couple of months ago. So it’s finally out then. :D

Synopsis:

Bad: An Unprecedented Investigation Into the Michael Jackson Cover-Up (Front Page Detectives) Hardcover – 2 Jun 2020
by Dylan Howard (Author)

An Inside View into the Dark Side of a Music Icon

He was the King of Pop, a superstar without equal, the idol of millions of young people around the world. But was Michael Jackson also a sexual predator without equal, someone who preyed on the very fans who adored him?

Bad is the revelatory untold true story of the strange and larger-than-life career of Michael Jackson, the King of Pop. In the wake of the controversial two-part documentary Leaving Neverland, which told the stories of two young boys who were befriended by the singer and have claimed they suffered years of agonizing abuse, Dylan Howard set out to investigate Jackson's life and death in unprecedented depth, to determine--as one lawyer suggested--that the pop star ran "the most sophisticated child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation operation the world has known."

After all the highly publicized trials and unfounded accusations, stunning new information has finally come to light: irrefutable evidence that one of the best-known, best-loved figures in the world was a monster behind closed doors--a foul-mouthed, abusive, drug-sodden freak whose deeds and the reasons for those deeds are revealed now for the first time.

A dramatic narrative account based on dozens of interviews, Howard shares Jackson's own riveting personal journal--obtained exclusively for this book--interviews with family members, multiple first-person sources--some of whom have asked to remain anonymous--as well as thousands of pages of court documents. What he uncovers is a man who was both naive and Machiavellian, unorthodox, a devoted father, shrewd businessman, and drug addict whose life was cut short but whose sound and style have influenced artists of various genres and generations.

Remarkably though, in death, there remains two portraits of Michael Jackson: the reigning King of Pop, and a pedophile whose pattern of abuse ruined his reputation. Fans and individuals alike will forever be asking if the insidious claims being made about MJ are true. This is the new narrative and the sad legacy of one of the best-selling music artists of all time.

Here is his life story, told for the first time with stories and testimony that will leave you shaken.
 

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
“We have to remember that the machine does not prove Safechuck’s version of events, nor does it exonerate Michael.



Well it dam sure does not prove nor mean MJ was guilty either.
 

Kingofpop4ever3000

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,533
Points
0
Here we go again. Another book for the trash-pail IMO. Michael’s 2005 trial verdict should have been the end of all the tired retreading from 1993. No such luck. Ever. And now, MJ fans will most likely have to weather another public relations nightmare a-la LN. For all the known garbage published about a lot of other celebrities, their fans almost never (if ever) have to worry about things like this.
 

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,225
Points
48
I appreciate all the replies above to the 'lie detector' extract, but I should say that I didn't intend to divert this 'LN' thread into a discussion of the book....

I've been thinking about this extract (which was included in the UK 'Daily Express' newspaper online content) overnight, and a few things occurred to me:

1. This is one of the few articles about LN by a generally 'hater' (to use fan shorthand) journalist which opens a crack in the facade of 'S'chuck's 'truth'. To date, most anti-MJ journalists have toed the 'believe all victims' line.

2. This is one of the earliest extracts from this book which has been reproduced / selected for reproduction in a newspaper. Which means the newspaper didn't object to this passage being selected for printing.

3. Other extracts from the book comprise the usual tabloid rubbish, including old, well-debunked stories eg about MJ's recorded conversations with an attorney on board a private jet in 2003, and the 'social workers on a train' complaints in 1992.

4. Most readers of this newspaper article (and book) won't be MJ fans, or knowledgeable about eg 'Lies of Leaving Neverland' and other evidence repositories which reveal the untruths in the legal cases and film. Howard will however have seen these, as he will undoubtedly keep up to date with anything remotely salacious to do with MJ - in keeping with his previous job at The Enquirer and current role as a celebrity author.

5. Out of all of the film - why choose to 'investigate' the 'wedding/ wedding ring' scene- the only one that Reed went back and filmed 17 months after the original LN filming was complete?

My feeling is that Howard has in fact 'done his homework' and is aware of all of the holes in 'LN' that have been revealed in fan articles, documentaries and Estate statements. I think he knows that LN is likely a pointer to two failed court cases and he is hedging his bets - he wants to be able to say 'I (maybe was the first journalist to ) disbelieve their stories, if the court cases go belly-up, as we all anticipate. I think he's leaving open a door to another book about R and S - which might go 'either way', depending on the court case results. But it's interesting that he is highlighting some 'cracks' in the film, and therefore in S'chucks case.
 

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,225
Points
48
Another journalist who prefers his own theories to actual ....er investigation.... And who can't even get the film name consistently right :) (Irish Times) Extracts:

If the artist offends, should we pluck out their work?

...............Contrast with Michael Jackson, whose reputation – always shaky – fell conclusively last year with the film Leaving Neverland, which detailed allegations of child abuse against him: the man who had no real childhood of his own took it away from others. But how far did his reputation fall?

Ahead of Leaving Neverland’s release, RTÉ said it had “no plans to playlist his music at this time”, though it turned out this didn’t stop individual presenters from choosing to play Jackson’s songs. Jackson seems to be, like a bank at the heart of the financial crisis, too big to fail.

We’re battling the sunk cost fallacy: that is, in business, the tendency to believe that the cost already spent on a project justifies continuing to pursue it, irrespective of whether it’s still a viable idea. If we’ve loved our stars for decades, we don’t want to discard them; we cling to the hope that their acts or words have been misunderstood, or just don’t matter.

Jackson certainly has a fan base that will never accept any of the allegations against him; to do so would derail one of the most important relationships they have: a relationship that could not be tarnished in life because it was unrequited, and which they are determined not to relinquish now.

This unquestioning attachment is reflected in our wider filter-bubble society, where we see on social media only the views that reinforce our own. We are unwilling to have our likes dislodged. In addition, the same always-on information age means we are – Clive James on Larkin again – “over-informed”, bombarded with details about artists which may or may not have any relevance to the work.

Margo Jefferson, who wrote a book about Michael Jackson before his death, seemed to take a similar view when she reconsidered the point after Finding Neverland’s revelations. “The task,” she said, “is to read the art and the life fully as they wind and unwind around each other, changing shape and direction.”

But if we are not like Jackson’s obsessive fans, what is our rationale anyway for wanting to stop listening to, or reading, someone who has fallen from grace? Is it purely ethical, in that we cannot stomach the idea of enjoying the work any more; that it has become infected by the creator’s acts? Or is it also more practical purpose: I won’t give my time and money to someone who behaves in this way? ................

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/...ends-should-we-pluck-out-their-work-1.4275674
 

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
Kingofpop4ever3000;4297127 said:
Here we go again. Another book for the trash-pail IMO. Michael’s 2005 trial verdict should have been the end of all the tired retreading from 1993. No such luck. Ever. And now, MJ fans will most likely have to weather another public relations nightmare a-la LN. For all the known garbage published about a lot of other celebrities, their fans almost never (if ever) have to worry about things like this.
At this point, people just see these books are more trying to use MJ as a money maker to line their pockets. it is tiresome and people are moving on. And this guy is a former tabloid journalist which makes it worst and will be viewed no more than another "can not let Michael rest" book. Moving on. it will be likely a flop.
 

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
myosotis;4297295 said:
Another journalist who prefers his own theories to actual ....er investigation.... And who can't even get the film name consistently right :) (Irish Times) Extracts:

If the artist offends, should we pluck out their work?

...............Contrast with Michael Jackson, whose reputation – always shaky – fell conclusively last year with the film Leaving Neverland, which detailed allegations of child abuse against him: the man who had no real childhood of his own took it away from others. But how far did his reputation fall?

Ahead of Leaving Neverland’s release, RTÉ said it had “no plans to playlist his music at this time”, though it turned out this didn’t stop individual presenters from choosing to play Jackson’s songs. Jackson seems to be, like a bank at the heart of the financial crisis, too big to fail.

We’re battling the sunk cost fallacy: that is, in business, the tendency to believe that the cost already spent on a project justifies continuing to pursue it, irrespective of whether it’s still a viable idea. If we’ve loved our stars for decades, we don’t want to discard them; we cling to the hope that their acts or words have been misunderstood, or just don’t matter.

Jackson certainly has a fan base that will never accept any of the allegations against him; to do so would derail one of the most important relationships they have: a relationship that could not be tarnished in life because it was unrequited, and which they are determined not to relinquish now.

This unquestioning attachment is reflected in our wider filter-bubble society, where we see on social media only the views that reinforce our own. We are unwilling to have our likes dislodged. In addition, the same always-on information age means we are – Clive James on Larkin again – “over-informed”, bombarded with details about artists which may or may not have any relevance to the work.

Margo Jefferson, who wrote a book about Michael Jackson before his death, seemed to take a similar view when she reconsidered the point after Finding Neverland’s revelations. “The task,” she said, “is to read the art and the life fully as they wind and unwind around each other, changing shape and direction.”

But if we are not like Jackson’s obsessive fans, what is our rationale anyway for wanting to stop listening to, or reading, someone who has fallen from grace? Is it purely ethical, in that we cannot stomach the idea of enjoying the work any more; that it has become infected by the creator’s acts? Or is it also more practical purpose: I won’t give my time and money to someone who behaves in this way? ................

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/...ends-should-we-pluck-out-their-work-1.4275674
Again, what is it with the UK and this Irish time media? This fool does not speak for MOST (fans, semi fans, causal observers, etc). I have come to the conclusion that these writers in the UK/Irish just want MJ to fall. He talks about MJ's fan base will never accept any allegation against MJ. NO FOOL, fans and fair minded people will NOT ACCEPTS LIES PROVEN and BS. These writers sound stupid by the minute. The same theory he is trying to put on fans, that can said about HATERS like him. They are OBESSED, they can NOT accept the LIES told by these accusers, etc. I can not stand these types of writers. They clearly know nothing and just want to use MJ to make money. He does not care about facts. So what now sir? We as a society should throw people away all because someone make accusation even though the accusers are proven liars but that should not matter because of what you think? I think not. This fool is in no position to tell fans or anyone on how they should feel about MJ. Relationship? Look, if MJ was proven to be an abuser with FACTS, I do not think hardly anyone would back him; however, it has been prove OVER and OVER that MJ is the innocent one and these UK writers/Irish times do not want to accept it. What FACTS does this fool have to proven MJ "behave" in this way? What "acts" does he know for sure happen? He does not (and based on facts, lies told, stories changed, etc, clearly it is lies told on Michael). BURDEN OF PROOF lies with the accusers which they have not proven; if anything, they are continue to be proven liars over and over out to make money which this writer loves to overlook. I will say this to this writer, if you think MJ was guilty, STOP WRITING ABOUT HI; otherwise, he sound like a fool who is just using MJ to make money for his lame article. This is the only place where MJ is continued to be bothered every other place, country, etc still love MJ and will continue to play MJ even when these fools in the UK press/Irish times are dead and gone. Also, just looked this fool John Self up. he is also a writer for (not surprise) THE GUARDIAN. No more needs to be said. I knew it.
 
Last edited:

ChrisC

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
3,276
Points
38
myosotis;4297295 said:
Another journalist who prefers his own theories to actual ....er investigation.... And who can't even get the film name consistently right :) (Irish Times) Extracts:

If the artist offends, should we pluck out their work?

...............Contrast with Michael Jackson, whose reputation – always shaky – fell conclusively last year with the film Leaving Neverland, which detailed allegations of child abuse against him: the man who had no real childhood of his own took it away from others. But how far did his reputation fall?

Ahead of Leaving Neverland’s release, RTÉ said it had “no plans to playlist his music at this time”, though it turned out this didn’t stop individual presenters from choosing to play Jackson’s songs. Jackson seems to be, like a bank at the heart of the financial crisis, too big to fail.

We’re battling the sunk cost fallacy: that is, in business, the tendency to believe that the cost already spent on a project justifies continuing to pursue it, irrespective of whether it’s still a viable idea. If we’ve loved our stars for decades, we don’t want to discard them; we cling to the hope that their acts or words have been misunderstood, or just don’t matter.

Jackson certainly has a fan base that will never accept any of the allegations against him; to do so would derail one of the most important relationships they have: a relationship that could not be tarnished in life because it was unrequited, and which they are determined not to relinquish now.

This unquestioning attachment is reflected in our wider filter-bubble society, where we see on social media only the views that reinforce our own. We are unwilling to have our likes dislodged. In addition, the same always-on information age means we are – Clive James on Larkin again – “over-informed”, bombarded with details about artists which may or may not have any relevance to the work.

Margo Jefferson, who wrote a book about Michael Jackson before his death, seemed to take a similar view when she reconsidered the point after Finding Neverland’s revelations. “The task,” she said, “is to read the art and the life fully as they wind and unwind around each other, changing shape and direction.”

But if we are not like Jackson’s obsessive fans, what is our rationale anyway for wanting to stop listening to, or reading, someone who has fallen from grace? Is it purely ethical, in that we cannot stomach the idea of enjoying the work any more; that it has become infected by the creator’s acts? Or is it also more practical purpose: I won’t give my time and money to someone who behaves in this way? ................

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/...ends-should-we-pluck-out-their-work-1.4275674

Sounds like a young journo. Pretty amateur. He or she should have written this a year ago, if it all.
 

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
A lot of these "journalists" don't half love the sound of there own voice at times.
And they speak for THEMSELVES but want to talk like they speak for others. And these fools are upset that fans will NOT allow their lies to tear down that celeb based on LIES. Look at Johnny Depp fans and fair minded people defending him from these liars in the UK media.
 

ScreenOrigami

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,682
Points
48
The media didn’t make Michael, so the media can’t break Michael. And they just can’t get over it. ;)
 

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
Sounds like a young journo. Pretty amateur. He or she should have written this a year ago, if it all.
I agree. Square ONE is out now and doing great (many people are also watching it but not posting comments. I know some folks who watched it but did not post a comment). The difference with MJ and all the people that fool listed in his article is that there is a factual film and others who defend MJ. Gary glitter and others does NOT have that. Again, I still believe there is a media machine that has been working against MJ in the UK since he brought the Beatles catalog. It is too obvious even more now. They do not like fans because fans will not let their BS destroy or cancel MJ which the racist UK media wants so bad. Again, all other nations do not go this far like the UK now not even USA at this point (only tabloids and we know tabloid are bull***).
 

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
ScreenOrigami;4297324 said:
The media didn’t make Michael, so the media can’t break Michael. And they just can’t get over it. ;)
And he is not going down over some lies so the UK media can get over it like you said. They represent 1%
of the bias media toward MJ, NOT the world who loves MJ and will celeb MJ and love MJ and that is what the UK media can not like.
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,309
Points
0
I feel we all need to let Michael rest. i don't mean stop celebrating him. but news wise etc. he been gone for 11 years. there's really not much left to talk about him just the same old thing and his achievements.

while young people know who MJ is. there's some who don't. as fans we shouldn't always harass people if they make a bad story about Michael because they young and wasn't around when all of that happen.

so i would try talking to them. there a few people has change their views and rewrote their stories so there that. (y)
 

elusive moonwalker

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2003
Messages
26,839
Points
48
Again, what is it with the UK and this Irish time media? This fool does not speak for MOST (fans, semi fans, causal observers, etc). I have come to the conclusion that these writers in the UK/Irish just want MJ to fall. He talks about MJ's fan base will never accept any allegation against MJ. NO FOOL, fans and fair minded people will NOT ACCEPTS LIES PROVEN and BS. These writers sound stupid by the minute. The same theory he is trying to put on fans, that can said about HATERS like him. They are OBESSED, they can NOT accept the LIES told by these accusers, etc. I can not stand these types of writers. They clearly know nothing and just want to use MJ to make money. He does not care about facts. So what now sir? We as a society should throw people away all because someone make accusation even though the accusers are proven liars but that should not matter because of what you think? I think not. This fool is in no position to tell fans or anyone on how they should feel about MJ. Relationship? Look, if MJ was proven to be an abuser with FACTS, I do not think hardly anyone would back him; however, it has been prove OVER and OVER that MJ is the innocent one and these UK writers/Irish times do not want to accept it. What FACTS does this fool have to proven MJ "behave" in this way? What "acts" does he know for sure happen? He does not (and based on facts, lies told, stories changed, etc, clearly it is lies told on Michael). BURDEN OF PROOF lies with the accusers which they have not proven; if anything, they are continue to be proven liars over and over out to make money which this writer loves to overlook. I will say this to this writer, if you think MJ was guilty, STOP WRITING ABOUT HI; otherwise, he sound like a fool who is just using MJ to make money for his lame article. This is the only place where MJ is continued to be bothered every other place, country, etc still love MJ and will continue to play MJ even when these fools in the UK press/Irish times are dead and gone. Also, just looked this fool John Self up. he is also a writer for (not surprise) THE GUARDIAN. No more needs to be said. I knew it.

Ireland isnt part of the U.K its a seperate country. Mj lived there in 2006
 

elusive moonwalker

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2003
Messages
26,839
Points
48
Its funny how the media/uk are using howards book to attack mj again. the guy who had involvement with american media ,weinstein, and epstein helped fund radaronline. Now all of a sudden we have diversion tactics. Back to the wipping boy as maxwell has been arrested and will probalby tweet like a bird to save herself
 

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,225
Points
48
ChrisC;4297320 said:
Sounds like a young journo. Pretty amateur. He or she should have written this a year ago, if it all.

It's interesting that these articles continue, nearly 18 months after the LN premiere.

I think these type of 'journalists' just despair that MJ fans won't go away and shut up. We are challenging their 'power', false intellectual superiority and world view. These journalists want to 'tell' us what the story is. That's fine. There are two sides to every story as the saying goes. The problem is their refusal to look at, discuss or engage fans (or indeed MJ's family) regarding the other side ie that R and S are consistently lying.

Taj answered this writer's assumptions about fans on twitter just a few days ago 'So for those who try and dismiss MJ fam and fans by saying that we are just blinded by our unconditional love for Michael Jackson. Know this... We come with facts, receipts and timestamps. We don’t mess around.'

This article comprised 24 paragraphs, of which 6 were about Michael. In the whole of history, this guy picks out 4 writers, 2 musicians and an artist to castigate, but gives MJ the largest share of the article. In other words it's just another thinly disguised attack piece.

I would paraphrase Self's moralistic quotations back to him: '' any written work is half of a conversation between two human beings, and it helps a lot to know who is talking at you.'' Also 'writers ... must know more than anyone that words have power. Words have consequences, and we act accordingly.'

I wonder what consequences he sees for himself as a writer who does not engage properly with his subject and who promotes his biased views as 'truth'.

he is also a writer for (not surprise) THE GUARDIAN. No more needs to be said. I knew it.

Thank you terrell for mentioning that- I hadn't looked for his other 'outlets'.

Margo Jefferson (whose book Self quotes in this article) also writes for ..The Guardian
 
Last edited:

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
Ireland isnt part of the U.K its a seperate country. Mj lived there in 2006
I know but I was just point out about the UK and that Irish times. The writer of that article writes for The guardian as well. They have an agenda. They seem to have something to talk about MJ everyday. They need to get a life and leave MJ alone especially if they do like MJ. They look like fools and like they are trying to make $$ off MJ. They seem bored but want to use MJ for excitement for their lame papers/sites.
 

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
myosotis;4297340 said:
It's interesting that these articles continue, nearly 18 months after the LN premiere.

I think these type of 'journalists' just despair that MJ fans won't go away and shut up. We are challenging their 'power', false intellectual superiority and world view. These journalists want to 'tell' us what the story is. That's fine. There are two sides to every story as the saying goes. The problem is their refusal to look at, discuss or engage fans (or indeed MJ's family) regarding the other side ie that R and S are consistently lying.

Taj answered this writer's assumptions about fans on twitter just a few days ago 'So for those who try and dismiss MJ fam and fans by saying that we are just blinded by our unconditional love for Michael Jackson. Know this... We come with facts, receipts and timestamps. We don’t mess around.'

This article comprised 24 paragraphs, of which 6 were about Michael. In the whole of history, this guy picks out 4 writers, 2 musicians and an artist to castigate, but gives MJ the largest share of the article. In other words it's just another thinly disguised attack piece.

I would paraphrase Self's moralistic quotations back to him: '' any written work is half of a conversation between two human beings, and it helps a lot to know who is talking at you.'' Also 'writers ... must know more than anyone that words have power. Words have consequences, and we act accordingly.'

I wonder what consequences he sees for himself as a writer who does not engage properly with his subject and who promotes his biased views as 'truth'.



Thank you terrell for mentioning that- I hadn't looked for his other 'outlets'.

Margo Jefferson (whose book Self quotes in this article) also writes for ..The Guardian
Exactly. And that proves their agenda against MJ which people with brains can see their bias (And MJ is the ONLY ONE who has people defending him with facts and NOT just fans either). I still want to know from these types of fools, what makes their view more right than fans when it is fans who comes with FACTS (they come with BS, tabloid, proven lies, etc). And what they try to use to proven guilty turns out to be lies. Again, anyone who writes for THE GUARDIAN has an agenda against MJ.
 
Last edited:

JichaelMackson

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2020
Messages
693
Points
0
I always thought journalists' jobs was to dig for the truth , to spit up facts, to unveil shady business, to make a change for the better. Why is it so hard to check your sources before writing things, do they really have no feelings when they write these horrible stories abut other people? Don't journalists have a code? Did they not choose this profession to fight inequality, for the people, to inform, to prevent injustice to take over?
Why do they keep spreading lies? Why do they continue to create division? If they do their job right people become well informed and more knowledgeable. Is this not better for all?

This is not just about MJ but about many topics and people. Do these lies really make that big a difference in terms of monetary income for whoever it is they write? Is it really just for the money or is there something else going on? I can understand lazy journalism in politics, politicians have enemies, they have to create division among the voters but why are some celebrities also always on the wrong end of the stick? Is it really just about racism in case of MJ?
What the hell is actually going on?? This is a rhetorical question btw nobody knows the answer to this madness
 

NatureCriminal7896

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2019
Messages
10,309
Points
0
To be real with ya news etc never use to be that way. as time when on it has. it mostly attack black people because racism of course. to be real i don't even watch the news etc anymore only if i have to for something important.
 

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,225
Points
48
I always thought journalists' jobs was to dig for the truth , to spit up facts, to unveil shady business, to make a change for the better. Why is it so hard to check your sources before writing things, do they really have no feelings when they write these horrible stories abut other people? Don't journalists have a code? Did they not choose this profession to fight inequality, for the people, to inform, to prevent injustice to take over?
Why do they keep spreading lies? Why do they continue to create division? If they do their job right people become well informed and more knowledgeable. Is this not better for all?

This is not just about MJ but about many topics and people. Do these lies really make that big a difference in terms of monetary income for whoever it is they write? Is it really just for the money or is there something else going on? I can understand lazy journalism in politics, politicians have enemies, they have to create division among the voters but why are some celebrities also always on the wrong end of the stick? Is it really just about racism in case of MJ?
What the hell is actually going on?? This is a rhetorical question btw nobody knows the answer to this madness

'Do these lies really make that big a difference in terms of monetary income for whoever it is they write? '....I wonder about this on a daily basis.

There are so many 'bigger' and more current topics in the world, eg the Trump presidency / forthcoming election (with a new topic of controversy seemingly every day), Coronavirus, the Epstein case and all its connections, 'Black Lives Matter' and the associated assaults and murders, Russian 'influence', Chinese 'influence', Brexit, new news stories every day and STILL a near-18 month old debunked film and a book of debunked stories posing as 'new' - about an 11-years deceased celeb. - generate headlines! Despite multiple easily -accessible videos, tweets, blogs etc. since last year, providing endless facts in rebuttal.

Although many of these UK / Irish articles written by white opinionists (I can't call them journalists any more) have appeared in ad-supported online platforms, the Guardian platform and articles seem to be advert-free (so don't generate income). Is that why a 'Guardian' journalist is now writing an MJ article for the Irish papers? The purpose of these articles is clearly to drive public opinion (we all think alike and so I know we all agree on this..) but to what end now? LN won't be benefitting from more 'views' in the UK (I'm sure all who want to see it have done so). American jurors (in the unlikely event the case comes to trial ) won't be influenced by UK/ Irish tabloids. I find it really hard to believe that non-MJ fans are still interested to click on / read these stories. (I got tired of hearing the anti- Johnny Depp court stories after court day 1).

Sadly, I'm coming to the conclusion that many Brits. are willing to 'convict' people accused of crimes against children on the basis of 'there's no smoke without fire', so believe the accusers / tabloids. This culture seemed to be endemic in the (London) Metropolitan Police, to the extent that a judicial investigation had to be undertaken (called 'The Henriques Enquiry and Report'.) Even after the completion of this investigation into police officers who wrongly 'believed all accusers', no police (or supervising officers) were disciplined or fired.

The Henriques report writes about the issues this judge found regarding police assessing complaints of historic child abuse against 'people of public prominence'. Each issue was then examined and recommendations made. The same issues clearly also apply to 'opinionists' who write articles for public consumption. And film directors!!

These are some of the problematic issues the Henriques report had to remind police about :

Sir Richard Henriques said: (1.12) 'All complainants are not victims'. Some complaints are false...
(1.18) Complainants... do not anticipate instant belief nor anticipate that the crime is proven before it is even investigated.

(1.25 quoting). In sexual cases particularly, even very old ones, some people seem inclined to think that there should be a different presumption to the presumption of innocence...

(1.39) In the case of prominent people, it appears that they are more vulnerable to false complaints than others....Entertainers are particularly vulnerable to false allegations, meeting as they do, thousands of attention-seeking fans who provoke a degree of familiarity which may be exaggerated or misconstrued...

(1.40) A further and significant false complainant was referred to by (an accused) as a 'bandwagoner'; namely a person who learns that a complaint has been made and decides to support the original complaint (true or false) with a false complaint.

(1.42) This section discusses non-recent complaints, and determining the reason for delay in reporting, eg 'my daughter is the same age as me when I was assaulted'.

Ref: Henriques Report
https://www.met.police.uk/SysSiteAs...apters-1---3-sir-richard-henriques-report.pdf
 
Last edited:

elusive moonwalker

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2003
Messages
26,839
Points
48
Do these lies really make that big a difference in terms of monetary income for whoever it is they write? '....I wonder about this on a daily basis.
--------------
Maybe click bait more than anything. For us is inorder to get a reaction and general hits.thsts all tabloids have ever been about.

Seems if journos/blue tick celebs want to impress their bosses and the establishment then attack mj. or the bottom line is nothong more than a hatred

The me too lynch mob has caused big problems with the establishment having/wanting to believe any claim regardless. They go around in circles. You go from cleveland where they believed and made a mistake to ignoring working class northern girls who were been abused to then believing anyone regardless cause they are to scared to question an allegation. its nots the polices job to believe one side or the other its to collect evidence to then pass on to the CPS
 

ChrisC

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
3,276
Points
38
I always thought journalists' jobs was to dig for the truth , to spit up facts, to unveil shady business, to make a change for the better. Why is it so hard to check your sources before writing things, do they really have no feelings when they write these horrible stories abut other people? Don't journalists have a code? Did they not choose this profession to fight inequality, for the people, to inform, to prevent injustice to take over?
Why do they keep spreading lies? Why do they continue to create division? If they do their job right people become well informed and more knowledgeable. Is this not better for all?

This is not just about MJ but about many topics and people. Do these lies really make that big a difference in terms of monetary income for whoever it is they write? Is it really just for the money or is there something else going on? I can understand lazy journalism in politics, politicians have enemies, they have to create division among the voters but why are some celebrities also always on the wrong end of the stick? Is it really just about racism in case of MJ?
What the hell is actually going on?? This is a rhetorical question btw nobody knows the answer to this madness

Journalism is dead.
 

Lightbringer

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
804
Points
18
Jim Clemente opening his trap again:"MJ fell in love with his victims and expressed it sexually"....

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Anyone whos watched 'Square One' (which I hope you all have) knows what a ****ing idiot Jim Clemente is when he argued with Taj Jackson that the promo shoot for 3T was CLEAR EVIDENCE Jackson was a pedo. Yes, harmless photos meant for PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES to be seen by THE PUBLIC <a href="https://t.co/fVx1DR2Ru4">https://t.co/fVx1DR2Ru4</a></p>&mdash; &#65533;&#65533; Carn is sick of your dumb crap &#65533;&#65533; (@Carnivius) <a href="https://twitter.com/Carnivius/status/1282413805373399041?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 12, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Top