I think it doesn't prove that. Cause I automatically accepted it is Safechuck that was put in them, not Michael. The question is if Safechuck was there that day.ok the photos cant be fake... look...
at 01:01
I think it doesn't prove that. Cause I automatically accepted it is Safechuck that was put in them, not Michael. The question is if Safechuck was there that day.ok the photos cant be fake... look...
at 01:01
In my opinion that doesn't prove a thing. It's because he lied under oath that it was rejected. But so many people have lied under oath for whatever reason. It's just that the court has made it's decision and doesn't want to come back on it because it actually hurts the court (and the public opinion of the court) if they admit they made a mistake.
The whole speaking under oath thing is hundreds of years old and needs to be revised. It doesn't mean a thing.
Why do I have a feeling like you want to think that Michael is guilty of something and you desperately fight for it to be true. Just like we are fighting to proof that it is not true. Why fight it so much? Everything what we say in here you fight it off. Why it is so hard to believe in Michael?In my opinion that doesn't prove a thing. It's because he lied under oath that it was rejected. But so many people have lied under oath for whatever reason. It's just that the court has made it's decision and doesn't want to come back on it because it actually hurts the court (and the public opinion of the court) if they admit they made a mistake.
The whole speaking under oath thing is hundreds of years old and needs to be revised. It doesn't mean a thing.
I think it doesn't prove that. Cause I automatically accepted it is Safechuck that was put in them, not Michael. The question is if Safechuck was there that day.
agreed, it looks normal.the place is legit. Michael looked the same like in Moonwalker. also legit. So its 100% sure that Michael is on that photo. And there is not difference between michael and safechuck. Hair is normal.
First i thought the shadows are not normal. But after seeing the secong photos. Everything is normal with this photos.
In my opinion that doesn't prove a thing. It's because he lied under oath that it was rejected. But so many people have lied under oath for whatever reason. It's just that the court has made it's decision and doesn't want to come back on it because it actually hurts the court (and the public opinion of the court) if they admit they made a mistake.
The whole speaking under oath thing is hundreds of years old and needs to be revised. It doesn't mean a thing.
Yes, it was posted. Here are these documents. I had them still opened in the tab ?https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.564084.1.0.pdfNot sure if this was brought up (again, I'm about 15 pages behind), but an interesting bit of news...
James Safechuck was being sued for around $150k in 2013.
Right around the time he supposedly "remembered" his molestation.
I saw the court document just this morning on Twitter, but I cannot find it. I'll report back soon!
In my opinion that doesn't prove a thing. It's because he lied under oath that it was rejected. But so many people have lied under oath for whatever reason. It's just that the court has made it's decision and doesn't want to come back on it because it actually hurts the court (and the public opinion of the court) if they admit they made a mistake.
The whole speaking under oath thing is hundreds of years old and needs to be revised. It doesn't mean a thing.
magic;4247255 said:Yes, it was posted. Here are these documents. I had them still opened in the tab ​https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.564084.1.0.pdf
Can someone who has moonwalker look in the long credit which appear in the end of the movie if james name appeared there somewhere to know if he had a statistic role in moonwalker.
I know that all parts of moomwalker have seperate credits there.
Speed Demon too.
Dude, wtf?!
What you are writing doesn't make sense. If you can't trust people who come with the facts against Wade, you can't trust judges who rejected his trial based on him LYING under oath several times, you can't trust serious journalists who do investigative work, than what can you trust?!
If he was caught lying under oath, doesn't that convince you that he may be lying now for a lot of money?
I see through you dudeIn my opinion that doesn't prove a thing. It's because he lied under oath that it was rejected. But so many people have lied under oath for whatever reason. It's just that the court has made it's decision and doesn't want to come back on it because it actually hurts the court (and the public opinion of the court) if they admit they made a mistake.
The whole speaking under oath thing is hundreds of years old and needs to be revised. It doesn't mean a thing.
Can someone who has moonwalker look in the long credit which appear in the end of the movie if james name appeared there somewhere to know if he had a statistic role in moonwalker.
I know that all parts of moomwalker have seperate credits there.
Speed Demon too.
Safechuck's name isn't anywhere on the IMBd registry.
AlwaysThere;4247260 said:Thank you!
So in April 2013, Safechuck and two other people were being sued for a minimum of $840k. Most of the requested fees came with the "in excess" label, meaning that the court could easily raise the amount higher. And that's not even considering the court costs, attorneys fees, and various other punitive damages the lawsuit asked for.
That amount could've easily exceeded $1mil.
If split three ways, Safechuck would've been on the hook for around $333k.
And this all happened LESS THAN ONE MONTH before Robson went public with his lawsuits.
Consider this: you're a computer programmer, a job that makes a decent living but likely won't give you a heavy bank account. You're sued over a failed business arrangement, and you'll be on the hook for around $300k minimum if you lose. Suddenly, news breaks that one of Michael Jackson's longtime friends is accusing him of child molestation and is suing his estate—which, last you heard, had generated over $500mil in the five years after his death—for god knows how much money.
What do you do?
EDIT: Apologies. There are only two names listed on the lawsuit; the third is a company name, in addition to 180 "Does" (likely employees and/or workers).
MJJ2theMAX;4247268 said:Overall I think this documentary is just hugely unfair and immoral
Dan Reed keeps saying “watch the film and make your mind up” ... I mean to start with he is asking us to watch a majorly biased piece of propaganda. But it goes further than that because he’s not letting us make our mind up. At the end of the doc all mJ fans are portrayed as deranged loones who somehow support paedophilia. So it seems we are not actually allowed to make our own mind up as the only acceptable conclusion for Dan Reed (and the majority of the media who have done no research and don’t seem to even realise there’s a civil lawsuit etc) is that mj is guilty.
Fed up with this. Totally unfair. If I was accused of a crime and the world was told to judge me based on a documentary like this where statements are interspersed with scary music and triggering images I’d be pretty devasted. Poor Michael
Can someone who has moonwalker look in the long credit which appear in the end of the movie if james name appeared there somewhere to know if he had a statistic role in moonwalker.
I know that all parts of moomwalker have seperate credits there.
Speed Demon too.
Safechuck's name isn't anywhere on the IMBd registry.
Did I understand it right that it is set to be released on DVD on April 22??? https://www.amazon.co.uk/Leaving-Ne...2056622&sr=8-1&keywords=Leaving+Neverland+dvd
Talk about not making money...
Who's going to buy that?
.
Did I understand it right that it is set to be released on DVD on April 22??? https://www.amazon.co.uk/Leaving-Ne...2056622&sr=8-1&keywords=Leaving+Neverland+dvd
Talk about not making money...
no, there is people who will buy it.