Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

[Smooth72]

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

How can they legally use video and pictures of MJ and Neverland?

 

[dmehta]

Because of that settlement, he can't or won't say anything incriminating according to the confidential agreement. It would breaching the agreement point on not go out to public or the media about the case. Then the Estate would sue him and win the lawsuit within a heartbeat. If Evan Chandler could do that on Michael with that 60 million dollar lawsuit back in 1996, so can the Estate.

Correct, Chandler could not speak now about the case in 93 due to the confidentiality agreement as part of the settlement. He obviously has had every right to testify against Jackson in criminal proceedings but chose not to.

The only way I guess he could come forward now and speak publicly is if there was an agreement on both sides to break the confidentiality agreement. And the only way that would happen is if Jordan committed to saying MJ did nothing to him!

Plus I don’t actually know if that would even be possible, to disolve the confidentiality agreement, as MJ is dead. Could the Estate do so?

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

Holy shit, that ****ing trailer.

People are seriously believing this? I understand it's just a short preview of a four-hour film and they've omitted the grotesque commentary, but the acting is just horrendous. James is decent at best, but Wade just sucks. They both have such vacant expressions, empty eyes, and they clearly sound like they're reading from a pre-written script.

What an absolute joke. The fact that people are falling for this blows my mind. For their sake, I hope that HBO just sucks at cutting trailers, because they chose the worst footage to lead with.

Good. Mind you it said it all when they stood there at the press conference laughing. And it says alot when dozens of of invited brainwashers left the viewing. If haters thought it was fake... massive P.R campaign cause they know when its aired just like with robson on U.S t.v shows the public will be like yeah right?

Robson tried to get chandler involved in his case. They wanted nothing to do with it. Reed is full of S!@#$

 

[Staffordshire Bullterrier]

So the trailer is out. What a joke, neither of them look or sound at all credible. People are definitely being paid to say they do because wade sounds like he's reading off of a massive card held right on front of him.

Oh lord, the trailer is out? Hopefully I won't see it while watching my shows and movies on Hulu. I have ads there and I just don't want to see this filth at all.

A lot of these MJ haters think that our logic is to say "MJ IS INNOCENT BECAUSE HES MY FAVORITE SINGER SO THERE!!!" When in reality, the fans are really saying, "We've looked at the court documents, we looked at the FBI reports and all the documents and affadavits on record, all these allegations are full of holes and inconsistencies. Based on that, we've come to the conclusion that there is no way MJ is guilty."

Exactly. And yet people still shrug it off like it's nothing. Or they just say" sure. ". I honestly haven't had one person in all these years of trying to give people facts online where he/she started to see things differently. Most of the time they didn't respond anymore after I came with factual information or it's where the jokes would start.

So it seems like we just can't "win" really.

Stuff like this kinda scares me because if he convinced him it could be quite bad for MJ.

On one hand I want him to do this, because let's not forget that two grand juries denied this. On the other hand I really don't, because they'll find a way to make it look believable, PLUS the simple fact that the general public gets to hear the details they are now ignorant to, unless they've done the research.

I rather have the vermin stay in his hole. Same goes for the backstabbing Arvizo.

Holy shit, that ****ing trailer.

People are seriously believing this? I understand it's just a short preview of a four-hour film and they've omitted the grotesque commentary, but the acting is just horrendous. James is decent at best, but Wade just sucks. They both have such vacant expressions, empty eyes, and they clearly sound like they're reading from a pre-written script.

What an absolute joke. The fact that people are falling for this blows my mind. For their sake, I hope that HBO just sucks at cutting trailers, because they chose the worst footage to lead with.

I hope it's a perfect indication of the full thing because there HAVE to be at least a few people, not necessarily from the media, that will see through these two lying ass bastards' nonsense. There's no way there won't at least be a few people (YouTube) like The amazing Lucas, ShawnCee, Misanthropikone and others that see how full of it these two guys are. All three channels I mentioned have real good videos of Jussie Smollett and I hope they cover LN, unless they don't bother seeing it which... yah I can't argue with that.

They did say they were going to have a screening for influencers so there are people beeing paid to repeat ”watch the movie” right now and ofcpurse they want us to look like the irrational ones.

Good point. But just watch the general media doing exactly the same. But wait, the channel 4 screening was for influencers? Here I thought it was actual UK media.

There was a person at Sundance who left after 2 hours and says that then she left atleast 25 people had already left.

The question is, was this because these people thought to themselves "dude, who are you kidding? What is this trash?" or was it because they were horrified about the details? Remember we've had people like that guy from Dutch channel Vpro who also called it powerful I believe. Sure seems to be their favorite way to refer to it, sigh.

 

[Paris78]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="de"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/JusticeforMJ?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#JusticeforMJ</a> Sweatshirts are out NOW. All profits will go to Taj Jackson <a href="https://twitter.com/tajjackson3?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@tajjackson3</a> for the making of this documentary. Purchase here!: <a href="https://t.co/hYo36X1ycS">https://t.co/hYo36X1ycS</a></p>&mdash; The Good Fishes Co. (@thegoodfishes) <a href="https://twitter.com/thegoodfishes/status/1087525979369684992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">22. 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">What those saying &quot;just see the movie&quot; won't admit is that some vocal critics did go to see it at the festival, and came away knowing it was never intended to be fair. Had it been, it would have explored the many holes in the Robson/Safechuck narratives. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/LeavingNeverland?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#LeavingNeverland</a></p>&mdash; Leaving Neverland Facts (@NeverlandFacts) <a href="https://twitter.com/NeverlandFacts/status/1097925545390534656?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">19. Februar 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"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/OTD?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#OTD</a> 1974 MJ &amp; I hosted the 1st <a href="https://twitter.com/AMAs?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AMAs</a>. We did the best we could to deliver the painfully-written lines without bursting into laughter. <br>Best <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/memory?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#memory</a> of the night was afterwards when <a href="https://twitter.com/michaeljackson?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@michaeljackson</a> &amp; I ate &#127790;s out of the sunroof of my limo while driving down Sunset Blvd. <a href="https://t.co/60T6ig82R9">pic.twitter.com/60T6ig82R9</a></p>&mdash; Donny Osmond (@donnyosmond) <a href="https://twitter.com/donnyosmond/status/1097917822653485056?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">19. Februar 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">I CAN'T BELIEVE IT!! YES!! WE MADE IT <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/mjfam?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#mjfam</a> !!! W*de Robson's new video is getting thumbs down and it's 402 now! <br>Let's hit 500!! Let's show our power! He messed with wrong people! Thank you!&#128074;&#128074;<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MJInnocent?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MJInnocent</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/mjBeats?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@mjBeats</a><br><br>Don't watch it! Just &#128078;&#128078;&#128078;! <a href="https://t.co/Mry7qfkybn">https://t.co/Mry7qfkybn</a> <a href="https://t.co/3NlWfemiP6">pic.twitter.com/3NlWfemiP6</a></p>&mdash; DriBrasil #MJINNOCENT &#128081; (@DriBrasilMJ) <a href="https://twitter.com/DriBrasilMJ/status/1097906724068098048?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">19. Februar 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[innuendo141]

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

The trailer gave me a good lol. Shocked at how it was shot. That last camera angle!

 

[marc_vivien]

[h=1]'He Was a Sexual Predator' Says Director of New Michael Jackson Doc[/h]
[h=2]https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43znmj/he-was-a-sexual-predator-says-director-of-new-michael-jackson-doc-leaving-neverland-hbo

&#8220;Porn and candy,&#8221; James Safechuck says with a sigh in the upcoming HBO documentary Leaving Neverland, recounting one of the countless sexual encounters he claims to have shared with Michael Jackson as a child. The four-hour film recounts his story as well as that of Wade Robson, another boy who says he was groomed to be Jackson&#8217;s secret child lover over a period of many years.[/h]

In each case, the film alleges, Jackson sought out children who mythologized him, slowly seducing their parents with vacations, houses, and money, while psychologically manipulating the boys into thinking they were liable accomplices in his sex crimes. The boys&#8217; stage performances and sycophancy toward Jackson are endearing (what 80s child wouldn&#8217;t fall to pieces when gifted a &#8220;Thriller&#8221; jacket or &#8220;Smooth Criminal&#8221; hat?) which makes the graphic and detailed account of their sexual allegations against Jackson all the more horrifying to endure.
James Safechuck first met Jackson when they co-starred together in a 1988 Pepsi commercial. The two became inseparable, with Jackson often staying over at Safechuck&#8217;s home, bringing him along as a Mini Me performer on the Bad Tour, and, according to Safechuck, lavishing him with jewelry (including a diamond ring used in a mock wedding ceremony between the two). Safechuck alleges that Jackson supplied him with wine and the two would perform sexual acts on each other on a daily basis, both at Neverland Ranch and in hotel rooms on tour (where his mother was often booked in a separate room).





Around the same time, Jackson met five-year-old Australian Wade Robson after he won a lookalike dance contest. Similar to Safechuck, the Robson family claims that Jackson seduced them with a life of luxury while routinely engaging in sex with their son. When they were apart, Jackson called and faxed Robson every day, often staying on the phone for &#8220;six to seven hours at a time,&#8221; according to his mother.



The descriptive interviews with both Safechuck and Robson (now in their thirties) about the sex they claim to have had with Jackson leave little to the imagination. Phrases like &#8220;bloody underwear,&#8221; &#8220;squeezing his nipples while he ejaculates,&#8221; and &#8220;a grown man&#8217;s penis in my seven-year-old mouth&#8221; are difficult to sit through, but perhaps necessary when considering what these guys are up against in coming forward with these allegations.
The Jackson estate has been working hard to discredit HBO and the director and subjects of Leaving Neverland, releasing a ten page letter to the company citing numerous grievances (including calling Robson unreliable because his father suffered from mental health issues and took his own life).
Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed doesn&#8217;t feel that the Jackson estate has any legs to stand on in criticizing his film, and is optimistic that all of this will lead to greater conversation about sexual abusers in positions of power. I recently caught up with Reed to discuss the emotional, legal and cultural turmoil his film has wrought on society, and whether or not we should all stop listening to Jackson&#8217;s music.
VICE: There have been so many books, documentaries, and TV specialsfocusing on the psychology of Michael Jackson and the abuse he endured as a child impacting his behavior as an adult. Was it a conscious choice for you to not explore Jackson&#8217;s internal world at all in this film?
Dan Reed: Well it&#8217;s not a film about Michael Jackson. It&#8217;s about the Robsons and Safechucks and their encounters with Jackson. I never met Michael Jackson, I never interviewed him, I don&#8217;t know what it was in his history or his psychological makeup that led him to molest little boys, and I don&#8217;t want to speculate on that.



I don&#8217;t think that having a tragic childhood determines your behavior later in life. Not everyone who has a bad childhood or was sexually abused becomes a sex abuser. What I was fascinated about with this story is the picture [Robson and Safechuck] draw of the grooming sexual predator. And because that story involves Michael Jackson it will have an incredible reach. And that will bring to light some really important facts about how child sexual abuse does happen. It&#8217;s not how people imagine.
That&#8217;s why so many people on Twitter are asking: &#8220;Why did Robson stand up for Jackson in court? Why didn&#8217;t he just run to his mummy and say &#8216;Michael Jackson did these things to me&#8217;&#8221;? Well, because that&#8217;s not how sexual abuse works. And I think this film shows that in poignant detail. Abusers can make their victims fall in love with them. Like Wade says how he lived his entire life with this fantasy that Jackson&#8217;s relationship with him was a positive thing. But that was bullshit, and it was very difficult for him to admit that.
It seems like this is not so much a story about Jackson&#8217;s [alleged] abuse revelations, but more of a story about these two men contending with the abuse they endured as children.
Exactly. That&#8217;s where the film lands, when Wade and James reveal to their families the abuse they endured. To me, that&#8217;s where the emotional peak of the film is, even more than the horrible detail of the sexual transactions. It&#8217;s in the release of Wade finally telling his family and his wife the truth, which he&#8217;d lied about for so long.



Michael Jackson fandom breeds a particular kind of intensity. What has the backlash to the film been like from them?
So let me be clear about one thing: There are tens of millions of Michael Jackson fans out there in the world. People who love Michael&#8217;s music and have great memories of dancing to his music at their weddings or bar mitzvah or the last time they saw their mom. His music is interwoven into the fabric of people&#8217;s lives around the world. And a majority of MJ fans are just people who just really like his music.
But there is also this league of fans who are almost like a cult, and they say very nasty things [about the film] on social media. And their words echo the two-decade long rhetoric of the Jackson family and legal team, which is shaming the victims. It happens often in these cases. It&#8217;s what they do very aggressively and relentlessly, and I don&#8217;t think you can get away with that in 2019 like you could in the past.
The majority of Jackson fans are people who will be really shocked to hear this very compelling case of abuse by Jackson, as I was. When I first came into this I had no prejudice against Jackson, I had no fixed opinion about whether he was or wasn&#8217;t a pedophile, he could&#8217;ve been innocent. I believed he was a good guy, made good music, seemed nice to children, and I think most people were in that grey area. Sadly, it turns out he was a sexual predator, and I think a lot of people are going to rethink their view of him.



And I&#8217;m sure your next question is going to be: Should people stop listening to his music?
That is on my list of questions.
[Laughs] I wouldn&#8217;t say that there should be any hashtag to ban Michael Jackson like there is with R. Kelly. I think Jackson&#8217;s music is too woven into the fabric of American and British life, and others around the world, to just rip it out like that. Do you want your children&#8217;s party soundtrack to be MJ songs? I don&#8217;t know. I wouldn&#8217;t. But should it be banned? I don&#8217;t think so. It&#8217;s great music, he was a great artist and entertainer. He was also a pedophile.
Were those the real sequin glove and "Thriller" jacket that Robson was burning in the final credits of the film?
I wasn&#8217;t there when Wade burned those items, but the photographic evidence suggests those were the real deal, yeah.
Seems like those would be profoundly valuable items, which is particularly interesting since the Jackson estate is claiming Robson is telling his story for the money.
Sure, but I don&#8217;t think [the burning of memorabilia], in itself, validates his position. I think you have to look at the wider picture, which is that he and James weren&#8217;t paid and have no financial interest in the documentary, for a start.
They also criticize your film for not reaching out to anyone for a counterpoint to Robson and Safechuck&#8217;s story.
We included plenty of critics of Wade from Jackson&#8217;s fans, statements from Jackson while he was alive where he denied all child sexual abuse allegations, and statements from the lawyers during both investigations. I think we comprehensively represented the positions of Michael Jackson and his lawyers.



Right. There just weren&#8217;t any contemporary interviews done for the film.
Yeah, but the Jackson estate&#8217;s position, to my knowledge, hasn&#8217;t changed. They maintain that Jackson is innocent.
It seemed like it was important to you that the film include a lot of explicit detail about the [alleged] sexual acts between Jackson and these boys, and not just rely on the generic statements like &#8220;he sexually abused me.&#8221;
We had to establish that actual sexual activity was taking place. For so many years Jackson claimed that he shared a bed with children for completely innocent reasons. If we hadn&#8217;t had these very graphic, shocking descriptions of the sexual activity that took place people might just think that it was only hugs that were a bit intimate, or slightly inappropriate brushing of cheeks. We thought it was important to make clear that this was sex, not just affectionate touching.
Did you get the sense that any of Jackson&#8217;s handlers knew about or even helped facilitate aspects of this?
Well, just to be clear, I didn&#8217;t come across anything to suggest that anyone else participated in the sexual activity. If you&#8217;re asking: Were people who worked with Jackson complicit in this? That&#8217;s a question that must be asked, but it&#8217;s one I don&#8217;t have an answer to. Jackson&#8217;s life was closely managed almost 24 hours a day by his staff. Were they all completely oblivious to the sexual abuse taking place at Neverland and on tour? What did they think Jackson was doing with a boy in his bed every night?



Did you get the sense that Robson and Safechuck&#8217;s experiences were just a drop in the bucket?
I believe there were many other victims. We wanted to focus on James and Wade, and their families, who had very long relationships with Jackson. I&#8217;m sure there are others out there who will come out when the time is right for them. We&#8217;ll see.
How did Jackson&#8217;s death impact the viability of this film?
It may have been more difficult to make if he were alive today. People are still very much afraid of Jackson and his lawyers. As I went around speaking to people who were associated with the investigations, they were afraid of Jackson&#8217;s people&#8217;s ability to shutdown a lot of the victims. They employ unscrupulous PIs, and are very litigious. The power of his machine is very terrifying.
Beyond Jackson&#8217;s death, society&#8217;s handling of sexual abuse survivors is wildly different than in 1993 when the first accusations surfaced. Do you think the #MeToo movement had an impact on the reception of this film?
Oh yes, it&#8217;s incredible. And there&#8217;s a British angle to all this as well: There was a very famous, and very creepy children&#8217;s entertainer in the UK called Jimmy Savile who was knighted by the Queen, but it turned out that he was a violent, prolific child rapist with hundreds of victims. And it took a long time for that to be accepted. So by the time I made this film that case was already well known.



And then just before Sundance the R. Kelly documentary was broadcast. So we&#8217;ve been kind of blessed that there&#8217;s been this wave of believing victims of sexual abuse, instead of smearing them. I don&#8217;t think today Jackson would&#8217;ve gotten away with what he did in the 90s.
How are Robson and Safechuck doing? Are they getting away from everything while this film premieres?
Oh no. They&#8217;re stoked. The premiere at Sundance was a turning point in their lives. There was a standing ovation for them after the film, with people shouting &#8220;We believe you!&#8221; They had tears in their eyes. I think they were shocked because it was the first time they had that validation. They were so used to not being believed and being denigrated. This is a real moment for them.
Interview has been condensed for length and clarity.
Leaving Neverland part one premieres on HBO March 3, with the following installment released the next day.

 

[marc_vivien]

They met as adults for the first time at Sundance. &#8220;What they&#8217;ve been through has taught them that there&#8217;s no point in getting angry,&#8221; he said of how they&#8217;ve dealt with telling their stories. &#8220;There&#8217;s no point in hating. It doesn&#8217;t get you anywhere. It only hurts you.&#8221;

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/michael-jackson-leaving-neverland-trailer-796415/

 

[KOPV]

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



Is Brian Friedman supporting Wade in this? As a dancer and fan of the dance community, this would be another disappointing piece of news to me.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

Probably he has in the past. Not that i have a clue who he is

 

[Paris78]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="de"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">From Russia &#127479;&#127482; with LOVE.<br>Michael Jackson’s fans from Russia post protests airtime to liars.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MJFamUNITE?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MJFamUNITE</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MJInnocent?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MJInnocent</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MichaelJackson?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MichaelJackson</a> <a href="https://t.co/S2oFJpGXhD">pic.twitter.com/S2oFJpGXhD</a></p>&mdash; LoveMJJAlways (@LoveMJJAlways) <a href="https://twitter.com/LoveMJJAlways/status/1097261917108764672?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">17. Februar 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[KOPV]

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

Probably he has in the past. Not that i have a clue who he is

He's a choreographer and dancer, has done a lot of work with Janet over the years... Even was with Wade at the tribute for Michael during that scream performance.

 

[summer]

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

Hold On!!!

I just watched the trailer for Leaving Neverland.. Who the f** did they talk to to get access to Neverland post Michael Jacksons death? How did Dan Reed get that access into Neverland.. That Gate they show opening is the gate they put up AFTER the actual gates were removed.

It's from this video. In 2017 a group of real esate people were allowed in because Neverland was listed for sale.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

So reed says mj was a predator. Guess he forgot to read the court documents again ? you know the ones where it states it was joy robson who was pushing herself and family onto mj with her constant hassling of evvy. For someone who was looking for victims just like with the arvizos mj did a heck of a job to keep them away from him. But hey dan why let sworn statements by the robsons get in the way of a good lynching.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

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

For those on facebook channel 4 have uploaded the clip on their page. Lets tell them how wonderful the acting is in it. If this is the best they have!!!

 

[Lightbringer]

I left the following message on youtube and facebook:

This shambolic piece on Michael Jackson is NOT a documentary. A documentary is journalistic and investigative. You don’t just point your camera at two proven liars/perjurers and hit record! Its a "fantasy" film without any evidence, just two men with a long history of lies and contradicting stories on their record. They say its not about the money, after shopping book deal (which failed), suing the Michael Jackson estate for millions (which also failed).

Why is this not mentioned in the film? Why did the director leave out the mountains of evidence showing that these men are lying?

Unless you researched the evidence, being NEUTRAL should be the norm. Not publicly lynching a man that was exonerated in court and by FBI, POLICE, CPS etc. The ONLY thing proved in court is that MJ was the victim of greedy vultures making false claims for financial gain, thats the reality.

The deceased can not legally be defamed. The deceased also can not defend themselves. Therefore anything can be said about them and not be challenged. Open field day for false accusation from greedy already proven liars. Anything for $$$ - Facts don’t lie, people do!

 

[FD1998]

I’ve voted the good comments on Channel 4’s post using reactions, some good support already

 

[La74]

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

I found this on Jordan Chandler https://www.mylife.com/jordan-chandler/e112300220202 . Sounds like the right person.

 

[La74]

I left the following message on youtube and facebook:

This shambolic piece on Michael Jackson is NOT a documentary. A documentary is journalistic and investigative. You don&#8217;t just point your camera at two proven liars/perjurers and hit record! Its a "fantasy" film without any evidence, just two men with a long history of lies and contradicting stories on their record. They say its not about the money, after shopping book deal (which failed), suing the Michael Jackson estate for millions (which also failed).

Why is this not mentioned in the film? Why did the director leave out the mountains of evidence showing that these men are lying?

Unless you researched the evidence, being NEUTRAL should be the norm. Not publicly lynching a man that was exonerated in court and by FBI, POLICE, CPS etc. The ONLY thing proved in court is that MJ was the victim of greedy vultures making false claims for financial gain, thats the reality.

The deceased can not legally be defamed. The deceased also can not defend themselves. Therefore anything can be said about them and not be challenged. Open field day for false accusation from greedy already proven liars. Anything for $$$ - Facts don&#8217;t lie, people do!

Since there is no evidente what so ever and Wade testified for the defense at the age of 23 and only &#8221;realized he was abused&#8221; at age 30 after not getting the job for a tribute show they have no choice than making it all about emotions. Kind of like the Margit Norell cult with &#8221;evidence emotions&#8221; and the Quick trials if you know what I mean.

 

[summer]

'He Was a Sexual Predator' Says Director of New Michael Jackson Doc


https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...new-michael-jackson-doc-leaving-neverland-hbo

&#8220;Porn and candy,&#8221; James Safechuck says with a sigh in the upcoming HBO documentary Leaving Neverland, recounting one of the countless sexual encounters he claims to have shared with Michael Jackson as a child. The four-hour film recounts his story as well as that of Wade Robson, another boy who says he was groomed to be Jackson&#8217;s secret child lover over a period of many years.



In each case, the film alleges, Jackson sought out children who mythologized him, slowly seducing their parents with vacations, houses, and money, while psychologically manipulating the boys into thinking they were liable accomplices in his sex crimes. The boys&#8217; stage performances and sycophancy toward Jackson are endearing (what 80s child wouldn&#8217;t fall to pieces when gifted a &#8220;Thriller&#8221; jacket or &#8220;Smooth Criminal&#8221; hat?) which makes the graphic and detailed account of their sexual allegations against Jackson all the more horrifying to endure.
James Safechuck first met Jackson when they co-starred together in a 1988 Pepsi commercial. The two became inseparable, with Jackson often staying over at Safechuck&#8217;s home, bringing him along as a Mini Me performer on the Bad Tour, and, according to Safechuck, lavishing him with jewelry (including a diamond ring used in a mock wedding ceremony between the two). Safechuck alleges that Jackson supplied him with wine and the two would perform sexual acts on each other on a daily basis, both at Neverland Ranch and in hotel rooms on tour (where his mother was often booked in a separate room).





Around the same time, Jackson met five-year-old Australian Wade Robson after he won a lookalike dance contest. Similar to Safechuck, the Robson family claims that Jackson seduced them with a life of luxury while routinely engaging in sex with their son. When they were apart, Jackson called and faxed Robson every day, often staying on the phone for &#8220;six to seven hours at a time,&#8221; according to his mother.



The descriptive interviews with both Safechuck and Robson (now in their thirties) about the sex they claim to have had with Jackson leave little to the imagination. Phrases like &#8220;bloody underwear,&#8221; &#8220;squeezing his nipples while he ejaculates,&#8221; and &#8220;a grown man&#8217;s penis in my seven-year-old mouth&#8221; are difficult to sit through, but perhaps necessary when considering what these guys are up against in coming forward with these allegations.
The Jackson estate has been working hard to discredit HBO and the director and subjects of Leaving Neverland, releasing a ten page letter to the company citing numerous grievances (including calling Robson unreliable because his father suffered from mental health issues and took his own life).
Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed doesn&#8217;t feel that the Jackson estate has any legs to stand on in criticizing his film, and is optimistic that all of this will lead to greater conversation about sexual abusers in positions of power. I recently caught up with Reed to discuss the emotional, legal and cultural turmoil his film has wrought on society, and whether or not we should all stop listening to Jackson&#8217;s music.
VICE: There have been so many books, documentaries, and TV specialsfocusing on the psychology of Michael Jackson and the abuse he endured as a child impacting his behavior as an adult. Was it a conscious choice for you to not explore Jackson&#8217;s internal world at all in this film?
Dan Reed: Well it&#8217;s not a film about Michael Jackson. It&#8217;s about the Robsons and Safechucks and their encounters with Jackson. I never met Michael Jackson, I never interviewed him, I don&#8217;t know what it was in his history or his psychological makeup that led him to molest little boys, and I don&#8217;t want to speculate on that.



I don&#8217;t think that having a tragic childhood determines your behavior later in life. Not everyone who has a bad childhood or was sexually abused becomes a sex abuser. What I was fascinated about with this story is the picture [Robson and Safechuck] draw of the grooming sexual predator. And because that story involves Michael Jackson it will have an incredible reach. And that will bring to light some really important facts about how child sexual abuse does happen. It&#8217;s not how people imagine.
That&#8217;s why so many people on Twitter are asking: &#8220;Why did Robson stand up for Jackson in court? Why didn&#8217;t he just run to his mummy and say &#8216;Michael Jackson did these things to me&#8217;&#8221;? Well, because that&#8217;s not how sexual abuse works. And I think this film shows that in poignant detail. Abusers can make their victims fall in love with them. Like Wade says how he lived his entire life with this fantasy that Jackson&#8217;s relationship with him was a positive thing. But that was bullshit, and it was very difficult for him to admit that.
It seems like this is not so much a story about Jackson&#8217;s [alleged] abuse revelations, but more of a story about these two men contending with the abuse they endured as children.
Exactly. That&#8217;s where the film lands, when Wade and James reveal to their families the abuse they endured. To me, that&#8217;s where the emotional peak of the film is, even more than the horrible detail of the sexual transactions. It&#8217;s in the release of Wade finally telling his family and his wife the truth, which he&#8217;d lied about for so long.



Michael Jackson fandom breeds a particular kind of intensity. What has the backlash to the film been like from them?
So let me be clear about one thing: There are tens of millions of Michael Jackson fans out there in the world. People who love Michael&#8217;s music and have great memories of dancing to his music at their weddings or bar mitzvah or the last time they saw their mom. His music is interwoven into the fabric of people&#8217;s lives around the world. And a majority of MJ fans are just people who just really like his music.
But there is also this league of fans who are almost like a cult, and they say very nasty things [about the film] on social media. And their words echo the two-decade long rhetoric of the Jackson family and legal team, which is shaming the victims. It happens often in these cases. It&#8217;s what they do very aggressively and relentlessly, and I don&#8217;t think you can get away with that in 2019 like you could in the past.
The majority of Jackson fans are people who will be really shocked to hear this very compelling case of abuse by Jackson, as I was. When I first came into this I had no prejudice against Jackson, I had no fixed opinion about whether he was or wasn&#8217;t a pedophile, he could&#8217;ve been innocent. I believed he was a good guy, made good music, seemed nice to children, and I think most people were in that grey area. Sadly, it turns out he was a sexual predator, and I think a lot of people are going to rethink their view of him.



And I&#8217;m sure your next question is going to be: Should people stop listening to his music?
That is on my list of questions.
[Laughs] I wouldn&#8217;t say that there should be any hashtag to ban Michael Jackson like there is with R. Kelly. I think Jackson&#8217;s music is too woven into the fabric of American and British life, and others around the world, to just rip it out like that. Do you want your children&#8217;s party soundtrack to be MJ songs? I don&#8217;t know. I wouldn&#8217;t. But should it be banned? I don&#8217;t think so. It&#8217;s great music, he was a great artist and entertainer. He was also a pedophile.
Were those the real sequin glove and "Thriller" jacket that Robson was burning in the final credits of the film?
I wasn&#8217;t there when Wade burned those items, but the photographic evidence suggests those were the real deal, yeah.
Seems like those would be profoundly valuable items, which is particularly interesting since the Jackson estate is claiming Robson is telling his story for the money.
Sure, but I don&#8217;t think [the burning of memorabilia], in itself, validates his position. I think you have to look at the wider picture, which is that he and James weren&#8217;t paid and have no financial interest in the documentary, for a start.
They also criticize your film for not reaching out to anyone for a counterpoint to Robson and Safechuck&#8217;s story.
We included plenty of critics of Wade from Jackson&#8217;s fans, statements from Jackson while he was alive where he denied all child sexual abuse allegations, and statements from the lawyers during both investigations. I think we comprehensively represented the positions of Michael Jackson and his lawyers.



Right. There just weren&#8217;t any contemporary interviews done for the film.
Yeah, but the Jackson estate&#8217;s position, to my knowledge, hasn&#8217;t changed. They maintain that Jackson is innocent.
It seemed like it was important to you that the film include a lot of explicit detail about the [alleged] sexual acts between Jackson and these boys, and not just rely on the generic statements like &#8220;he sexually abused me.&#8221;
We had to establish that actual sexual activity was taking place. For so many years Jackson claimed that he shared a bed with children for completely innocent reasons. If we hadn&#8217;t had these very graphic, shocking descriptions of the sexual activity that took place people might just think that it was only hugs that were a bit intimate, or slightly inappropriate brushing of cheeks. We thought it was important to make clear that this was sex, not just affectionate touching.
Did you get the sense that any of Jackson&#8217;s handlers knew about or even helped facilitate aspects of this?
Well, just to be clear, I didn&#8217;t come across anything to suggest that anyone else participated in the sexual activity. If you&#8217;re asking: Were people who worked with Jackson complicit in this? That&#8217;s a question that must be asked, but it&#8217;s one I don&#8217;t have an answer to. Jackson&#8217;s life was closely managed almost 24 hours a day by his staff. Were they all completely oblivious to the sexual abuse taking place at Neverland and on tour? What did they think Jackson was doing with a boy in his bed every night?



Did you get the sense that Robson and Safechuck&#8217;s experiences were just a drop in the bucket?
I believe there were many other victims. We wanted to focus on James and Wade, and their families, who had very long relationships with Jackson. I&#8217;m sure there are others out there who will come out when the time is right for them. We&#8217;ll see.
How did Jackson&#8217;s death impact the viability of this film?
It may have been more difficult to make if he were alive today. People are still very much afraid of Jackson and his lawyers. As I went around speaking to people who were associated with the investigations, they were afraid of Jackson&#8217;s people&#8217;s ability to shutdown a lot of the victims. They employ unscrupulous PIs, and are very litigious. The power of his machine is very terrifying.
Beyond Jackson&#8217;s death, society&#8217;s handling of sexual abuse survivors is wildly different than in 1993 when the first accusations surfaced. Do you think the #MeToo movement had an impact on the reception of this film?
Oh yes, it&#8217;s incredible. And there&#8217;s a British angle to all this as well: There was a very famous, and very creepy children&#8217;s entertainer in the UK called Jimmy Savile who was knighted by the Queen, but it turned out that he was a violent, prolific child rapist with hundreds of victims. And it took a long time for that to be accepted. So by the time I made this film that case was already well known.



And then just before Sundance the R. Kelly documentary was broadcast. So we&#8217;ve been kind of blessed that there&#8217;s been this wave of believing victims of sexual abuse, instead of smearing them. I don&#8217;t think today Jackson would&#8217;ve gotten away with what he did in the 90s.
How are Robson and Safechuck doing? Are they getting away from everything while this film premieres?
Oh no. They&#8217;re stoked. The premiere at Sundance was a turning point in their lives. There was a standing ovation for them after the film, with people shouting &#8220;We believe you!&#8221; They had tears in their eyes. I think they were shocked because it was the first time they had that validation. They were so used to not being believed and being denigrated. This is a real moment for them.
Interview has been condensed for length and clarity.
Leaving Neverland part one premieres on HBO March 3, with the following installment released the next day.

I was laughing SO HARD while reading this pile of propaganda and lies!!!! LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And people call THIS a "credible film maker???!!!! LMAOOOOO!! When EVERY OTHER WORD coming from his mouth is a lie or omitting facts and the truth?!!! JESUS TAKE THE WHEEL if people are THIS STUPID??!! Especially the people in the media who just sit there nodding and buying all this bullshit. I can't even take this shit seriously anymore...I'm sorry I can't. I'm at the point where it is SO BLANTANTLY RIDCILOUS that all I can do is LAUGH! Honestly.....Dan Reed is even more stupid and delusional than I thought. Especially if he himself IN ALL HONESTLY thinks he did actual research or thinks he is correct. That is some messed up in the head kind of thinking right there. However, I think he knows perfectly well that the whole story is fabricated or he wouldn't have left out all the facts and he wouldn't be lying during his interviews. He knows it's a lie and he initends on banking on it. Too bad that fans are messing up his plans by posting facts everywhere you look and discrediting him. A dead give away to show he KNOWS it's all a fabricated lie is his answer to what would happen if MJ would still be alive. Him mentioning how MJ's lawyers would "vigorously sue"....yes because it would be DEFAMATION because it would not be based on facts. But also....when you think about it, he is talking himself into a corner....because if he is suggesting MJ would sue people....then that would mean MJ would be willing to GO TO COURT with it....which would mean that who ever got sued WOULD NEED TO BRING EVIDENCE. So that isn't exactly "intimidation" or "shaming" a victim is it? Isn't that exactly what a sexual abuse victim would like? That it goes to court? Isn't justice what they want? And if you make claims aren't you expected to back it up with evidence? Isn't that how JUSTICE works? Because if suing someone is indication of harrassement and shaming....then what does Wade and James suing MJ quailify as in Dan's mind? Can't have different rules for others. I can't help but to laugh! Or him saying he totally liked MJ before and totally didn't have an agenda....yes...SUUUUUUURREEEEEE you didn't Dan. That is why you seeked out Wade and James yourself (Dan's words) AFTER you read about Wade sueing and trying to make money with the allegations. Oh yes...you totally didn't have an agenda and TOOOOTALLY believed he was innocent. Man, basic logic fails on so many levels that I can't even with people who fall for this shit. LOL!!!!!

 

[Staffordshire Bullterrier]

How can they legally use video and pictures of MJ and Neverland?

I wonder about that as well. Can they just do that?

Good. Mind you it said it all when they stood there at the press conference laughing. And it says alot when dozens of of invited brainwashers left the viewing. If haters thought it was fake... massive P.R campaign cause they know when its aired just like with robson on U.S t.v shows the public will be like yeah right&#128533;

Robson tried to get chandler involved in his case. They wanted nothing to do with it. Reed is full of S!@#$

Yeah, but what I want to know if did they leave because it was just a bad, bad "documentary" and just wasting their time or were they disgusted because of the details (lies) being told? Hoping it's the former because then I can see people at home thinking the same and tuning off.

[h=1]'He Was a Sexual Predator' Says Director of New Michael Jackson Doc[/h]
[h=2]https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43znmj/he-was-a-sexual-predator-says-director-of-new-michael-jackson-doc-leaving-neverland-hbo

&#8220;Porn and candy,&#8221; James Safechuck says with a sigh in the upcoming HBO documentary Leaving Neverland, recounting one of the countless sexual encounters he claims to have shared with Michael Jackson as a child. The four-hour film recounts his story as well as that of Wade Robson, another boy who says he was groomed to be Jackson&#8217;s secret child lover over a period of many years.[/h]

In each case, the film alleges, Jackson sought out children who mythologized him, slowly seducing their parents with vacations, houses, and money, while psychologically manipulating the boys into thinking they were liable accomplices in his sex crimes. The boys&#8217; stage performances and sycophancy toward Jackson are endearing (what 80s child wouldn&#8217;t fall to pieces when gifted a &#8220;Thriller&#8221; jacket or &#8220;Smooth Criminal&#8221; hat?) which makes the graphic and detailed account of their sexual allegations against Jackson all the more horrifying to endure.
James Safechuck first met Jackson when they co-starred together in a 1988 Pepsi commercial. The two became inseparable, with Jackson often staying over at Safechuck&#8217;s home, bringing him along as a Mini Me performer on the Bad Tour, and, according to Safechuck, lavishing him with jewelry (including a diamond ring used in a mock wedding ceremony between the two). Safechuck alleges that Jackson supplied him with wine and the two would perform sexual acts on each other on a daily basis, both at Neverland Ranch and in hotel rooms on tour (where his mother was often booked in a separate room).





Around the same time, Jackson met five-year-old Australian Wade Robson after he won a lookalike dance contest. Similar to Safechuck, the Robson family claims that Jackson seduced them with a life of luxury while routinely engaging in sex with their son. When they were apart, Jackson called and faxed Robson every day, often staying on the phone for &#8220;six to seven hours at a time,&#8221; according to his mother.



The descriptive interviews with both Safechuck and Robson (now in their thirties) about the sex they claim to have had with Jackson leave little to the imagination. Phrases like &#8220;bloody underwear,&#8221; &#8220;squeezing his nipples while he ejaculates,&#8221; and &#8220;a grown man&#8217;s penis in my seven-year-old mouth&#8221; are difficult to sit through, but perhaps necessary when considering what these guys are up against in coming forward with these allegations.
The Jackson estate has been working hard to discredit HBO and the director and subjects of Leaving Neverland, releasing a ten page letter to the company citing numerous grievances (including calling Robson unreliable because his father suffered from mental health issues and took his own life).
Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed doesn&#8217;t feel that the Jackson estate has any legs to stand on in criticizing his film, and is optimistic that all of this will lead to greater conversation about sexual abusers in positions of power. I recently caught up with Reed to discuss the emotional, legal and cultural turmoil his film has wrought on society, and whether or not we should all stop listening to Jackson&#8217;s music.
VICE: There have been so many books, documentaries, and TV specialsfocusing on the psychology of Michael Jackson and the abuse he endured as a child impacting his behavior as an adult. Was it a conscious choice for you to not explore Jackson&#8217;s internal world at all in this film?
Dan Reed: Well it&#8217;s not a film about Michael Jackson. It&#8217;s about the Robsons and Safechucks and their encounters with Jackson. I never met Michael Jackson, I never interviewed him, I don&#8217;t know what it was in his history or his psychological makeup that led him to molest little boys, and I don&#8217;t want to speculate on that.



I don&#8217;t think that having a tragic childhood determines your behavior later in life. Not everyone who has a bad childhood or was sexually abused becomes a sex abuser. What I was fascinated about with this story is the picture [Robson and Safechuck] draw of the grooming sexual predator. And because that story involves Michael Jackson it will have an incredible reach. And that will bring to light some really important facts about how child sexual abuse does happen. It&#8217;s not how people imagine.
That&#8217;s why so many people on Twitter are asking: &#8220;Why did Robson stand up for Jackson in court? Why didn&#8217;t he just run to his mummy and say &#8216;Michael Jackson did these things to me&#8217;&#8221;? Well, because that&#8217;s not how sexual abuse works. And I think this film shows that in poignant detail. Abusers can make their victims fall in love with them. Like Wade says how he lived his entire life with this fantasy that Jackson&#8217;s relationship with him was a positive thing. But that was bullshit, and it was very difficult for him to admit that.
It seems like this is not so much a story about Jackson&#8217;s [alleged] abuse revelations, but more of a story about these two men contending with the abuse they endured as children.
Exactly. That&#8217;s where the film lands, when Wade and James reveal to their families the abuse they endured. To me, that&#8217;s where the emotional peak of the film is, even more than the horrible detail of the sexual transactions. It&#8217;s in the release of Wade finally telling his family and his wife the truth, which he&#8217;d lied about for so long.



Michael Jackson fandom breeds a particular kind of intensity. What has the backlash to the film been like from them?
So let me be clear about one thing: There are tens of millions of Michael Jackson fans out there in the world. People who love Michael&#8217;s music and have great memories of dancing to his music at their weddings or bar mitzvah or the last time they saw their mom. His music is interwoven into the fabric of people&#8217;s lives around the world. And a majority of MJ fans are just people who just really like his music.
But there is also this league of fans who are almost like a cult, and they say very nasty things [about the film] on social media. And their words echo the two-decade long rhetoric of the Jackson family and legal team, which is shaming the victims. It happens often in these cases. It&#8217;s what they do very aggressively and relentlessly, and I don&#8217;t think you can get away with that in 2019 like you could in the past.
The majority of Jackson fans are people who will be really shocked to hear this very compelling case of abuse by Jackson, as I was. When I first came into this I had no prejudice against Jackson, I had no fixed opinion about whether he was or wasn&#8217;t a pedophile, he could&#8217;ve been innocent. I believed he was a good guy, made good music, seemed nice to children, and I think most people were in that grey area. Sadly, it turns out he was a sexual predator, and I think a lot of people are going to rethink their view of him.



And I&#8217;m sure your next question is going to be: Should people stop listening to his music?
That is on my list of questions.
[Laughs] I wouldn&#8217;t say that there should be any hashtag to ban Michael Jackson like there is with R. Kelly. I think Jackson&#8217;s music is too woven into the fabric of American and British life, and others around the world, to just rip it out like that. Do you want your children&#8217;s party soundtrack to be MJ songs? I don&#8217;t know. I wouldn&#8217;t. But should it be banned? I don&#8217;t think so. It&#8217;s great music, he was a great artist and entertainer. He was also a pedophile.
Were those the real sequin glove and "Thriller" jacket that Robson was burning in the final credits of the film?
I wasn&#8217;t there when Wade burned those items, but the photographic evidence suggests those were the real deal, yeah.
Seems like those would be profoundly valuable items, which is particularly interesting since the Jackson estate is claiming Robson is telling his story for the money.
Sure, but I don&#8217;t think [the burning of memorabilia], in itself, validates his position. I think you have to look at the wider picture, which is that he and James weren&#8217;t paid and have no financial interest in the documentary, for a start.
They also criticize your film for not reaching out to anyone for a counterpoint to Robson and Safechuck&#8217;s story.
We included plenty of critics of Wade from Jackson&#8217;s fans, statements from Jackson while he was alive where he denied all child sexual abuse allegations, and statements from the lawyers during both investigations. I think we comprehensively represented the positions of Michael Jackson and his lawyers.



Right. There just weren&#8217;t any contemporary interviews done for the film.
Yeah, but the Jackson estate&#8217;s position, to my knowledge, hasn&#8217;t changed. They maintain that Jackson is innocent.
It seemed like it was important to you that the film include a lot of explicit detail about the [alleged] sexual acts between Jackson and these boys, and not just rely on the generic statements like &#8220;he sexually abused me.&#8221;
We had to establish that actual sexual activity was taking place. For so many years Jackson claimed that he shared a bed with children for completely innocent reasons. If we hadn&#8217;t had these very graphic, shocking descriptions of the sexual activity that took place people might just think that it was only hugs that were a bit intimate, or slightly inappropriate brushing of cheeks. We thought it was important to make clear that this was sex, not just affectionate touching.
Did you get the sense that any of Jackson&#8217;s handlers knew about or even helped facilitate aspects of this?
Well, just to be clear, I didn&#8217;t come across anything to suggest that anyone else participated in the sexual activity. If you&#8217;re asking: Were people who worked with Jackson complicit in this? That&#8217;s a question that must be asked, but it&#8217;s one I don&#8217;t have an answer to. Jackson&#8217;s life was closely managed almost 24 hours a day by his staff. Were they all completely oblivious to the sexual abuse taking place at Neverland and on tour? What did they think Jackson was doing with a boy in his bed every night?



Did you get the sense that Robson and Safechuck&#8217;s experiences were just a drop in the bucket?
I believe there were many other victims. We wanted to focus on James and Wade, and their families, who had very long relationships with Jackson. I&#8217;m sure there are others out there who will come out when the time is right for them. We&#8217;ll see.
How did Jackson&#8217;s death impact the viability of this film?
It may have been more difficult to make if he were alive today. People are still very much afraid of Jackson and his lawyers. As I went around speaking to people who were associated with the investigations, they were afraid of Jackson&#8217;s people&#8217;s ability to shutdown a lot of the victims. They employ unscrupulous PIs, and are very litigious. The power of his machine is very terrifying.
Beyond Jackson&#8217;s death, society&#8217;s handling of sexual abuse survivors is wildly different than in 1993 when the first accusations surfaced. Do you think the #MeToo movement had an impact on the reception of this film?
Oh yes, it&#8217;s incredible. And there&#8217;s a British angle to all this as well: There was a very famous, and very creepy children&#8217;s entertainer in the UK called Jimmy Savile who was knighted by the Queen, but it turned out that he was a violent, prolific child rapist with hundreds of victims. And it took a long time for that to be accepted. So by the time I made this film that case was already well known.



And then just before Sundance the R. Kelly documentary was broadcast. So we&#8217;ve been kind of blessed that there&#8217;s been this wave of believing victims of sexual abuse, instead of smearing them. I don&#8217;t think today Jackson would&#8217;ve gotten away with what he did in the 90s.
How are Robson and Safechuck doing? Are they getting away from everything while this film premieres?
Oh no. They&#8217;re stoked. The premiere at Sundance was a turning point in their lives. There was a standing ovation for them after the film, with people shouting &#8220;We believe you!&#8221; They had tears in their eyes. I think they were shocked because it was the first time they had that validation. They were so used to not being believed and being denigrated. This is a real moment for them.
Interview has been condensed for length and clarity.
Leaving Neverland part one premieres on HBO March 3, with the following installment released the next day.

He believes there are many more victims and what he says about the positive reaction about it, sigh. I really really hope his shit is gonna fall flat on its face. Please let this shit fail hard and please let this man just be without a job asap.

I really, really don't want to read anything said about/by this man anymore.

I left the following message on youtube and facebook:

This shambolic piece on Michael Jackson is NOT a documentary. A documentary is journalistic and investigative. You don’t just point your camera at two proven liars/perjurers and hit record! Its a "fantasy" film without any evidence, just two men with a long history of lies and contradicting stories on their record. They say its not about the money, after shopping book deal (which failed), suing the Michael Jackson estate for millions (which also failed).

Why is this not mentioned in the film? Why did the director leave out the mountains of evidence showing that these men are lying?

Unless you researched the evidence, being NEUTRAL should be the norm. Not publicly lynching a man that was exonerated in court and by FBI, POLICE, CPS etc. The ONLY thing proved in court is that MJ was the victim of greedy vultures making false claims for financial gain, thats the reality.

The deceased can not legally be defamed. The deceased also can not defend themselves. Therefore anything can be said about them and not be challenged. Open field day for false accusation from greedy already proven liars. Anything for $$$ - Facts don’t lie, people do!

Very good. To the point and informative and most importantly you stay calm. There's nothing you can argue against this.

 

[dmehta]

Here is the Channel 4 version of the trailer. Shows a clip of Safechuck with the rings and talking about the wedding ceremony. Sounds so fake. Also, the rings look in great condition, and in a nice little box. Because that&#8217;s what you&#8217;d do if the person who gave you those rings abused you!

[video]https://youtu.be/VnUBWzptIdI[/video]

 

[Bink]

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

I won't be watching this so called documentary. I will be busy playing the History album at full blast!!!

 

[FD1998]

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

Is it me or does he seem like he's acting? I know a bit of body language, and it seems like he's getting revenge on someone, look at his face when he says he wanted to speak the truth longer than he spoke the lie. He's getting revenge because he gets rejected from everything. I'm glad the general public aren't listening to this, keep it up

 

[Staffordshire Bullterrier]

Here is the Channel 4 version of the trailer. Shows a clip of Safechuck with the rings and talking about the wedding ceremony. Sounds so fake. Also, the rings look in great condition, and in a nice little box. Because that&#8217;s what you&#8217;d do if the person who gave you those rings abused you!

[video]https://youtu.be/VnUBWzptIdI[/video]

I didn't watch the trailer myself, refuse to give it my click/hit, but based on what I'm reading here they don't appear convincing at all, more like laughable. Yet we see tweets by people that saw it calling it "powerful, very convincing, just look into their eyes." LMFAO!

Judging by the comments here I really doubt these journalists truly believe it's convincing and all that bla bla.

However, depending on how they have edited it and how they bring it with the alarm system bullshit for example, I can definitely see people believing it, especially when they have no idea what the true story is. I don't find it hard to believe that someone who is not in the know about anything that they will start to believe it.

That's just the reality.

 

[tabloidjunkie95]

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

I won't be watching this so called documentary. I will be busy playing the History album at full blast!!!

Same here!
Will not even be watching the trailer for a sec.

 

[dmehta]

Here&#8217;s a newly uploaded video to YouTube. Wade Robson doing a Thriller cast podcast in 2008, talking glowingly about MJ and how they met:

https://youtu.be/GABDZBTUpK8

 

[Staffordshire Bullterrier]

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

I remember Wade during that Jimmy Kimmel show and he was positive about MJ, fully supportive and he looked sincere and honest there. Maybe some people who are in this profession should analyze that and compare it with how he talks in LN? I know he's this self proclaimed master of deception, but maybe that can be done. I see a video on YouTube from Ben Shapiro about Jussie Smollett, would he be a good person for this?

 

[Staffordshire Bullterrier]

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

Is it me or does he seem like he's acting? I know a bit of body language, and it seems like he's getting revenge on someone, look at his face when he says he wanted to speak the truth longer than he spoke the lie. He's getting revenge because he gets rejected from everything. I'm glad the general public aren't listening to this, keep it up

What do you mean with the general public aren't listening to this? Because this has yet to air on TV. They will definitely hear about it quite soon now, very unfortunately.

 

[Electro]

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

I remember Wade during that Jimmy Kimmel show and he was positive about MJ, fully supportive and he looked sincere and honest there. Maybe some people who are in this profession should analyze that and compare it with how he talks in LN? I know he's this self proclaimed master of deception, but maybe that can be done. I see a video on YouTube from Ben Shapiro about Jussie Smollett, would he be a good person for this?

Here's a body language analysis of Robson on TV:

And one with Michael: