RichardS said:

Free2BMe said:

RichardS said:

I wouldn't say it was an open secret - the public certainly didn't know about it, and there was never enough evidence to bring charges. There's that word again - 'evidence' - if you were to believe the evidence available in Savile's lifetime, you'd have had to conclude he wasn't guilty. If, however, you believed what some people were saying without proof, you'd probably have thought he was guilty. Sound familiar?

Most often in these types of cases, the truth of what happens behind closed doors is only really known by those in the room - the rest of us make our own conclusions, and should allow others to do the same without implying (or even stating) that if anyone differs from our opinion they must be mentally deficient or evil, or part of a conspiracy etc.

The problem with your argument is that Michael was investigated more than a serial killer by the FBI for ten years .His home was raided by 70 officers and Nothing was found to incriminate him. Nothing on over 10 computers, no child pornography, no videos, NOTHING. You can bet if they had found anything, Mad Dog Sneddon would have used it against Michael. What I find really disgusting is that these pieces of trash have the audacity to think that they are so attractive e or desireable, that they would be ones chosen to a use, when other children were there at the same time. I am going to repeat what I have said previously, Robson and Safechuck have pedophilic fantasies of what they WANTED to happen. None of the SCRIPT that they are spewing really happened. We are dealing with tw very disturbed and sick individuals who are desperate and broke and will do anything’s no for money. They need to be arrested for perpetrating a hoax and taken to court and tried for extortion.

You have no evidence for your accusations against Robson and Safechuck, but apparently evidence only matters to you when it comes to Michael Jackson. Surely you can see that that is a very hypocritical position to take and actually devalues everything you say.

If they are committing a crime in open view of the world, then why have they not been arrested?

elvis was dragged a lot but michael is even huger than elvis and times have changed along with media. Elvis took a lot of hits, a lot, he was michael's precursor after all and......PEOPLE CAN SAY ANYTHING! Elvis had gay relations, he committed incest with his mom, he raped priscilla, he almost killed a 13 year old girl from an od, on and on, some of these are true, some of them aren't but they were mostly said by people close to him, and usually when a book was being sold or an interview was being given to a tabloid.

Free2BMe said:

jaawwnn said:

Aye, I think most people made their mind up one way or the other years ago, the documentary is just a chance to talk about it again. I certainly grew up (i was 9/10 years old in 1993) in a culture that considered him 100% guilty from 1993-2009. I remember being very surprised at how ok it became to like him again after he died.

That’s interesting. The people around me were aware enough to look at the evidence. The article, “Was Michael Jackson Framed?” showed a lot of people that it was Evan Chandler,not Jordan Chandler, who came up with these allegations. It was obvious that Tom Sneddon was fabricating evidence with the Arvizo family. Every false allegation can be taken apart. The problem is that people are so damn lazy, they don’t want to read the evidence. The sheep mentality to believe anything you hear, without looking into it, are what these pieces of shit are depending on. I’m sure they are laughing at how the media and others are falling for their lies and extortion tactics. Will they be arrested for lying, as Jussie Smollett was? Highly unlikely, because the media is complicit in this conspiracy.It’s as obvious as the nose on your face. Would Emanuel or Alfonso be given the platform that Robson and Safechuck, two proven perjurers, are being given. Hell no. Anyone who says that Emanuel and Alfonso, Would be given this platform against a white man is a liar. This conspiracy has as much to do with race as it does extortion and the attempt to destroy the legacy of most influential and famous star in the world-Michael Jackson, a black man. The media would never promote this shit against Elvis and that’s the bottom line. It’s a shame that I have to bring race into this contrived crap; but, anyone with even a semblance of intelligence can see what is happening.Being in denial is not going to change what the media and others involved are doing. Why is Harvey Weinstein and other other high profile predators being completely ignored while the “lynhcing” of Michael is being ALLOWED when,there is so much evidence that these extortionists are lying?

Oprah has practically interviewed every member of the Jackson family, but I wonder if she has met Brandi? who dated Wade for 7 years, and who seems quite calm, articulate and rather insightful under the circumstances.

Brandi Jackson‏ @BJackson82 Feb 26

[Edited 3/1/19 16:51pm]

[Edited 3/1/19 16:52pm]

Goddess4Real said:

RichardS said:

Superstition said:

Yes.. I read all of that. And it may very well be 100% true and he could have went into this with the best of intentions. But he also says:

They also criticize your film for not reaching out to anyone for a counterpoint to Robson and Safechuck’s story.
We included plenty of critics of Wade from Jackson’s fans, statements from Jackson while he was alive where he denied all child sexual abuse allegations, and statements from the lawyers during both investigations. I think we comprehensively represented the positions of Michael Jackson and his lawyers.

Right. There just weren’t any contemporary interviews done for the film.
Yeah, but the Jackson estate’s position, to my knowledge, hasn’t changed. They maintain that Jackson is innocent.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/43znmj/he-was-a-sexual-predator-says-director-of-new-michael-jackson-doc-leaving-neverland-hbo

There's no evidence presented, and he used archival footage of rebuttals. There's also an interview when he was asked why he didn't interview those who could defend Jackson, and he shrugged it off as "why would I ask people who weren't abused?"

Bottom line, he's taking their word - there is no evidence - and building a documentary on that. And that's ok, I suppose, but really, the only thing new we're getting are lurid allegations in graphic detail. For those unfamiliar, I suppose this is fascinating, but its going to be a chore to watch 4 hours of allegations we already know of with nothing new offered.

[Edited 3/1/19 13:12pm]

I agree he's taking their word - but from what he says he also investigated it and found corroboration, albeit not presented in the documentary. Certainly I don't think it can be dismissed without watching it. At the very least it seems to be a serious attempt to deal with a serious subject.

How can it be serious when he let's these two fools, who sued for 1.6 billion, and their families and only them, talk for 4 hours?? If he really would have delved into this, he would have doubts at best and would see how problematic these two "victims" are. How problematic any of the "victims" and conversations are. He wouldn't have produced a 4 hour hit piece, without going into all the aspects of what went down in those past 26 years.

onlyforaminute said:

Goddess4Real said:

Oprah has practically interviewed every member of the Jackson family, but I wonder if she has met Brandi? who dated Wade for 7 years, and who seems quite calm, articulate and rather insightful under the circumstances.

Brandi Jackson‏ @BJackson82 Feb 26

Thank you so much to the IZM family for having me on today and giving me a chance to speak @tariqnasheed @mslailalopez @ChloeBHer - I appreciate you all! Check it out on iTunes and/or YouTube under IZM Radio if you missed it.

IZM Radio:Michael Jackson's Niece Talks About the Leaving Neverland Documentary (Streamed live on Feb 26, 2019)

[Edited 3/1/19 16:51pm]

[Edited 3/1/19 16:52pm]

Vid not available

OK try this link https://www.youtube.com/w...FrypTZiusE

[Edited 3/1/19 19:39pm]

PatrickS77 said:

RichardS said:

I agree he's taking their word - but from what he says he also investigated it and found corroboration, albeit not presented in the documentary. Certainly I don't think it can be dismissed without watching it. At the very least it seems to be a serious attempt to deal with a serious subject.

How can it be serious when he let's these two fools, who sued for 1.6 billion, and their families and only them, talk for 4 hours?? If he really would have delved into this, he would have doubts at best and would see how problematic these two "victims" are. How problematic any of the "victims" and conversations are. He wouldn't have produced a 4 hour hit piece, without going into all the aspects of what went down in those past 26 years.

That's why this isn't a real documentary--it doesn't objectively explore the issues from differing perspectives.

Superstition said:

Goddess4Real said:

RichardS said:

Free2BMe said:

RichardS said:

I wouldn't say it was an open secret - the public certainly didn't know about it, and there was never enough evidence to bring charges. There's that word again - 'evidence' - if you were to believe the evidence available in Savile's lifetime, you'd have had to conclude he wasn't guilty. If, however, you believed what some people were saying without proof, you'd probably have thought he was guilty. Sound familiar?

Most often in these types of cases, the truth of what happens behind closed doors is only really known by those in the room - the rest of us make our own conclusions, and should allow others to do the same without implying (or even stating) that if anyone differs from our opinion they must be mentally deficient or evil, or part of a conspiracy etc.

The problem with your argument is that Michael was investigated more than a serial killer by the FBI for ten years .His home was raided by 70 officers and Nothing was found to incriminate him. Nothing on over 10 computers, no child pornography, no videos, NOTHING. You can bet if they had found anything, Mad Dog Sneddon would have used it against Michael. What I find really disgusting is that these pieces of trash have the audacity to think that they are so attractive e or desireable, that they would be ones chosen to a use, when other children were there at the same time. I am going to repeat what I have said previously, Robson and Safechuck have pedophilic fantasies of what they WANTED to happen. None of the SCRIPT that they are spewing really happened. We are dealing with tw very disturbed and sick individuals who are desperate and broke and will do anything’s no for money. They need to be arrested for perpetrating a hoax and taken to court and tried for extortion.

absolutely vile... you really are a piece of work

MoBettaBliss said:

we knew this shit was coming, that's why i wanted spike to do one on this before hand. Maybe spike just doesn't want to get involved with anything that controversial.

Free2BMe said:

RichardS said:

You have no evidence for your accusations against Robson and Safechuck, but apparently evidence only matters to you when it comes to Michael Jackson. Surely you can see that that is a very hypocritical position to take and actually devalues everything you say.

If they are committing a crime in open view of the world, then why have they not been arrested?

Yes, supporter of the liars, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, there is LOTS of evidence, against these scam artists, but since the media is complicit in this, they have not reported it. Btw, YOU don’t seem to worry about evidence, because you are believing the SCRIPTED words of two liars who have changed their story at least 5 times. You support these liars, yet do you know anything about how they are changing their stories? Of course you don’t know, because you don’t care that they ARE lying. People like you are willing to believe the words of two perjurers over the facts and evidence. You can bet your life that they wouldn’t be saying these things if Michael was still alive. These grown ass men( I use that term loosely) are not only sick and desperate liars, they are cowards! Why didn’t either of them say these things when Michael was here or say these things while testifying under oath in a courtroom or in a deposition? They are no more a victim, than I am, and I am not a victim. I know people who are victims and they don’t believe these perjurers. Fake “victims” like Robson and Safechuck make it hard for REAL victims to come forward, because these extortionists make it hard to believe them. The Metoo movement has become a joke with its support of these scam artists. Me Too movement has lost credibility in the eyes of many people Because now people are saying that some victims could be lying. We know 1000% that Wade Robson and Janes Safechuck have never been molested by Michael Jackson. That is a FACT, not a claim. You can take that to the bank. This is not an assertion by a blind fan or support, we have the “receipts”. I see you have no evidence to support these liars’ claims, and neither do they. The only thing they have is pornagraphic allegations that come from their obsessed and pedophilic fantasies of what they wished had happened AND the almost word for word script from the book of Victor Guitterez, an advocate for man/boy sex. Btw, the same script that was used by Evan Chandler when he used his own son for extortion. These two need to be arrested for perpetuating a hoax, and all involved need to be held accountable. However, I don’t see that happening because of the people involved in this scam. I always wonder why Oprah visited with the head of HBO and ATT last year? Everyone was wondering why she was there. Hmmm Was she in collusion with them in this scam endeavor at that time?

I haven't said I support them or believe them - I haven't yet seen the documentary, so how can I judge what they have said? You've jumped to conclusions about me, for some reason known only to yourself.

Having said that - you say their words are scripted - point me to evidence of this, and I will happily accept that. You place a lot of emphasis on evidence, but then make statements without backing them up with evidence. This undermines your argument.

BTW, I am a victim.

Superstition said:

The director looks creepy and obsessed.

.

Glad I'm not the only one who noticed that.

ForgottenPassword said:

Superstition said:

The director looks creepy and obsessed.

.

Glad I'm not the only one who noticed that.

Whereas MJ looked completely normal?

Come on, are we really reduced to debating at a level where we say - 'he looks creepy'. It's so juvenile - schoolyard stuff.

[Edited 3/2/19 7:09am]

Me Tooo right Emma?

Free2BMe said:

RichardS said:

You have no evidence for your accusations against Robson and Safechuck, but apparently evidence only matters to you when it comes to Michael Jackson. Surely you can see that that is a very hypocritical position to take and actually devalues everything you say.

If they are committing a crime in open view of the world, then why have they not been arrested?

Yes, supporter of the liars, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, there is LOTS of evidence, against these scam artists, but since the media is complicit in this, they have not reported it. Btw, YOU don’t seem to worry about evidence, because you are believing the SCRIPTED words of two liars who have changed their story at least 5 times. You support these liars, yet do you know anything about how they are changing their stories? Of course you don’t know, because you don’t care that they ARE lying. People like you are willing to believe the words of two perjurers over the facts and evidence. You can bet your life that they wouldn’t be saying these things if Michael was still alive. These grown ass men( I use that term loosely) are not only sick and desperate liars, they are cowards! Why didn’t either of them say these things when Michael was here or say these things while testifying under oath in a courtroom or in a deposition? They are no more a victim, than I am, and I am not a victim. I know people who are victims and they don’t believe these perjurers. Fake “victims” like Robson and Safechuck make it hard for REAL victims to come forward, because these extortionists make it hard to believe them. The Metoo movement has become a joke with its support of these scam artists. Me Too movement has lost credibility in the eyes of many people Because now people are saying that some victims could be lying. We know 1000% that Wade Robson and Janes Safechuck have never been molested by Michael Jackson. That is a FACT, not a claim. You can take that to the bank. This is not an assertion by a blind fan or support, we have the “receipts”. I see you have no evidence to support these liars’ claims, and neither do they. The only thing they have is pornagraphic allegations that come from their obsessed and pedophilic fantasies of what they wished had happened AND the almost word for word script from the book of Victor Guitterez, an advocate for man/boy sex. Btw, the same script that was used by Evan Chandler when he used his own son for extortion. These two need to be arrested for perpetuating a hoax, and all involved need to be held accountable. However, I don’t see that happening because of the people involved in this scam. I always wonder why Oprah visited with the head of HBO and ATT last year? Everyone was wondering why she was there. Hmmm Was she in collusion with them in this scam endeavor at that time?

I haven't said I support them or believe them - I haven't yet seen the documentary, so how can I judge what they have said? You've jumped to conclusions about me, for some reason known only to yourself.

Having said that - you say their words are scripted - point me to evidence of this, and I will happily accept that. You place a lot of emphasis on evidence, but then make statements without backing them up with evidence. This undermines your argument.

BTW, I am a victim.

RichardS said:

RichardS said:

Come on, are we really reduced to debating at a level where we say - 'he looks creepy'. It's so juvenile - schoolyard stuff.

[Edited 3/2/19 7:09am]

Yeah. Also calling someone porn director or NAMBLA advocate, just because they are reporting on certain topics. It's kinda the same as the people who go, "Michael Jackson shared his bed with children, so he's a pedophile.". We should be above that and it makes anyone doing that look like a fool.

PatrickS77 said:

RichardS said:

Come on, are we really reduced to debating at a level where we say - 'he looks creepy'. It's so juvenile - schoolyard stuff.

[Edited 3/2/19 7:09am]

Yeah. Also calling someone porn director or NAMBLA advocate, just because they are reporting on certain topics. It's kinda the same as the people who go, "Michael Jackson shared his bed with children, so he's a pedophile.". We should be above that and it makes anyone doing that look like a fool.

It doesn't make him a pedophile, but as a kid, I wouldn't have shared a bed with a man I barely knew. Sorry, but I just don't think that's okay. Also, as a parent I wouldn't have wanted it, staying over at Neverland, playing and stuff like that, cool with me. Sleepovers with other kids there, cool with me too. But if my kid walked up to me and said: "Michael shared a bed with me" I would've talked to MJ and said that I don't want him to share a bed with my child, period. And if it would've offended him, well, his problem. But you don't share your bed with other people's kids. I'm just pointing out, that it would be the same with a woman.

bonatoc said:

ThatWhiteDude said:

It doesn't make him a pedophile, but as a kid, I wouldn't have shared a bed with a man I barely knew. Sorry, but I just don't think that's okay. Also, as a parent I wouldn't have wanted it, staying over at Neverland, playing and stuff like that, cool with me. Sleepovers with other kids there, cool with me too. But if my kid walked up to me and said: "Michael shared a bed with me" I would've talked to MJ and said that I don't want him to share a bed with my child, period. And if it would've offended him, well, his problem. But you don't share your bed with other people's kids. I'm just pointing out, that it would be the same with a woman.

And what you think about it is of no consequence. These kids apparently did want to do that and obviously they got to know him, so he wasn't a stranger anymore. As you rightly say, it still doesn't make him a pedophile. As a kid I would have loved to spend the day with Michael, getting to know him. As for the sleepovers, I guess it depends on how it came up. I used to spend time at my grandparents as a kid and sometimes a friend came along. We slept in the same bed and had fun. Nothing sexual or strange was going on. So that's that. Why does that change when one of the 2 is older? It's unusual, yes. But not per se bad. Sometimes sleeping and sharing a bed is just that.

[Edited 3/2/19 13:33pm]

PatrickS77 said:

ThatWhiteDude said:

It doesn't make him a pedophile, but as a kid, I wouldn't have shared a bed with a man I barely knew. Sorry, but I just don't think that's okay. Also, as a parent I wouldn't have wanted it, staying over at Neverland, playing and stuff like that, cool with me. Sleepovers with other kids there, cool with me too. But if my kid walked up to me and said: "Michael shared a bed with me" I would've talked to MJ and said that I don't want him to share a bed with my child, period. And if it would've offended him, well, his problem. But you don't share your bed with other people's kids. I'm just pointing out, that it would be the same with a woman.

And what you think about it is of no consequence. It still doesn't make him a pedophile. As I kid I would have loved to spend the day with Michael, getting to know him. As for the sleepovers, I guess it depends on how it came up. I used to spend time at my grandparents as a kid and sometimes a friend came along. We slept in the same bed and had fun. Nothing sexual or strange was going on. So that's that. Why does that change when one of the 2 is older? It's unusual, yes. But not per se bad. Sometimes sleeping and sharing a bed is just that.

I didn't say that it makes him a pedophile, it seems like you can't read. And yes, I would have had a problem if I was a father and he would've shared a bed with my child. And I also didn't say that it's bad, again, don't put words in my mouth. It actually does change a lot when one of the 2 is older and you barely know them, how hard is that to understand? Some MJ Fans just can't stand criticism. Yes, MJ was NOT a pedophile, but some people are and do shit to kids, that's why it is an issue if a person you barely know sleeps in a bed with a kid that isn't theirs or related to them.

[Edited 3/2/19 13:35pm]

[Edited 3/2/19 13:38pm]

PatrickS77 said:

ThatWhiteDude said:

It doesn't make him a pedophile, but as a kid, I wouldn't have shared a bed with a man I barely knew. Sorry, but I just don't think that's okay. Also, as a parent I wouldn't have wanted it, staying over at Neverland, playing and stuff like that, cool with me. Sleepovers with other kids there, cool with me too. But if my kid walked up to me and said: "Michael shared a bed with me" I would've talked to MJ and said that I don't want him to share a bed with my child, period. And if it would've offended him, well, his problem. But you don't share your bed with other people's kids. I'm just pointing out, that it would be the same with a woman.

And what you think about it is of no consequence. This kids apparently did want to do that and obviously they got to know him, so he wasn't a stranger anymore. As you rightly say, it still doesn't make him a pedophile. As I kid I would have loved to spend the day with Michael, getting to know him. As for the sleepovers, I guess it depends on how it came up. I used to spend time at my grandparents as a kid and sometimes a friend came along. We slept in the same bed and had fun. Nothing sexual or strange was going on. So that's that. Why does that change when one of the 2 is older? It's unusual, yes. But not per se bad. Sometimes sleeping and sharing a bed is just that.

[Edited 3/2/19 13:25pm]

Equally, what you think about it is of no consequence. Same for what any of us think about it. Should we all stop posting?

I happen to agree with ThatWhiteDude. However non-sexual it may have been, it is still innappropriate behaviour for an adult. If I knew an adult who was sharing his or her bed with children who they were not related to, even if I knew it was non-sexual, I would think that adult needed some sort of psychological counselling - for their own benefit. It isn't healthy.

But I'd also say that to those adults that dress up in nappies/diapers - whereas some people think that is perfectly OK.