Latest on MJJC

Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

kelley said:
The guilter cult has been spreading lies about imaginary Pay offs since the original 1993 fiasco. But they never explain why Michael would make secret payoffs before 1993 and then NOT pay off Evan Chandler in secret when he had the chance.

Logic just flys right out the windows with the guilters.
Click to expand...
Thank you for explaining and for the other comments made.

Yes the reason why I mentioned it was that it was discussed in LN2. I hadn’t heard about it before.
 
StellaJackson said:
This is the complaint she made. It's worth noting that this was the same lawyer that was representing the current two and tries to push the same nonsense narrative about the companies. Be aware that it makes for graphic reading.

www.docdroid.net

CombinedComplaint.pdf

View and download CombinedComplaint.pdf on DocDroid
www.docdroid.net www.docdroid.net

Here are the cheques, notes and other relevant bits of 'evidence' that were submitted, including a photo of her that is blacked out. It's difficult to know for sure who it is.

https://imgur.com/a/fKoVtQE
Click to expand...
Thank you for all of this.

No idea what to make of it but those cheques and notes are obviously all genuine. There’s multiple transactions to this person it seems.
 
mjfanboy27 said:
The check notes do not look fake, it could be used in court 2026
Click to expand...
Why would they be allowed? Jane Doe was dropped from the case (probably because guilters didn't like that she was a girl, so she was actually harming James and Wade's credibility instead of increasing it). I was surprised to see her brought up in the documentary, I guess they must be really desperate if they're bringing her up now.
 
etoile 37 said:
Why would they be allowed? Jane Doe was dropped from the case (probably because guilters didn't like that she was a girl, so she was actually harming James and Wade's credibility instead of increasing it). I was surprised to see her brought up in the documentary, I guess they must be really desperate if they're bringing her up now.
Click to expand...

So, she was just dropped from the case and that was that? She doesn't have an active case as of now?

I never heard of her before a couple of days ago. It's so weird. The guilters have built their house of lies on him preferring little boys. No one has EVER mentioned a little girl before. I don't see anything in the "evidence" that screams guilty. Mostly typed letters from his assistants. A couple of written notes but they all have different hand writing. And as someone stated above, the checks could have been for work or something else since we don't know who she is.

Wow, this story has never had any traction apparently. Weird that she would just give up so easily if she really wanted her day in court...
 
LiveItOffTheWall said:
So, she was just dropped from the case and that was that? She doesn't have an active case as of now?

I never heard of her before a couple of days ago. It's so weird. The guilters have built their house of lies on him preferring little boys. No one has EVER mentioned a little girl before. I don't see anything in the "evidence" that screams guilty. Mostly typed letters from his assistants. A couple of written notes but they all have different hand writing. And as someone stated above, the checks could have been for work or something else since we don't know who she is.

Wow, this story has never had any traction apparently. Weird that she would just give up so easily if she really wanted her day in court...
Click to expand...
She filed her lawsuit in 2016 and withdrew it within a matter of months.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
Thank you for all of this.

No idea what to make of it but those cheques and notes are obviously all genuine. There’s multiple transactions to this person it seems.
Click to expand...
You can't even see the persons name!! How do you know they all have the same name on them? And how do you know the name on them as actually Jane Dohs name?

And funny how this one girl accuser got all these checks but none the BOYZZZ!!!! the guilters go on about have any checks from Michael?

Ok......

If he paid off Jane Doh, why the hell didn't he pay Wade. James or Evan??

I can see you're falling for the BS now or maybe you always believed it and are coming out the closet now.

:rolleyes:
 
kelley said:
You can't even see the persons name!! How do you know they all have the same name on them? And how do you know the name on them as actually Jane Dohs name?

And funny how this one girl accuser got all these checks but none the BOYZZZ!!!! the guilters go on about have any checks from Michael?

Ok......

If he paid off Jane Doh, why the hell didn't he pay Wade. James or Evan??

I can see you're falling for the BS or maybe you always believed it and coming out the closet now.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I don’t know if they have the same name on them but the files exist. I’d have assumed that those within the criminal system will have full access to this information.

I’m not falling for any BS, just rather curious about this Jane Doe as I’d never heard about her until LN2.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
I don’t know if they have the same name on them but the files exist. I’d have assumed that those within the criminal system will have full access to this information.
Click to expand...
Why would they be in the criminal system when Jane Doe filed a CIVIL suit. It's 2025 people, please learn the difference between the Civil courts and the Criminal courts. None of the false accusers ever wanted to be involved in any criminal court proceedings (the arvizos also went to lawyers first) they only wanted civil trials because civil trials result in MONEY.

Blues_Away2023 said:
I’m not falling for any BS, just rather curious about this Jane Doe as I’d never heard about her until LN2.
Click to expand...
I find that hard to believe because Jane doh has been discussed repeatedly on this site and the stickied post about Robsome and safechuck even includes Doe in the title.
 
Last edited:
Blues_Away2023 said:
[...] just rather curious about this Jane Doe as I’d never heard about her until LN2.
Click to expand...
It's an old story. Here is some of it. These are a few excerpts from a reprint of part of a 2016 Huffington Post article written by Raven Woods who used to do the allforlove blog - which can no longer be accessed online, unfortunately - but some of it was reprinted, in 2017, on the vindicatemj blog.

"The latest addition was (for the media, at least) a rather shocking allegation of abuse from a now adult female victim whose identity has only been released thus far as “Jane Doe.” This time, Finaldi, Manly and Stewart took a slightly different approach, “leaking” the story first to gossip rag TMZ rather than their usual go-to mouthpiece Radar Online. Interestingly, this allegation came only weeks on the heels of salacious claims published by Jackson’s doctor, Conrad Murray, as part of his sordid tell-all memoir, ... Has anyone thought to connect the dots on these allegations? For over twenty years, the world was aware that Michael Jackson had been accused of molesting boys, but nothing had ever been heard from a female accuser. Then suddenly, Murray’s memoir makes such accusations and-voile’-within weeks we learn a female accuser has jumped on board Robson’s lawsuit!

But who is this alleged Jane Doe, and more importantly, does she even exist?

As usual, media outlets rushed to copy and paste the story without bothering to give even the slightest veneer of scrutiny to the alleged “evidence” being presented. This included a photocopied series of highly suspicious looking cashier’s checks, a series of handwritten notes supposedly written by Michael Jackson to the plaintiff, and an embarrassingly bad photoshopped picture alleged to be of Jackson and the plaintiff.

TMZ posted the images of the alleged cashier’s checks and, without batting an eye, boldly proclaimed them as evidence that “Michael Jackson wrote a bunch of checks totaling over $900,000 to cover up child sex abuse allegations from a then-12-year-old girl…” It is an age old media tactic, of course, especially among the gossip tabloids. Headlines and opening liners are intended to present lurid allegations as factual information, and it is only when the reader bothers to actually delve into the story that they get the truth in very fine print ...

I also find it puzzling that a series of random notes, supposedly written on several different occasions over a period of months and years, would all be written on apparently the same notepad paper out of the same notebook, or that after thirty years, they would somehow remain magically in the same pristine condition as when they were first written!

Neither are the purported checks sufficient evidence. There are still far too many loopholes for this “evidence” to hold up under scrutiny. The most obvious is that if she had cashed the checks, they would not be in her possession. Banks do not return checks or copies of checks to the payee.

If she didn’t cash them, then the story gets even murkier. Who the heck would sit on that kind of money for over thirty years without bothering to cash the checks? Are we supposed to believe that this girl or her parents would have said, “You know, we have these checks from Michael Jackson but let’s just hang onto them, you know, in case we decide to join a lawsuit against his companies thirty years down the road.” Yes, makes perfect sense. Also, there is nothing on those images to indicate that Michael Jackson ever signed them-that most crucial bit of evidence that one would think would be most important if the checks are expected to hold up as evidence in a civil court, let alone a tabloid story. Any reference to the payee has, of course, been redacted, which leads to another troubling issue: With no signature from either party (either of Jackson or the alleged victim) there is simply no way to know what the purpose of these alleged checks may actually have been, or to who they were written, or even if they came directly from Michael Jackson."
 
Last edited:
zinniabooklover said:
It's an old story. Here is some of it. These are a few excerpts from a reprint of part of a 2016 Huffington Post article written by Raven Woods who used to do the allforlove blog - which can no longer be accessed online, unfortunately - but some of it was reprinted, in 2017, on the vindicatemj blog.

"The latest addition was (for the media, at least) a rather shocking allegation of abuse from a now adult female victim whose identity has only been released thus far as “Jane Doe.” This time, Finaldi, Manly and Stewart took a slightly different approach, “leaking” the story first to gossip rag TMZ rather than their usual go-to mouthpiece Radar Online. Interestingly, this allegation came only weeks on the heels of salacious claims published by Jackson’s doctor, Conrad Murray, as part of his sordid tell-all memoir, ... Has anyone thought to connect the dots on these allegations? For over twenty years, the world was aware that Michael Jackson had been accused of molesting boys, but nothing had ever been heard from a female accuser. Then suddenly, Murray’s memoir makes such accusations and-voile’-within weeks we learn a female accuser has jumped on board Robson’s lawsuit!

But who is this alleged Jane Doe, and more importantly, does she even exist?

As usual, media outlets rushed to copy and paste the story without bothering to give even the slightest veneer of scrutiny to the alleged “evidence” being presented. This included a photocopied series of highly suspicious looking cashier’s checks, a series of handwritten notes supposedly written by Michael Jackson to the plaintiff, and an embarrassingly bad photoshopped picture alleged to be of Jackson and the plaintiff.

TMZ posted the images of the alleged cashier’s checks and, without batting an eye, boldly proclaimed them as evidence that “Michael Jackson wrote a bunch of checks totaling over $900,000 to cover up child sex abuse allegations from a then-12-year-old girl…” It is an age old media tactic, of course, especially among the gossip tabloids. Headlines and opening liners are intended to present lurid allegations as factual information, and it is only when the reader bothers to actually delve into the story that they get the truth in very fine print ...

I also find it puzzling that a series of random notes, supposedly written on several different occasions over a period of months and years, would all be written on apparently the same notepad paper out of the same notebook, or that after thirty years, they would somehow remain magically in the same pristine condition as when they were first written!

Neither are the purported checks sufficient evidence. There are still far too many loopholes for this “evidence” to hold up under scrutiny. The most obvious is that if she had cashed the checks, they would not be in her possession. Banks do not return checks or copies of checks to the payee.
Click to expand...
All discussion of Jane doe should end right here.

Like I said the checks are fake and those of you claiming they look real, look like fools.

If they were real the bitch wouldn't have them anymore because she surely would have cashed them.
 
kelley said:
All discussion of Jane doe should end right here.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But, then again, I wasn't replying to you but to @Blues_Away2023 who, oddly, hadn't heard about any of this before. I'm not promoting the conversation or trying to control it, I'm simply providing a small amount of info. Which is clearly needed, btw.

kelley said:
Like I said the checks are fake and those of you claiming they look real, look like fools.
Click to expand...
If people Google this Jane Doe stuff they'll find out for themselves how shaky the 'story' is. But I don't control how other people spend their time.

kelley said:
If they were real the bitch wouldn't have them anymore because she surely would have cashed them.
Click to expand...
That's one of the points Raven Woods made in the excerpt I posted.
 
thrilleratparis said:
As happened with the 2005 trial, the timeline simply does not add up.

Supposely paying up for silence in the 80s, but then refusing paying for silence in 1993, just to openly settle under a highly negative publicity in 1994.
Click to expand...
If he made payments to her to buy her silence in the 80s where are the checks from the 80s? These checks are dated January 1992, January 1993, and December 1993. And if he was paying off this girl at that time, why not payoff the Chandlers while you're at it and save yourself the trouble??? 🤔
 
LiveItOffTheWall said:
If he made payments to her to buy her silence in the 80s where are the checks from the 80s? These checks are dated January 1992, January 1993, and December 1993.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Even if these are cheques from Michael (that's if they are) the dates wouldn't support this Jane Doe's claim. I don't even want to get into this but, it has to be said, whoever issued these cheques and whatever they are for, they don't fit this 'story'.

LiveItOffTheWall said:
And if he was paying off this girl at that time, why not payoff the Chandlers while you're at it and save yourself the trouble??? 🤔
Click to expand...
(y)
 
zinniabooklover said:
It's an old story. Here is some of it. These are a few excerpts from a reprint of part of a 2016 Huffington Post article written by Raven Woods who used to do the allforlove blog - which can no longer be accessed online, unfortunately - but some of it was reprinted, in 2017, on the vindicatemj blog.

"The latest addition was (for the media, at least) a rather shocking allegation of abuse from a now adult female victim whose identity has only been released thus far as “Jane Doe.” This time, Finaldi, Manly and Stewart took a slightly different approach, “leaking” the story first to gossip rag TMZ rather than their usual go-to mouthpiece Radar Online. Interestingly, this allegation came only weeks on the heels of salacious claims published by Jackson’s doctor, Conrad Murray, as part of his sordid tell-all memoir, ... Has anyone thought to connect the dots on these allegations? For over twenty years, the world was aware that Michael Jackson had been accused of molesting boys, but nothing had ever been heard from a female accuser. Then suddenly, Murray’s memoir makes such accusations and-voile’-within weeks we learn a female accuser has jumped on board Robson’s lawsuit!

But who is this alleged Jane Doe, and more importantly, does she even exist?

As usual, media outlets rushed to copy and paste the story without bothering to give even the slightest veneer of scrutiny to the alleged “evidence” being presented. This included a photocopied series of highly suspicious looking cashier’s checks, a series of handwritten notes supposedly written by Michael Jackson to the plaintiff, and an embarrassingly bad photoshopped picture alleged to be of Jackson and the plaintiff.

TMZ posted the images of the alleged cashier’s checks and, without batting an eye, boldly proclaimed them as evidence that “Michael Jackson wrote a bunch of checks totaling over $900,000 to cover up child sex abuse allegations from a then-12-year-old girl…” It is an age old media tactic, of course, especially among the gossip tabloids. Headlines and opening liners are intended to present lurid allegations as factual information, and it is only when the reader bothers to actually delve into the story that they get the truth in very fine print ...

I also find it puzzling that a series of random notes, supposedly written on several different occasions over a period of months and years, would all be written on apparently the same notepad paper out of the same notebook, or that after thirty years, they would somehow remain magically in the same pristine condition as when they were first written!

Neither are the purported checks sufficient evidence. There are still far too many loopholes for this “evidence” to hold up under scrutiny. The most obvious is that if she had cashed the checks, they would not be in her possession. Banks do not return checks or copies of checks to the payee.

If she didn’t cash them, then the story gets even murkier. Who the heck would sit on that kind of money for over thirty years without bothering to cash the checks? Are we supposed to believe that this girl or her parents would have said, “You know, we have these checks from Michael Jackson but let’s just hang onto them, you know, in case we decide to join a lawsuit against his companies thirty years down the road.” Yes, makes perfect sense. Also, there is nothing on those images to indicate that Michael Jackson ever signed them-that most crucial bit of evidence that one would think would be most important if the checks are expected to hold up as evidence in a civil court, let alone a tabloid story. Any reference to the payee has, of course, been redacted, which leads to another troubling issue: With no signature from either party (either of Jackson or the alleged victim) there is simply no way to know what the purpose of these alleged checks may actually have been, or to who they were written, or even if they came directly from Michael Jackson."
Click to expand...
Thank you 🙏
 
kelley said:
All discussion of Jane doe should end right here.

Like I said the checks are fake and those of you claiming they look real, look like fools.

If they were real the bitch wouldn't have them anymore because she surely would have cashed them.
Click to expand...
Not being funny love but not a fan of your aggressive tone.

This is an open discussion where we’re free to ask questions or raise concerns without being scalded by another poster.

There are other ways to respond other than instant dismissal and trying to ridicule/name call posters for simply making conversation.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
Not being funny love but not a fan of your aggressive tone.

This is an open discussion where we’re free to ask questions or raise concerns without being scalded by another poster.

There are other ways to respond other than instant dismissal and trying to ridicule/name call posters for simply making conversation.
Click to expand...
Exactly way to quick to act rude and call someone a fake fan over asking questions like its really not that serious
 
Absolute Goon said:
Exactly way to quick to act rude and call someone a fake fan over asking questions like its really not that serious
Click to expand...
She’s been like that from day 1 and has been told off in the past. If you dare ask a sensitive question you’re instantly labelled as a guilter or someone who has an agenda to cause a rift within the community.
 
I wonder how Victor Gutierrez wasn't a guest of the 1 and 2. He wrote a book that matchs well with the doc's content.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
She’s been like that from day 1 and has been told off in the past. If you dare ask a sensitive question you’re instantly labelled as a guilter or someone who has an agenda to cause a rift within the community.
Click to expand...
And I've been right, there have been several posters on here who exposed themselves as guilters since I made an account here.

I've been reading this site since Michael's death and only just joined and started posting in the past few years. I was silent for a long time while many obvious guilters and haters posted here and tried to sneak and push their agendas. I got sick of it and decided to do something about it. So sue me. I don't care.

It's a fact that guilters from that reddit sub have an active campaign to make accounts on MJ sites and pretend be fans while spreading their propaganda around the fandom. People who have infiltrated their groups have reported that they literally plot and plan to do this. It's not me being paranoid, they are here.

Whether you are one of them or not, I can't say. But your recent posts are suspect. You're in here bsically promoting BS1 and 2, you can deny thats what you're doing, but that's what you're doing. And now you trying to bring attention to the Jane doe nonsense? Yeah.....suspect.
 
kelley said:
And I've been right, there have been several posters on here who exposed themselves as guilters since I made an account here.

I've been reading this site since Michael's death and only just joined and started posting in the past few years. I was silent for a long time while many obvious guilters and haters posted here and tried to sneak and push their agendas. I got sick of it and decided to do something about it. So sue me. I don't care.

It's a fact that guilters from that reddit sub have an active campaign to make accounts on MJ sites and pretend be fans while spreading their propaganda around the fandom. People who have infiltrated their groups have reported that they literally plot and plan to do this. It's not me being paranoid, they are here.

Whether you are one of them or not, I can't say. But your recent posts are suspect. You're in here bsically promoting BS1 and 2, you can deny thats what you're doing, but that's what you're doing. And now you trying to bring attention to the Jane doe nonsense? Yeah.....suspect.
Click to expand...
Technically everyone here is promoting LN1&2 considering this is a thread dedicated to that topic 😭
 
kelley said:
And I've been right, there have been several posters on here who exposed themselves as guilters since I made an account here.

I've been reading this site since Michael's death and only just joined and started posting in the past few years. I was silent for a long time while many obvious guilters and haters posted here and tried to sneak and push their agendas. I got sick of it and decided to do something about it. So sue me. I don't care.

It's a fact that guilters from that reddit sub have an active campaign to make accounts on MJ sites and pretend be fans while spreading their propaganda around the fandom. People who have infiltrated their groups have reported that they literally plot and plan to do this. It's not me being paranoid, they are here.

Whether you are one of them or not, I can't say. But your recent posts are suspect. You're in here bsically promoting BS1 and 2, you can deny thats what you're doing, but that's what you're doing. And now you trying to bring attention to the Jane doe nonsense? Yeah.....suspect.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how I could be promoting LN1 and 2.

Both have been on television in the last week and have once again been put under scrutiny. If we can’t discuss the topic in a thread that is dedicated to it …..I’m not sure where we can?

Other than the biopic, this is the only newsworthy topic
 
Robbsaber01 said:
I commented on a piracy subreddit post about how LN was removed from streaming. I simply said "It's not even worth pirating"
Currently getting nothing but upvotes lol
Click to expand...
I’ve seen multiple LN-related threads on Reddit over the past few days and, while there are obviously guilters present, I was surprised at how many highly-rated comments there were calling out the doc on being inaccurate and biased.
 
StellaJackson said:
I believe they referenced her in LN2, which is why it is being discussed again.
Click to expand...
I am afraid they are just laying down the bricks to make the so called “case”against MJs management company.

I am very saddened to learn this one girl’s family betrayed his kindness even back then and the fact no one heard of it is because it didn’t fit the boy narrative..
kelley said:
The guilter cult has been spreading lies about imaginary Pay offs since the original 1993 fiasco. But they never explain why Michael would make secret payoffs before 1993 and then NOT pay off Evan Chandler in secret when he had the chance.

Logic just flys right out the windows with the guilters.
Click to expand...

MJ is the most sued person on the planet with over a thousand legal issues standing monthly against him and most are settled because that’s how it works, with over 95% of pending cases in US legal system end in settlement. I am TIRED of people saying it is a “payoff”, Whatever the case, it was ludicrous enough to be rid of with a cheque. We don’t need to imagine the absurd claims MJs team had to face over the years for easy money and all the children Michael befriended and all they could dig up is one little girl…

I just thank God every day for Tom Messeru and pray he is well, as he can shut this whole thing down with one eye covered and one hand tied behind his back.
 
Last edited:
AlwaysThere said:
I’ve seen multiple LN-related threads on Reddit over the past few days and, while there are obviously guilters present, I was surprised at how many highly-rated comments there were calling out the doc on being inaccurate and biased.
Click to expand...
Its probably the guilters from that sub making these posts. They have a assignment at the moment to promote it.

They were even exposed (with receipts) for have literal 12 hour shifts and they harass and gang up on anyone who does not commit enough time,

They have a full blown cult.

One of the whistleblowers is an underaged girl who got sucked in and she shared all kinds of evidence of how they harassed and attacked her for not doing enough and because fans were debunking all her "evidence"

The whole thing is wild.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top