Latest on MJJC

Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

La74;4246218 said:
It was posted by somebody else earlier in this thread. I will try to find it. Somebody posted it about the same time Roger Friedman review was posted.
Click to expand...

Someone saying it doesn’t really count as proof. I really hope someone can find a photo or video as proof - I’m a fan in need of a reason to not believe Safechuck because right now I think I do believe him
 
Oh... I see that the account from MJFacts is now active in the commemtsections under YouTube- videos in a veeeeery evil and hateful manner towards MJ and his fans.

Stay away from him! Don't give him any attention!

I bet that he plans to produce new videos.
 
MJJ2theMAX;4246081 said:
Let’s give piers Morgan some love on twitter (literally never thought I’d say that sentence!)

https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1103244850000998400?s=21
Click to expand...


I really wished he asked Reed how did the FBI missed Michael's activities despite investigating him for 17 years, especially if there was a 'wealth of evidence'. That 300 page FBI filed can be Google. He can't seriously suggested that Michael paid off the FBI and they continue to keep his secret for going on a decade?

Or how Michael can be a serial pedo and somehow through two raids on his house along with the FBI they couldn't find any child porn or even questionable sites he may have visited. Especially if he was ass rapping Wade past 93.
 
Ramona122003 said:
I really wished he asked Reed how did the FBI missed Michael's activities despite investigating him for 17 years, especially if there was a 'wealth of evidence'. That 300 page FBI filed can be Google. He can't seriously suggested that Michael paid off the FBI and they continue to keep his secret for going on a decade?

Or how Michael can be a serial pedo and somehow through two raids on his house along with the FBI they couldn't find any child porn or even questionable sites he may have visited. Especially if he was ass rapping Wade past 93.
Click to expand...

why FBI investigation extends almost every time i'm hearing about it? it wasn't 17 and it wasn't 10. it was two seperate investigations summary for 4 years or so
 
Lightbringer said:
We can stop speculating now - Safechuck said to his mom in 2005 he was abused, its in his civil lawsuit.

Did Razorfizt delete his tweet? NO, its still up.

Here is it is:


Click to expand...

I've been back on this forum ever since the LN news began and I wasn't aware of that at all. I was under the impression that Safechuck made it clear he wasn't going to testify on Michael's behalf but did confirm nothing ever happened.

Why would you tell your mom this, ask her to keep it quiet when you can also actually join Sneddon and Arvizo I wonder?
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
I've been back on this forum ever since the LN news began and I wasn't aware of that at all. I was under the impression that Safechuck made it clear he wasn't going to testify on Michael's behalf but did confirm nothing ever happened.

Why would you tell your mom this, ask her to keep it quiet when you can also actually join Sneddon and Arvizo I wonder?
Click to expand...

Yeah its totally wiared for the mum and James!
 
strangerinncl;4246222 said:
Someone saying it doesn’t really count as proof. I really hope someone can find a photo or video as proof - I’m a fan in need of a reason to not believe Safechuck because right now I think I do believe him
Click to expand...

Alright, so you are now convinced Michael molested Safechuck:

OK. So you believe MJ called and begged Safechuck to testify in the trial even though he WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to testify in the trial. So first you believe that. And then you believe MJ phone the mother to beg for her to concince Safechuck to testify in the trial he WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to testify in.

And then you believe Safechuck told his mother he had been abused, and also told her to not reveal it. So when Michael called she pretended all was fine.

And then Safechuck and his mother let the child molester get away with molesting Gavin Arvizo - and left Michael Jackson the SERIAL MOLESTER on the lose so could go on abusing other children and possible his own children!

And then you believe Safechuck telling his mother he had been ABUSED in 2005, but AT THE SAME TIME, not realizing IT WAS ABUSE until he received his first child (1st version) or when he saw Robson on TV (2nd version).

And then he hired a lawyer that was an expert on child abuse, focused mainly on child abuse in school. And had him file a civil lawsuit claiming "MJJ Productions were a school and should be held responsible for all children within it." And the lawyer used his "regular" school abuse cases as the platform for Safechucks civil suit.

Further note: Safechuck also claims he was concerned about pedophiliac urges in 2010, I am not sure how that fits in with everything else.

Sounds extremely credible all of it, does it?
---

HEY La74 - get some PROOF of Safechuck doing promo work for This is It. If not we have lost a fan to the other side!
 
Last edited:
Wait wait, I think I'm totally misunderstanding this.

In his lawsuit against the estate in 2013 he claims he spoke to MJ on the phone in 2005 and then also told his mother? Or is that picture of yours from 2005? My heads just spinning all kinds of ways now.
 
HBO....I watch nothing and won`t watch what have to do with HBO

We all know Mike was innocent. They just wanted his money and to ruin his life = jealousy
 
Lightbringer said:
Alright, so you are now convinced Michael molested Safechuck:

OK. So you believe MJ called and begged Safechuck to testify in the trial even though he WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to testify in the trial. So first you believe that. And then you believe MJ phone the mother to beg for her to concince Safechuck to testify in the trial he WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to testify in.

And then you believe Safechuck told his mother he had been abused, and also told her to not reveal it. So when Michael called she pretended all was fine.

And then Safechuck and Safechucks mother let the child molester get away with molesting Gavin Arvizo - and left Michael Jackson the SERIAL MOLESTER on the lose so could go on abusing other children and possible his own children!

And then you believe Safechuck telling his mother he had been ABUSED in 2005, but AT THE SAME TIME, not realizing IT WAS ABUSE until he received his first child (1st version) or when he saw Robson on TV (2nd version).

And then he hired a lawyer that was an expert on child abuse, focused mainly on child abuse in school. And had him file a standard lawsuit claiming "MJJ Productions were a school and should be held responsible for all children within it."

Sounds extremely credible all of it, does it?
---

HEY La74 - get some PROOF of Safechuck doing promo work for This is It. If not we have lost a fan to the other side!
Click to expand...
I know it has been posted. It was on the HomePage from his company but this is a very long thread..
 
Everyone needs to spread this video from 1995 around. It really shows how clever these accusers can be and how easily they can fool people. If this false allegation from 95 went further then people would have sided with this boy over Michael
 
Lightbringer said:
The pages I screenshoted are from James Safechucks civil lawsuit from 2015.
Click to expand...

Christ I feel stupid as **** right now. After this message I think I'm gonna relax, take a break from all this and play a nice game.

I actually thought that document was from 2005 itself, meaning that Safechuck actually in 2005 truly had people put that on paper. Wow, again, I'm dumb! lol. It's just him claiming in 2015 that it went down that way in 2005.

We don't have actual facts about how it went down in 2005? For all we know Mike never tried to contact Safechuck to have him testify on his behalf?

My guess is Strangerinncl read it like this too, because otherwise.... come on.

I was reading about McManus on Vindicatemj.wordpress.com when I decided to check for updates here. Must have mixed things up, yep, break time!
 
strangerinncl;4246222 said:
Someone saying it doesn’t really count as proof. I really hope someone can find a photo or video as proof - I’m a fan in need of a reason to not believe Safechuck because right now I think I do believe him
Click to expand...

Wade’s claim made it further along the court process. So that’s why we have all his ridiculous emails and things. We don’t have any of that stuff for James because his claim was thrown out quick. So we can’t really pick holes in anything or do any cross examination of him. We have hardly any information. That’s probably why you’re having a harder time with this x
 
Read the letter the estate wrote to hbo.that has info about safechuck in it. As said above there was no disclosure in his case as it was thrown out quickly so theres not as much info available. But there are still several lies and contridictions in his statements
 
elusive moonwalker said:
Read the letter the estate wrote to hbo.that has info about safechuck in it. As said above there was no disclosure in his case as it was thrown out quickly so theres not as much info available. But there are still several lies and contridictions in his statements
Click to expand...

I've read that letter but I have yet to read that lawsuit. Where can I find that? Iirc that contained plenty of info too?

So I've been reading on Vindicatemj.wordpress.com about Adrian McManus, from how she actually defended MJ up to when she met Victor Guitierrez along with the other employees and how it all went to shit from there. Interesting thing is....

It speaks about Inside Edition and that's referred to as a tabloid television magazine. Earlier today someone posted that this source claimed that 1 juror from 2005 now thinks he's a predator and the other didn't believe it. But my point is... it's a tabloid and well, enough said.
 
All the info is in the thread in the trials section. In the 03-05 trial 2 jurrors went in with an agenda. One was having a family member talking to publishers about doing a book and one wanted to convict based on 93 regardless.
 
Yeah exactly, she could've join them to get revenge on Michael, only to hear something about him being a bad man and when it concerned the trial could've instantly imply something really suspicious between S and Michael! Which mother could not react on that??

What really happened was, and I well remember that 14 years ago back and what the private investigator said in that video clip, he wasn't even appointed to come and testify by either the prosecutor team or defense team from the first beginning. In fact he was disbarred by Judge Melville as a potential victim witness in the 1108 prior bad act that Tom Sneddon put forward to him, due to the evidence was so unreliable and unbelievable.
Another thing worth to point out that if these molestation took place between 1988 and 1992, why the hell wasn't there even ONE disgruntled employee of Michael who came up with juicy and salacious details about Michael and S? You hear all the rest of clowns talking about Culkin, W, Barnes and Chandler being molested by Michael but nothing about S? Anyone of them must have surely seen anything!

strangerinncl;4246222 said:
Someone saying it doesn’t really count as proof. I really hope someone can find a photo or video as proof - I’m a fan in need of a reason to not believe Safechuck because right now I think I do believe him
Click to expand...
Look, think about that segment about the mockery wedding and the rings. And how he talks. It all looks so fake and acted up. Doesn't seem like he got affected or deeply hurt by it, rather he just smiles and was not shaking by putting on that ring contrary to what Dan Greed claimed to happen in the segment. How come this corresponds more or less the same way as described in that fan fiction book Victor Guiterrez wrote? Why keep the rings? I don't know if they were tossed or burned at the same time with those MJ clothes they do in the film, I have only heard the clothes so far. I have also heard that Greed claims Michael recorded a sex tape with S in it and then destroyed it. What?? How can you claim something like that without having the real access to the sex tape as evidence?? Whats the point of record the sex on the tape from the first beginning??

And that interesting this about this wedding, if they were married, having a loving relationship, why the hell would S follow Michael and Lisa Marie, AS THEY WERE A REAL WEDDED COUPLE, to Budapest and work as an assistant to Michael to hold up the umbrella for them?? And this was in 1994 after the first allegations were levelled against him and two years after the alleged molestation took an end! Wouldn't S feel even an ounce of being betrayed, cheated, jealous of Michael and Lisa Marie when he sees them having a love relationship?
 
for fans that are doubting, I would very much urge you to spend some time in the trial section and look through many of the links in there...and even so... Lets just say we ignore the fact the story in the documentary is different than what they alleged in their own case AGAINST the estate.. Which in itself screams BSEven as someone that watches the documentary with no prior knowledge of the allegations.. pause 40 minutes in and ask yourself - is it normal for victims of abuse (and mothers of) to smile, laugh and speak of the world around the abuser with such adoration and excitement? Even if it was 'great' at the time to them, 30 years later after knowing of the abuse, it is unnatural for parents (that would naturally feel shame for not protecting their children) to lovingly glorify the time period they neglected their child. that rings no level of logic or rationality!? The only tears that were dropped were not for the 'abuse' that the entire doc was about but saying bye to family in Australia. They were able to muster up emotion for the pain of leaving family but could not over 7 years of abuse.. Even in a documentary aimed to make people believe they were abused.
 
john13th said:
look, think about that segment about the mockery wedding and the rings. And how he talks. It all looks so fake and acted up. Doesn't seem like he got affected or
Click to expand...

I hate how he talks in this bit, it makes me cringe.

It's hard to go back........to that........moment ?

What a jackass.
 
Sending my prayers from the USA to you guys there in the UK and overseas. I'm very proud of you guys for spreading the message.

Here in the US, we moved on quickly back to R. Kelly. That interview he did was insane!
 
Carmour260 said:
Sending my prayers from the USA to you guys there in the UK and overseas. I'm very proud of you guys for spreading the message.

Here in the US, we moved on quickly back to R. Kelly. That interview he did was insane!
Click to expand...

Appreciate the support, and I think the UK is more concerned about Brexit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top