I'm fond of the statement the Estate made after the film premiered. The subtle jabs to the accusers make me proud.
Here, in Switzerland, this hasn't made waves so far. There was nothing in the news today about it. Not even in the German tabloid Blick. Hopefully, it stays that way.
Zeus7;4238178 said:I haven't seen this anywhere except the fan forums, think I'll avoid the boards for a few weeks and enjoy the Michael we know
Smooth72;4238180 said:Pretty much all the comment sections I have read people don’t believe this BS. Yahoo articles and many others as well. I’m sure the estate has people working it and so far are doing a good job. It is discusting at what some people are saying but I’m sure they were already haters. Onnce the truth gets up supported by facts things will sway towards MJ. Give it a few days we will see a change.
I saw people on youtube today too who said in comments that they never were a MJ-fan but can't belive that story!That's great to hear. Seems like it's the everyday internet user/forum/comment poster that actually knows better. They look at the Arvizo case and then go "he was found not guilty on all charges" this is just a money grab. It's looking more and more like that the tabloids will spew their usual trash, people reading that will never know any better anyway and the people that attended the viewing of the documentary...... they'll probably believe it.
Of course there will always be some people posting comments full of hate and complete ignorance but it's good to hear about positivity.
La74;4238176 said:Probably but he was then 25 and more likely to think this is not my problem I will just refuse to testify and Evan Chandler and Tom Sneddon are now dead. This has always reminded me of the story of Thomas Quick which I posted before. Huge very emotional mediathing and a DA with a history of malisious prosecution. I hope Paris and her brothers are ok. I’m glad they have their cousions.
an article apeared in russian network titled "MJ really was a pedophile"
so the crap started
I wish that were true :/, but over the past few years we've seen people's entire legacies tarnished and "erased" from history because of allegations against them, regardless of whether or not they were true. It almost feels like many people with hidden agendas were just waiting for this to happen. Especially with the recent news about R. Kelly and then Bryan Singer, it's really hitting a nerve with many people and evoking memories of the allegations against MJ. The best way to counter this would be for a strong voice to stand up and present evidence. Or at the very least, make it clear why these individuals are not credible, just as the '93 and '03 accusers weren't credible. If there's anyone with credibility who was close to MJ, it would've been Macaulay Culkin and he vehemently denies all of this stuff. I guess we'll just have to wait and see :/ ..
Statement in full:
''Leaving Neverland' isn't a documentary, it is the kind of tabloid character assassination Michael Jackson endured in life, and now in death.
'The film takes uncorroborated allegations that supposedly happened 20 years ago and treats them as fact. These claims were the basis of lawsuits filed by these two admitted liars which were ultimately dismissed by a judge.
'The two accusers testified under oath that these events never occurred. They have provided no independent evidence and absolutely no proof in support of their accusations, which means the entire film hinges solely on the word of two perjurers.
'Tellingly, the director admitted at the Sundance Film Festival that he limited his interviews only to these accusers and their families. In doing so, he intentionally avoided interviewing numerous people over the years who spent significant time with Michael Jackson and have unambiguously stated that he treated children with respect and did nothing hurtful to them.
'By choosing not to include any of these independent voices who might challenge the narrative that he was determined to sell, the director neglected fact checking so he could craft a narrative so blatantly one-sided that viewers never get anything close to a balanced portrait.
'For 20 years, Wade Robson denied in court and in numerous interviews, including after Michael passed, that he was a victim and stated he was grateful for everything Michael had done for him.
'His family benefitted from Michael's kindness, generosity and career support up until Michael's death. Conveniently left out of Leaving Neverland was the fact that when Robson was denied a role in a Michael Jackson themed Cirque du Soleil production, his assault allegations suddenly emerged.
'We are extremely sympathetic to any legitimate victim of child abuse. This film, however, does those victims a disservice.
'Because despite all the disingenuous denials made that this is not about money, it has always been about money – millions of dollars — dating back to 2013 when both Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who share the same law firm, launched their unsuccessful claims against Michael's Estate.
'Now that Michael is no longer here to defend himself, Robson, Safechuck and their lawyers continue their efforts to achieve notoriety and a payday by smearing him with the same allegations a jury found him innocent of when he was alive.'
Yes, indeed some of them are a Putin's media. Russian media must be ashamed: so many disgusting, pejorative and provocative titles. They're almost same as UK or US press. Those people don't have a conscience.Putins channel by any chance? the same channel that claimed mj died of a demoral overdose.
The Jackson estate should contact journalists like Ronan Farrow who wrote the Harvey Weinstein article for the New Yorker magazine. Ask him to do an investigative piece on Michael, the allegations, Hollywood cover-up, scapegoating etc. Like the one Mary Fischer did for GQ magazine in 1994.
marc_vivien;4238114 said:[FONT="]Read the Estate’s statement in its entirety below:[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT="]“Leaving Neverland” isn’t a documentary, it is the kind of tabloid character assassination Michael Jackson endured in life, and now in death. The film takes uncorroborated allegations that supposedly happened 20 years ago and treats them as fact. These claims were the basis of lawsuits filed by these two admitted liars which were ultimately dismissed by a judge. The two accusers testified under oath that these events never occurred. They have provided no independent evidence and absolutely no proof in support of their accusations, which means the entire film hinges solely on the word of two perjurers.[/FONT]
[FONT="][I]Tellingly, the director admitted at the Sundance Film Festival that he limited his interviews only to these accusers and their families. In doing so, he intentionally avoided interviewing numerous people over the years who spent significant time with Michael Jackson and have unambiguously stated that he treated children with respect and did nothing hurtful to them. By choosing not to include any of these independent voices who might challenge the narrative that he was determined to sell, the director neglected fact checking so he could craft a narrative so blatantly one-sided that viewers never get anything close to a balanced portrait.[/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT="]For 20 years, Wade Robson denied in court and in numerous interviews, including after Michael passed, that he was a victim and stated he was grateful for everything Michael had done for him. His family benefitted from Michael’s kindness, generosity and career support up until Michael’s death. Conveniently left out of Leaving Neverland was the fact that when Robson was denied a role in a Michael Jackson themed Cirque du Soleil production, his assault allegations suddenly emerged.[/FONT]
[FONT="][I]We are extremely sympathetic to any legitimate victim of child abuse. This film, however, does those victims a disservice. Because despite all the disingenuous denials made that this is not about money, it has always been about money – millions of dollars — dating back to 2013 when both Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who share the same law firm, launched their unsuccessful claims against Michael’s Estate. Now that Michael is no longer here to defend himself, Robson, Safechuck and their lawyers continue their efforts to achieve notoriety and a payday by smearing him with the same allegations a jury found him innocent of when he was alive.[/I][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT="]– The Estate of Michael Jackson
https://variety.com/2019/film/news/...g-neverland-documentary-statement-1203119202/[/FONT]
Paris78;4238198 said:<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="de"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Global support for <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MJInnocent?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MJInnocent</a>. Thank you Chinese <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MJFam?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MJFam</a>! <a href="https://t.co/QVDocAlZ9E">https://t.co/QVDocAlZ9E</a></p>— andjustice4some (@andjustice4some) <a href="https://twitter.com/andjustice4some/status/1089179553539321856?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">26. Januar 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="de"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">To those reviewing <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/LeavingNeverland?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#LeavingNeverland</a> you can't mention these:<br><br>Was it emotional?<br>Was it disgusting?<br>Was it painful?<br><br>Without mentioning these:<br><br>Did it provide evidence?<br>Did it explain inconsistencies with current and former testimonies?<br><br>Remember your job as a journalist.</p>— Brian M. Mabry (Swain) (@brianmmabry) <a href="https://twitter.com/brianmmabry/status/1088909826162331648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">25. Januar 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="de"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Geraldine Hughes makes statement re: Leaving Neverland at <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Sundance?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Sundance</a> and her intentions to make a film from her book Redemption - <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/JusticeForMJ?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#JusticeForMJ</a> <a href="https://t.co/WmGCo1o80Q">pic.twitter.com/WmGCo1o80Q</a></p>— MJJJusticeProject (@MJJJusticePrjct) <a href="https://twitter.com/MJJJusticePrjct/status/1089177782502928384?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">26. Januar 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Suggestion: if there is going to be a documentary defending MJ, it should begin with a detailed look into the history of one scumbag known as Victor Gutierrez. He was in 1984 in LA for the Olympics (supposedly covering them as a journalist for his home country Chile) and attended a conference of powerful pedophiles while there. This clandestine group apparently had a strong interest among in getting MJ to speak out in favor of man-boy love, in their view, this would help them remove the social stigma from their activities. Gutierrez cozied up to the staff at NL to try and get dirt and became buddies with Blanca Francia--got her connected to the tabloids, etc. He also cozied up to the maid of the Chandlers, getting photos etc from her and bogus stories to write his BS book.
Pick a target and go after that person. The logical target here is Gutierrez. It would go a long way in my view, if people know about his lowlife, lying efforts to destroy MJ, his being forced to leave the country and go back to Chile after being found guilty in court and ordered to pay MJ millions for defaming him, etc.
The documentary should focus on people like Gutierrez, who lied and were found out and discredited for working to make money by selling to the tabloids. Gutierrez was a "freelance journalist" selling stories to tabloids.
We have to go after the media and their profit-based liaison with lying scum like Gutierrez et al. Gutierrez got the whole thing rolling, laying the groundwork for the police to pick up on--he was the first person interviewed by the LA detectives investigating the 93 case.
Who's Geraldine Hughes again? I remember that name from a long time ago, just not where she's from anymore. And what's Redemption? Did Aphrodite Jones say anything by the way?
Putins channel by any chance? the same channel that claimed mj died of a demoral overdose.
CherubimII;4238210 said:Let's get to work responding to as many of these reports about this film as possible.
It DOSE make a difference!
I guess the BBC is Theresa May's channel? :doh:
There president is Putin KING of the stupidity and weirdo. I will take what they say with a grain of salt. When MJ was there, he was mobbed and sold out. enuf said.Yes, indeed some of them are a Putin's media. Russian media must be ashamed: so many disgusting, pejorative and provocative titles. They're almost same as UK or US press. Those people don't have a conscience.
I recently read a compilation of newspapers clippings about two Michael's visits in Russia in '93 and '96. The word J***o is almost in every sentence, every article about him is full with some Russian cheap ass untalented performers' or local famous people's comments, which says something like "his music is not worth a dime, he's weirdo".
Now it's almost the same, and add to that the hate of West that dominates now in Russian media.
