Latest on MJJC

Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

CrazyVegasMJ;4246324 said:
Let’s be honest everyone, yea there isn’t physical evidence but it’s so extremely rare to have a picture or video of this happening because it’s usually done behind closed doors with only two people.. none of us were there but I guess even during the trial I had just convinced myself that it must have been because of a scheme to get money and maybe it truly was idk still.. but I just wanted it to go away as a fan and was so happy to support him to my friends and family..it was almost like just fun for me.. but now I don’t think I’ll ever be able to again and I’m just hurting
Click to expand...

If it helps, you may want to read this site: https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2019/02/25/a-critical-analysis-of-leaving-neverland/
 
somewhereinthedark;4246456 said:
Wow, it makes you uncomfortable to see Meholding all these BOYS hands. Why didn’t you feel uncomfortable when you saw him holding a GIRL in his arms, the little sister of the first accuser, Jordan Chandler. I noticed twice the media never mentione ths. They want to make gullible people believe he was only around boys. I have actually seen photos where they edited out the girls in the pants s. It is so easy to be MANIPULATED by the biased media. They have an agenda. There were as many girls around him as boys and he held their hands also. Btw, I hold children’s hands also, does that make me a $&&*$& pedophile?

It is sick to make something sexual out of holding a CHILD ‘S hand, because of the lies from these pieces of scum.
It’s only inappropriate if a person is a sick pervert and Michael was not that. IMO,the perverts are the ones who made these accusations. I would have trusted a child of mine with Michael a hundred times more than I would with Wade Robson, James Safechuck or Dan Reed. I wouldn’t trust a child of mine to even be in the same room as them. The graphic fantasies that Robson and SAfechuck used in this fraudomentary should even put their wives on alert about their own children.
Click to expand...
I feel the same. How is holding a child's hand sexual? I have held plenty of children's hands over the years because of my profession. I've hugged children that I am not related to, comforted them etc. I guess with the right manipulation, eerie music Dan Reed could make many of us look like pedophiles too. We knew going in that the film was designed to manipulate your emotions. I also agree with you that I wouldn't leave any child around Robson, Safechuck and especially Reed.
 
Thriller_MJ said:
Yes I do, the estate have been nothing more than shameful during this whole thing. Partly why i'm having doubts cause A they haven't released anything, B the fans have had to do all the defending. Does that really paint a good picture of them? No.
Click to expand...


They released a letter to HBO and are suing them. You can say they should have done more, but they're not doing anything.
 
Those of you who are having doubts after viewing this manipulative, one sided hit job probably need to take a break and let the shock wear off. It's disheartening to see fans have doubts when some people that know far less than we do say that they don't believe it.
 
analogue said:
Raz0rfist is going to be on a live stream discussing LN
Click to expand...

This was REALLY bad.

When Razor went of the broadcast. The host Ethan made a complete vicious character assassination of MJ. It was brutal & he disrespected Razor as well with that shit. The guy did not listen to anything Razor said, he had his agenda made up already, taking accusers words as FACT. It was depressing.

Ethan comes of like an idiot! Michael Jackson autopsy CONFIRMED he had vitiligo and Ethan says its a lie. Its just ignorant and disrespectful. Razorfizt is dealing with FACTS. Ethan dealing with his "opinion"

This show was worse than any TV-show or newspaper. Literally 60 minutes effective time of the most cruel MJ does kids jokes.

I needed something positive, and instead got a reminder of the absolute worst side of the MJ hating.
 
I am convinced now more than ever that Michael was innocent.

The more I research the more I connect the dots.
These allegations have always been a smoke screen.
 
pierpinto1 said:
I am convinced now more than ever that Michael was innocent.

The more I research the more I connect the dots.
These allegations have always been a smoke screen.
Click to expand...
Agreed. IMO its clear that very powerful people wanted to turn the public against him. Mj was too powerful in terms of his influence, music, and popularity. I always think of the Superbowl performance (especially heal the world) where he basically showed the biggest audience in the world about world peace and what it could be. IMO some powerful people didn't like that message and what he stood for. They couldn't control him so they chose to destroy him.
 
I'm surprised at some of the stuff I've been reading here. I think some need to take a break. We are in the eye of the storm and it's always tough. Just like it was in 93 and 03-05 especially with the media ganging up. It gets tiring I know, as I've been a fan since Billie Jean came out and have had to defend Michael constantly.

Take the break, come back and read the court documents or the Estates letter to give you both sides of the story.
 
"But this isn't a baseless claim made thirty years too late in a one-sided documentary; this is a legal court document in which a Californian District Attorney states, "Your son told a federal investigator that he and Michael Jackson kissed one another on the lips." No matter how Safechuck's dad felt about it, this is the closest to actual evidence they've ever come up with.

Safechuck was one of the many children interviewed in 1993. He denied ever being molested."



This sounds like notes from an interview between a detective and the kid. Also, there was no criminal trial. Perhaps the notes were presented to a grand jury or perhaps not. The DA was trying to get a criminal case going at the same time as the civil suit was underway. When Jordan and his family got the settlement, they refused to cooperate with the DAs, so without him, no case.

I have been sued so I have a little knowledge/experience (unfortunately), about the process, so here is what happens in a civil suit:

I. you receive a "Summons and Complaint" from the lawyer who has been hired by the complainant. This is a very important legal document and spells out in detail the claims against you.

2. you have to respond. It doesn't matter if you are living in another country on the other side of the world--you have to respond and answer the charges, either on your own (not recommended) or by hiring a lawyer. There is a date due for your response, so if you want to hire a lawyer, you have to get it done in time to file before the due date. (A lawyer can request an extension but it is up to the other lawyer to say ok--not likely if you are representing yourself, but lawyers might get some 'professional courtesy'.) Your response is a crucial legal document for your case. It outlines your defense.

3. Before you go writing your REPLY to the SUMMONS, You have to go scrambling for a good lawyer. I interviewed 7 lawyers and ended up picking a guy I thought would be great. Wrong. Due to the general incompetence of the lawyers I encountered, I ended up going through 3 of them. Fired all 3 but went back to the one who was the least awful in the end. Finding a good lawyer is not easy. It's a lot of work--unless you are lucky and know someone or have someone already.

4. Then starts the Discovery phase. This is as far as the civil case filed by Chandlers got. They were in the Discovery phase where you collect the evidence. Here you can ask for documents, depositions, and so on. This will be the evidence to support or undermine the charges against you. If you get to the trial phase, the evidence will be presented to a jury (or just a judge).

I am going to cut this short and just say the last stages are the trial itself and then the sentencing phases. Point being, it's a huge long process and can be dragged out forever by the back and forth motions, appeals, requests, etc. MJ said he was told the Chandler civil suit could go on for 7 years!!!



Jordan Chandler wrote a DECLARATION only. This does not carry the same penalty for perjury as a DEPOSITION. The Declaration was sealed by the judge so it could not become available to the media (of course, MJ's lawyers would have asked for that). But it was too late, because Chandler lawyer Larry Feldman had already given it to the media before the judge sealed it! Feldman distributed it as a PR tactic to pressure MJ to settle because Chandlers did NOT want to go to court and did NOT want to have Jordan cross-examined!!!

Never forget, Chandlers took the money and ran--they could have had a criminal case IF Jordan had been willing to testify and face cross-examination (with a higher standard of proof to find MJ guilty the in a civil suit).

As far as Safechuck--I have never read any formal deposition, let alone a declaration, so I am not sure if what you quoted is simply a detective's report after talking to the kid.
 
Last edited:
Speed_Demon87;4246584 said:
Corey Feldman; I can no longer defend Michael Jackson.

He’s just did an interview and posted on Twitter that this is one of the hardest things he’s had to do.
Click to expand...

Hope this is not true--if so, very sad. Maybe he has been pressured??

I am taking solace by listening to Tabloid Junie--

"Just because you read it in a magazine, or see it on a TV screen, don't make it factual." He really goes after the media--"with your pen, you torture men, you'd crucify the lord." SO TRUE!!

https://youtu.be/V8kUYr2ZC6U
 
Speed_Demon87;4246584 said:
Corey Feldman; I can no longer defend Michael Jackson.

He’s just did an interview and posted on Twitter that this is one of the hardest things he’s had to do.
Click to expand...

This is all to do with the #meetoo era we are in. Long as he doesn't turn round and say he was abused by Jackson. Looks like the pressure got to him.
 
Speed_Demon87 said:
Has anyone seen the headlines in the Daily Mail btw? A crafty manipulative paedophile who can rot in hell.
Click to expand...

I never click on their link. Tabloid trash. They got egg on their face when he was acquitted in 2005 and this is their way of getting back.
 
Ok, so we're 3/4 way there. And by that I mean it's aired completely in the US and just part 2 left to air in the UK.

The coverage there, like America, seems to have been much louder before airing than during or after. Just take a look at today's newspapers:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers

It's present but not in the "splashed across every paper" way they used to cover anything/everything MJ.

Hoping it's the same tomorrow following tonight's last part.

Of course, there are other markets to come and I'm not deliberately trying to sound US/UK centric. But pop culture tends to follow a path that typically goes "what ever is a huge story in the US and/or UK" becomes headline fodder everywhere. So a mute/split response in those markets IMO is good for our cause IMO.
 
AlwaysThere;4246463 said:
Not sure if it's been posted here yet (I'm about 30 pages behind), but Daily Mail just came out swinging.

They published never-before-seen photos of James Safechuck Sr.'s 1994 deposition, which is (to my understanding) the first piece of documentation to come out of the 1994 grand jury deliberations.

One section sticks out to me as a potential firestorm:



This suggests that Jimmy Safechuck's statement to police, which remains unreleased, potentially includes a confession that he and Michael Jackson have kissed each other on the lips.

Now, I understand the '93 police officers were hardly upstanding citizens and were known for using aggression and scare tactics to coerce confessions and comments out of children and families, but this is bad. Like, really bad.
Click to expand...

This is in fact really bad... really hope this is fake and not real because if it‘s true it‘s definitely wrong...
 
AlwaysThere said:
Not sure if it's been posted here yet (I'm about 30 pages behind), but Daily Mail just came out swinging.

They published never-before-seen photos of James Safechuck Sr.'s 1994 deposition, which is (to my understanding) the first piece of documentation to come out of the 1994 grand jury deliberations.

One section sticks out to me as a potential firestorm:



This suggests that Jimmy Safechuck's statement to police, which remains unreleased, potentially includes a confession that he and Michael Jackson have kissed each other on the lips.

Now, I understand the '93 police officers were hardly upstanding citizens and were known for using aggression and scare tactics to coerce confessions and comments out of children and families, but this is bad. Like, really bad.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is, we know and Safechuck Sr back then obviously as well that it was nothing sexual. I bet it was just a small nip on the mouth, there's a photo of MJ like that with baby Paris too. But people already believing LN will be like "see?" not to mention how such a thing can escalate if more tabloids start reporting on it and twisting it to their narrative which they always do. They would probably claim it was making out.

But another thing, do we even know for sure it's real? Safechuck Sr defended MJ there, wasn't trying to tarnish him, that makes it look real. But wouldn't this have come out earlier and be mentioned by Sneddon during the trial?

Really hope it will just be this one source.

And if real, he shouldn't have done that. It really seems he treated the children like they were his, father figure, but that's not the way to go about it. I can't deny that. Don't think I believe this was in a sexual way, because absolutely not.

During the Dangerous tour during Heal the world he has all these children come up the stage and he holds a little girl and gives her a brief kiss on the cheek. That is what I remember, that is fine.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking last night that I spend way too much time on the internet and forums...

Anyway, my two cents on the matter of Safechuck: as opposed to Wade, who comes across as arrogant, calculated, full of himself and showing no emotion (all traits of a sociopath tbh), Safechuck looks so poorly and distressed and I think that makes people tend to believe his story more. But haven`t you stop to think that he might look like that just because he knows he is lying and he`s afraid of being caught in the lie? I think that is more the case!

In what concers his motives, just read these facts, please:

*According to Jimmy Safechuck, he flipped on the TV and saw Wade Robson being interviewed about his lawsuit. In that moment, Safechuck suddenly remembered that he had been abused by Jackson as well, so decided to join the lawsuit. He didn’t mention that this epiphany coincided exactly with his inheritance circling the drain after a relative died and the surviving siblings started suing each other – including him – for control of the family business.
*Robson was also ordered to produce his diaries as evidence. In them, he’d written about how these allegations might rescue his failing career by making him ‘relatable and relevant’. He also wrote, ‘It’s time for me to get mine.’ When questioned under oath about what he’d meant when he wrote that, he refused to answer.
*Both men tell stories in the TV show which directly contradict stories told under oath in their lawsuit. In fact, they have continued to change their stories as recently as within the last week.
*For example, Jimmy Safechuck claims under oath in the lawsuit that he only remembered Jackson had abused him in 2013 when he turned on the TV and saw Robson. Yet in tonight’s TV show and interviews promoting it, he claims he knew he’d been abused in 2005 and thus, when asked to testify for Jackson’s defence ‘towards the end of the trial’, he refused to do so.
*But that’s a provable lie. Safechuck was never asked to testify for Jackson’s defence. The judge ruled long before the trial began that testimony could only be heard about certain children, and Safechuck was not one of them. All testimony about Safechuck was literally banned from the courtroom. So Jackson’s defence cannot have asked him to testify – and certainly not after the trial was already underway.
*Robson claimed in a BBC interview last week that Jackson had abused him ‘hundreds of times’. Yet his mother’s sworn testimony is that they went to Neverland roughly 14 times but Jackson was almost never there. She estimates the number of times they visited the ranch and he was actually there was four.

I might add...earlier in this thread (it`s waaaay to long for me to look for it now. maybe someone has it saved somewhere), one of you have posted a print screen of Safechuck`s twitter where he stated that he was tired of his day to day job making "only" 100k a year. Doesn`t that ring any alarm bells in what concerns his motives for lying for millions?! These so called victims have put their adult heads together in order to come up with the best and most horrific fictional story they could. And they had years to prepare that story (only this doc took 2 years and millions of takes to make). If a child (Gavin Arvizo) could be manipulated into coming up with all sorts of lurid stuff, don`t you think an adult could come up with even better lies?!
 
So with all the inconsistencies, all the lies, all the changed stories, a jury finding him not guilty on every single count, the FBI tracking him for years..fans are actually falling for this garbage and beginning to think he was guilty? Unbelievable.
 
For those that doubt Michael I would ask one thing - please provide evidence. Not hearsay, not rumour, not opinion but factual evidence. There was none presented in LN. If it’s there then let’s see it. Piers Morgan’s quesions were what everyone should be asking but so few are.
 
Albion;4246604 said:
For those that doubt Michael I would ask one thing - please provide evidence. Not hearsay, not rumour, not opinion but factual evidence. There was none presented in LN. If it’s there then let’s see it. Piers Morgan’s quesions were what everyone should be asking but so few are.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Not one piece of hard evidence that he was guilty yet a hell of a lot of evidence that he was innocent.
 
I still believe MJ was 100 % innocent. - This one-sided propoganda "doc" does not change anything really.

I have known - like the rest of the world - that MJ shared bed with children - I never liked that, but I still think it was innocent and absolutely non-sexual.

MJ was different - like he said himself - when you grow up in front of hundreds of millions of people you are automatically different. - MJ lived in a protected "fake" world. - He was not able to live a normal life - so what was normal to him was not necessarily normal for the rest of us. - Does that make it wrong? NO...

I see two greedy money seeking attention-w#¤#¤s... trying to get their 15 minutes of fame - and a lot of money...

My view has not changed on MJ's art. - There is no evidence, no proof, nothing that makes me think MJ molested any child.

Like others in here I wish MJ had had some people around him who would say NO to him, all the YES MEN was dangerous for a man who was out of contact with "the real world" - MJ did it of innocense and was not able to see how it looked for "normal people" - that was his managers, lawyers, - all the people around him - it was their job to tell him, and to tell him no... - But no one ever did unfortunately.
 
Does anyone have the evidence that Chandlers description didnt match? Or is there actual evidence to say it did match. People keep sending me this vanity fair article of 10 undeniable facts and it's hard to fight against.

Its basically them saying the description did match, and me saying it didnt without any concrete to back it up.
 
Speed_Demon87;4246602 said:
These allegations are very hard to accept for us fans but we must not be blinded by our admiration of Michael and accept that these behaviours were anything but normal.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this and I’m very angry at Michael for allowing himself to be put in these situations in the first place. Surrounded by yes men he was allowed to do what he wanted and his team just said YES.

For his imagine it was wrong and they should have put a stop to it immediately.

I feel that Michael was very much child like and had the personality of a child but also adult desires of a man. It all got messed up along the way and he could not separate the need for childish simplicity and his sexual desires as an adult. Could it have been a case that he genuinely did not believe his actions were harmful or abusive? It was simply an act of love.
Click to expand...

You are negating all the evidence that says Robson and Safechuck are not credible.

If this was a criminal trial and you were part of the jury, with all the information you have read (considering you are actually reading it and not just reading tabloid articles) would you convict Michael?
 
Glanni said:
here is the full video of the interiew from bbc with robson, safechuck and greed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07299d6

the host read the full statement of the jacksons to them. its weird because the answers seem to be prerecorded or something. they have a weird cut between the reaction of the 3 guys, too. do you know what i mean?

can someone download the video? id like to upload it to my youtube channel but dont know how to get the video.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9uhlJ3D69_ygFPaEeOskAg
Click to expand...

you are right. totally manipulated. Cutted everywhere. Easy to see the cuts.

here you go... https://mega.nz/#!xJsABaRY!kvfFV3oxZezj0abp2oZRJ7j1gAlEhjgUSMX6LipqB8A

 
Hess;4246606 said:
I still believe MJ was 100 % innocent. - This one-sided propoganda "doc" does not change anything really.

I have known - like the rest of the world - that MJ shared bed with children - I never liked that, but I still think it was innocent and absolutely non-sexual.

MJ was different - like he said himself - when you grow up in front of hundreds of millions of people you are automatically different. - MJ lived in a protected "fake" world. - He was not able to live a normal life - so what was normal to him was not necessarily normal for the rest of us. - Does that make it wrong? NO...

I see two greedy money seeking attention-w#¤#¤s... trying to get their 15 minutes of fame - and a lot of money...

My view has not changed on MJ's art. - There is no evidence, no proof, nothing that makes me think MJ molested any child.

Like others in here I wish MJ had had some people around him who would say NO to him, all the YES MEN was dangerous for a man who was out of contact with "the real world" - MJ did it of innocense and was not able to see how it looked for "normal people" - that was his managers, lawyers, - all the people around him - it was their job to tell him, and to tell him no... - But no one ever did unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Pretty much my stance.

Having supported through the various trials and tribulations from a young age, I do see things through a slighter more mature lens now than I did in the past. And it has me quite frustrated with Michael. Love him as we may, he was very stubborn and socially not "with it."

I believe in his innocence 100%, I'm just angry that he put himself in a predicament where people could take advantage of him. So while the "YES" men/women have a degree of culpability in us having the fight we have on our hands now, Michael does too. And to much more of a degree than them,

To go through everything he went through in 93-onwards, to be back in a similar position come 2003 just boggles my mind. People will and have consistently taken advantage of the fact that he saw the world through a different lens and exploited that. It's incredibly frustrating that he was hurt by it but didn't learn from it. I would bet corners of his family feel the same.

I will say that it never made me doubt his innocence, though. One thing to consistently remember about Michael is that much of the stuff people malign him about HE actually looked straight into a camera and told the world himself. Often first (rather than being questioned about it). From the bed sharing to other oddities/eccentricities that people mock him over. It wasn't a secretly discovered tape or the compelling, undeniable evidence that (deservingly) sinks so many other celebs. It's totally different.

Anyway, just waiting for this to fully blow over so everyone can just move on.
 
Speed_Demon87;4246602 said:
These allegations are very hard to accept for us fans but we must not be blinded by our admiration of Michael and accept that these behaviours were anything but normal.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this and I’m very angry at Michael for allowing himself to be put in these situations in the first place. Surrounded by yes men he was allowed to do what he wanted and his team just said YES.

For his imagine it was wrong and they should have put a stop to it immediately.

I feel that Michael was very much child like and had the personality of a child but also adult desires of a man. It all got messed up along the way and he could not separate the need for childish simplicity and his sexual desires as an adult. Could it have been a case that he genuinely did not believe his actions were harmful or abusive? It was simply an act of love.
Click to expand...

You remember me on that guy the Admins trown out of the forum at the end of January. Your Joining date whould fit to this.
For me you have an agenda like the other this guy and the fact that you can't stay away from this thread and use the doubts threads we begging you to do prooves it.
I saw a guy on youtube yesterday, a well known very busy MJ hater who admitted that he get paid for "spreading the truth about MJ." I bet there are other influencer too who get paid.
Fans here said that those influencer were around during 2005 too.
I can't know if you one of them but you really remembers me totally on that guy, who was banned from the Admins of this forum in January!
I can't understand why some fans are so ego and can't let their doubts and depressed opinions away from that thread and using the others for them.
Its really hard to read all this over and over again when you search for some new informations and new facts.
 
Last edited:
I just saw the interview Piers Morgan had with Reed, that was very great to see. And Dan Reed saying there was massive amounts of corroborating evidence by the Police DP, this guy really just lies on te spot eh?

But am I the only one who wanted Piers to also mention how OFF, downright suspicious as hell Wade's timing was? Piers kept saying he defended MJ all that time, but I would have loved to see Reed's reaction if he brought up that Wade didn't say a bad word until he was denied by the estate for Cirque show, when he was bad financially and then all of a sudden claiming abuse.

I don't like at all how they all seemed to agree that it was mostly boys that slept in the room, nowhere has this ever been said, neither can they know. I DO love that the lady in green didn't get to ask much questions because you could SEE that she didn't like Piers questions. Oh and she thought the two men appear very credible and emotional during LN..... BRUH!

It has been posted before but this thread goes fast as hell. It's a must watch.

https://youtu.be/RUvS9rTdzes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top