|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 23, 2019 19:02:14 GMT
Never thought you of all people were this guilliable or lacking in intellectual rigour. Leaving Neverland is about as devastating as a wet fart. As a documentary, as Pelle said, it's fucking awful and designed to seduce simpletons, idiots and the unquestioning. And those who had already considered him guilty. Some people desperately wanted it to be "devastating", particularly the blatantly corrupt old media for whom "Wacko Jacko" headlines and stories (real and false)have literally generated billions of dollars over the years. It's a cottage industry. That Peter Pan shit doesn't sell. Not salacious enough. The documentary failed, because old media simply can't give two proven liars a platform, have Oprah give a seal of approval and expect everyone to go along with it. It was a fatal miscalculation that in the era of #metoo, where we are supposed to "believe all victims" and the burden of evidence/proof is actually very small, that they could get away with this travesty. Maybe before the era of the internet, but there's simply too much information out there to debunk this "documentary" and those two money hungry dudes giving testimonials (that were already thrown out of court, and have changed several times). Jackson isn't getting muted or cancelled or whatever the heck the outcome was suppposed to produce. Those that always thought the was a freaky peado (and many felt that way before that shitty documentary)will continue to think so, but with no concrete evidence, DJ's will keep blasting "Thriller" in the club and he'll almost certainly remain the world's richest dead entertainer for years to come. His estate said not a single one of their licensing partners called to express concern or try to cancel their licensing agreement. I do think there will be an impact, but not quite the one you expected. As this joke of a film keeps being debunked (Reed has already cut out 45 minutes of footage proven to be contradictory or untrue between the US and UK premiere), I think there will be a push to change the defamation laws, so the dead can have some measure of protection. Because every single person involved in this film would be sued into oblivion and lose, if Jackson were alive. And I think co-signing this thing is probably going to end up being the single biggest mistake of Oprah's career. Calls into question her credibility and integrity (right after Jackson died, she was let into the home of Jackson's mother and kids to share warm hugs with them and celebrate his memory. Now she's pissing on his grave, she looks like someone who will do anything for money and ratings. Her brand has taken a big hit, imho). The way you keep calling his 2 victims "proven liars" is DISGUSTING. You should be ashamed of yourself!! NOTHING has been proven, one way or another. But I question the discerning abilities of anyone who watches the 4-hour documentary and thinks they're lying. I doubt any child psychiatrist worth a salt would disbelieve them. As for Jackson's legacy taking a hit: GIVE.IT.TIME. This astonishing documentary is not being forgotten any time soon, and his reckoning WILL come. More voices will speak out, I'm sure. You're gonna really regret these heartless & sickly cynical posts. I'll survive. And I won't regret a single thing, because I said what I said. They are proven liars and perjerurs.That's an actual fact, not conjecture. Do some research. It has all the hallmarks of a money grab.
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Mar 23, 2019 19:35:40 GMT
The way you keep calling his 2 victims "proven liars" is DISGUSTING. You should be ashamed of yourself!! NOTHING has been proven, one way or another. But I question the discerning abilities of anyone who watches the 4-hour documentary and thinks they're lying. I doubt any child psychiatrist worth a salt would disbelieve them. As for Jackson's legacy taking a hit: GIVE.IT.TIME. This astonishing documentary is not being forgotten any time soon, and his reckoning WILL come. More voices will speak out, I'm sure. You're gonna really regret these heartless & sickly cynical posts. I'll survive. And I won't regret a single thing, because I said what I said. They are proven liars and perjerurs.That's an actual fact, not conjecture. Do some research. It has all the hallmarks of a money grab. Spare me. I've done all the "research" you've done and it's a flat-out L.I.E. to say it's been proven they're lying about the abuse they suffered. That is a blatant LIE. Did they lie originally when they defended him? Probably, but we all know that's not what you're referring to. And I'm pretty sure they're not expecting to get any money from Jackson's estate. They realize there's an unfortunate lack of evidence and that their previous statements of support will be used against them. This is about letting people know the TRUTH about what happened to them, and in that aspect it's succeeded beautifully. Jackson's legacy will NEVER be seen in the same way.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 23, 2019 19:44:32 GMT
Thanks.Are you done yet, because this is the least intellectually stimulating conversation I've had today.
If I was you, instead of pressing your foot on my neck, I'd go donate to Wade Robson's child abuse prevention fund, set up to coincide with this documentary. Minimum donation, $250. Robson needs your support, and you can give it to him with two-hundred and fifty bucks. Happy donating!
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 23, 2019 20:25:30 GMT
I stopped at number 4 cause VF is wrong, Jordan did not draw it correctly. They did not do their DD. In addition, Jordan's drawing was wrong cause he drew a circumcised penis. But seriously though, had it been correct, why would MJ not be in jail?
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 23, 2019 20:31:06 GMT
Well, I think there's something off about their story and that it is a money grab cause they sued the estate for 1.5 billion dollars. Even on twitter, they found old posts from 2015 where the mom was liking MJ posts on facebook or whatever. I mean seriously, you told us you found out your son was being molested in 2013 and you are liking MJ birthday posts or whatever. Who the hell does crap like that. And when people put her on blast, the mom deleted her likes. All three of them did that.... so....
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,388
Likes: 1,270
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Mar 23, 2019 22:17:00 GMT
I wouldn't categorize it as a doc, is more like a CNN special. But anyways, this left me with more questions than I have in the past. It's just an utter mess and unfortunately we're living in times where you're either team A vs team B and all I can see here is how damaged every side is by the end, the smiles from ear to ear from the mothers to the way Jimmy and Wade remember Jackson, but also, one thing that this piece forgets to cover ( because this is a well with no end ) is MJ childhood I just can't believe he had a peaceful one, the '82-87 period, but yeah, at this point I don't see how a hardcore fan who endorse MJ can see him as innocent with a straight face, now is just a matter of learning how to deal with the different sides of humanity and this goes beyond this case but in general, at times is almost impossible to have a conversation without taking sides, it's like when people give you the bad look for listening to country music because you know, Trump or some shit like that
And for Babs, well... A lot of people applaud when she gave that speech about Blackkklansman at the Oscars while all I saw was her wet dream to star in Green Book with Spike Lee.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2019 1:18:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Mar 24, 2019 16:03:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 24, 2019 17:17:59 GMT
That is not what the reporter who has worked on the case and actually saw all the court documents is saying. I already posted a video of what he said at the 10:55 mark he talks about it.. and why would it be inadmissible if it was accurate. I'm trying to use logic here. A little boy was able to describe his penis but it was not admitted in court? By the judge? And if it were correct, I would think the prosecutor would want it to be admissible. Now I am interesting in knowing why it wasn't. Anyway, this guy in the video says it was not correct and he was there and did research on the case so I'm not understanding the reporting on this subject. In addition, I would be very interested in hearing what the now grown Jordan has to say about all this. It appears the he doesn't want to be found and answer questions on this subject. I would not want to talk about it either if I benefited from a huge lie like that too. He got $25 or whatever million dollars from this whole thing which MJ's insurance company paid out rather than MJ himself. It is also interesting to note that Jordan emancipated himself from his parents cause his father tried to kill him. I don't know this whole case is odd and things don't add up. Cause you better believe if I were Jordan, I would come out now and confirm what happened rather than hide. MJ is dead so what would it even matter if you decided to speak up now. But no, he chooses to stay silent. That is very revealing. Even Roman Polanski's victim continues to speak out in regards to the case.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 24, 2019 17:25:04 GMT
That article is written by the same guy who was interviewed in the video I posted. I'm having a hard time believing the drawing was real when the kid drew a circumcised penis. There is no way you would get that wrong if you have actually seen it. It's too distinctive.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Mar 24, 2019 17:41:02 GMT
That article is written by the same guy who was interviewed in the video I posted. I'm having a hard time believing the drawing was real when the kid drew a circumcised penis. There is no way you would get that wrong if you have actually seen it. It's too distinctive. I'm not saying one way or another... But as a guy who is circumcised, I didn't see an uncircumcised penis until I was probably about 20. Ask any US kid to draw a dick and I can almost guarantee you they will probably draw one that is circumcised.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 24, 2019 17:53:19 GMT
That article is written by the same guy who was interviewed in the video I posted. I'm having a hard time believing the drawing was real when the kid drew a circumcised penis. There is no way you would get that wrong if you have actually seen it. It's too distinctive. I'm not saying one way or another... But as a guy who is circumcised, I didn't see an uncircumcised penis until I was probably about 20. Ask any US kid to draw a dick and I can almost guarantee you they will probably draw one that is circumcised. That's the point, if you had never seen it that is what you would draw. I saw one for the first time in college and believe you me, I just remember thinking how odd it looked. LMAO. Had the kid seen it actually, he should have drawn it to not look like the norm.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Mar 24, 2019 18:00:52 GMT
I'm not saying one way or another... But as a guy who is circumcised, I didn't see an uncircumcised penis until I was probably about 20. Ask any US kid to draw a dick and I can almost guarantee you they will probably draw one that is circumcised. That's the point, if you had never seen it that is what you would draw. I saw one for the first time in college and believe you me, I just remember thinking how odd it looked. LMAO. Had the kid seen it actually, he should have drawn it to not look like the norm. When I saw it, I was like "Oh, so that's what a foreskin looks like..." Again, I don't know the particulars about this (and trust me, I'm not googling "Michael Jackson penis drawing") but if I'm asked to draw an erect penis, it's gonna look pretty much the same regardless... unless you're some sort of hyper-realist painter.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Mar 24, 2019 18:25:12 GMT
Well I just did some digging.... from smoking gun With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson's below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive "splotches" on his buttocks and one on his penis, "which is a light color similar to the color of his face." The boy's information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson's penis was erect, the length of the performer's pubic hair, and that he was circumcised. And an article about how Jordan's own attorney didn't want to allow the photo: LA Times Why would you request to bar evidence if you are saying Jordan's description is correct?
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 24, 2019 18:52:46 GMT
Well I just did some digging.... from smoking gun With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson's below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive "splotches" on his buttocks and one on his penis, "which is a light color similar to the color of his face." The boy's information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson's penis was erect, the length of the performer's pubic hair, and that he was circumcised. And an article about how Jordan's own attorney didn't want to allow the photo: LA Times Why would you request to bar evidence if you are saying Jordan's description is correct? I'll say one thing about Leaving Neverland...it inspired me to find out a whole lot more about Jackson's case history, going all the way back to 1993. The realisation of how much bullshit was fabricated or misreported by the media, and generally believed by the public is beyond stunning. I'm truly grateful for the internet. 20 years ago, I'd have to take these bullshit media reports at face value (I know internet was around 20 years ago, but not in the exhaustive form we know now). Now I can dig for myself if I want. Anyone can.
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Mar 24, 2019 18:59:17 GMT
Well, I think there's something off about their story and that it is a money grab cause they sued the estate for 1.5 billion dollars. Even on twitter, they found old posts from 2015 where the mom was liking MJ posts on facebook or whatever. I mean seriously, you told us you found out your son was being molested in 2013 and you are liking MJ birthday posts or whatever. Who the hell does crap like that. And when people put her on blast, the mom deleted her likes. All three of them did that.... so.... You're so wrong. Watch the documentary.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 24, 2019 19:00:15 GMT
That is not what the reporter who has worked on the case and actually saw all the court documents is saying. I already posted a video of what he said at the 10:55 mark he talks about it.. and why would it be inadmissible if it was accurate. I'm trying to use logic here. A little boy was able to describe his penis but it was not admitted in court? By the judge? And if it were correct, I would think the prosecutor would want it to be admissible. Now I am interesting in knowing why it wasn't. Anyway, this guy in the video says it was not correct and he was there and did research on the case so I'm not understanding the reporting on this subject. In addition, I would be very interested in hearing what the now grown Jordan has to say about all this. It appears the he doesn't want to be found and answer questions on this subject. I would not want to talk about it either if I benefited from a huge lie like that too. He got $25 or whatever million dollars from this whole thing which MJ's insurance company paid out rather than MJ himself. It is also interesting to note that Jordan emancipated himself from his parents cause his father tried to kill him. I don't know this whole case is odd and things don't add up. Cause you better believe if I were Jordan, I would come out now and confirm what happened rather than hide. MJ is dead so what would it even matter if you decided to speak up now. But no, he chooses to stay silent. That is very revealing. Even Roman Polanski's victim continues to speak out in regards to the case. Based on the stuff I've been finding out, I'm also veering on the belief that Jackson may have done nothing to Chandler, and it was an extortion plot by his father. I suspect Chandler has been advised that if he were to retract any of the abuse allegations, he'd be liable to pay back the 20 million Jackson's insurance company paid out. I can understand that...he's lived as a rich man for the last two decades. It's not worth giving that up to help exonerate a dead man
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Mar 24, 2019 20:26:44 GMT
I have seen the doc yet, but c’mon, Jackson was 100% a pedo.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 24, 2019 20:27:57 GMT
Based on the stuff I've been finding out, I'm also veering on the belief that Jackson may have done nothing to Chandler, and it was an extortion plot by his father. I suspect Chandler has been advised that if he were to retract any of the abuse allegations, he'd be liable to pay back the 20 million Jackson's insurance company paid out. I can understand that...he's lived as a rich man for the last two decades. It's not worth giving that up to help exonerate a dead man.
It's so weird because based on the stuff I've been finding out I'm pretty sure, he you know, molested Chandler and I don't have to concoct evidence or advocate for a non-existent/hypothetical extortion ploy. Wtf.....although Exonerate A Dead Man is a great album title I'll give you that much.....
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 24, 2019 22:11:12 GMT
Based on the stuff I've been finding out, I'm also veering on the belief that Jackson may have done nothing to Chandler, and it was an extortion plot by his father. I suspect Chandler has been advised that if he were to retract any of the abuse allegations, he'd be liable to pay back the 20 million Jackson's insurance company paid out. I can understand that...he's lived as a rich man for the last two decades. It's not worth giving that up to help exonerate a dead man.
It's so weird because based on the stuff I've been finding out I'm pretty sure, he you know, molested Chandler and I don't have to concoct evidence or advocate for a non-existent/hypothetical extortion ploy. Wtf.....although Exonerate A Dead Man is a great album title I'll give you that much..... I didn't come up with anything. There's audio recording of Chandler's father admitting he's going to destroy Jackson, unless he gets paid. He wasnt seeking justice for his boy, just cash. Which is common for extorinoists and grifters. I never knew that audio existed before this stupid documentary . So it's been a common, semi-credible theory that's been discussed for awhile for those who know more about this case than you or me. Plus all the evidence was heard in the criminal trial for the Chandler case, and Jackson was acquited. So no theories needed. Still, why don't you have all this righteous indignation for your "hero" Woody Allen? You know, the guy whose own daughter says molested him. And isn't seeking a cash settlement. Here come the excuses..."Mia has brainwashed her daughter, the evil witch. It's a plot to destroy poor Woody. Marrying his stepdaughter isn't odd at all" Your a strange one Pac. You consistently defend every known peadophile, rapist and molester in Hollywood, from Polanski to Allen, but you draw the line at Wacko Jacko. Did he not direct any of your favorite movies?
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 24, 2019 22:40:23 GMT
Not really, Polanski is an admitted rapist, I defend rather only his initial court case.
Woody Allen is not a molester (?) in fact I'd defend him in the same way I condemn Jackson - in Allen's case it rings false, in Jackson's it rings true. If you can argue it in such a way that it rings true for Allen, I'd listen and change my mind but you can't so, alas.....
You can do what you want man - it's between you and your God, like I said, I harbor no ill will for people who believe in MJ's innocence, you do you.....but your doing backflips to justify 20 mil settlement payments - it just rings false.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 24, 2019 22:59:17 GMT
Even with Polanksi, you admit he"s a rapist (no shit, it's a proven case), but you've always minimised his actions, by blaming the legal system for his woes. So you can keep waxing lyrical about his "art".
Woody's not a molester, huh? So you were in that room with Woody and Dylan? You are omniscient now? The only people who know the truth for certain are Dylan, Woody and God.
At least I accept the possibility that Jackson might have done something to someone somewhere. I'm not saying Jackson is 100% definitely innocent, because by the standards of normal society, his behaviour was odd and suspect.It"s mainly unfortunate that most of Jackson's accusers I've read up on suffer significant credibility problems and are all financially motivated, which always puts a cloud over these things.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 24, 2019 23:21:18 GMT
"At least I accept the possibility that Jackson might have done something to someone somewhere. I'm not saying Jackson is 100% definitely innocent"
Great, we agree then - I totally think he's not 100% innocent either and I accept that Woody "may" be guilty (f'n doubt it), and Polanski "is" guilty.
On a different note, my favorite film is Chinatown.
Glad we could resolve.
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Mar 24, 2019 23:21:27 GMT
Even with Polanksi, you admit he"s a rapist (no shit, it's a proven case), but you've always minimised his actions, by blaming the legal system for his woes. So you can keep waxing lyrical about his "art". Woody's not a molester, huh? So you were in that room with Woody and Dylan? You are omniscient now? The only people who know the truth for certain are Dylan, Woody and God. At least I accept the possibility that Jackson might have done something to someone somewhere. I'm not saying Jackson is 100% definitely innocent, because by the standards of normal society, his behaviour was odd and suspect.It"s mainly unfortunate that most of Jackson's accusers I've read up on suffer significant credibility problems and are all financially motivated, which always puts a cloud over these things. Not 3, just 1. Dylan's been brainwashed and the poor girl probably thinks it did happen, and THERE IS NO GOD, so you're wrong yet again. Only ONE PERSON knows, and it's Woody. But the circumstantial evidence, which is very thin in this case, all points to Allen being INNOCENT. Jackson molested Jordan Chandler. And Safechuck. And most likely Robson too.
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Mar 24, 2019 23:28:20 GMT
Not really, Polanski is an admitted rapist, I defend rather only his initial court case. Woody Allen is not a molester (?) in fact I'd defend him in the same way I condemn Jackson - in Allen's case it rings false, in Jackson's it rings true. If you can argue it in such a way that it rings true for Allen, I'd listen and change my mind but you can't so, alas..... You can do what you want man - it's between you and your God, like I said, I harbor no ill will for people who believe in MJ's innocence, you do you.....but your doing backflips to justify 20 mil settlement payments - it just rings false. Keep up the good work!! I can't tell you how often I dread having to post something in response to any number of inane bullshit opinions posted here, don't want to waste my energy on it but feel a stubborn duty to, but then I see you reply with more or less what I would have said, and I'm like "Phew! Can save the energy now, just hit like on that comment!" 😆👍
|
|