Marrk said:

MotownSubdivision said:

phillymonster said:

I saw the doc. I am crying one day later. People defending MJ at this point come across just like Trump supporters.

Or maybe crooked Hillary supporters.

Goddess4Real said:

Read the Estate’s statement in its entirety below: “Leaving Neverland” isn’t a documentary, it is the kind of tabloid character assassination Michael Jackson endured in life, and now in death. The film takes uncorroborated allegations that supposedly happened 20 years ago and treats them as fact. These claims were the basis of lawsuits filed by these two admitted liars which were ultimately dismissed by a judge. The two accusers testified under oath that these events never occurred. They have provided no independent evidence and absolutely no proof in support of their accusations, which means the entire film hinges solely on the word of two perjurers. Tellingly, the director admitted at the Sundance Film Festival that he limited his interviews only to these accusers and their families. In doing so, he intentionally avoided interviewing numerous people over the years who spent significant time with Michael Jackson and have unambiguously stated that he treated children with respect and did nothing hurtful to them. By choosing not to include any of these independent voices who might challenge the narrative that he was determined to sell, the director neglected fact checking so he could craft a narrative so blatantly one-sided that viewers never get anything close to a balanced portrait. For 20 years, Wade Robson denied in court and in numerous interviews, including after Michael passed, that he was a victim and stated he was grateful for everything Michael had done for him. His family benefitted from Michael’s kindness, generosity and career support up until Michael’s death. Conveniently left out of Leaving Neverland was the fact that when Robson was denied a role in a Michael Jackson themed Cirque du Soleil production, his assault allegations suddenly emerged. We are extremely sympathetic to any legitimate victim of child abuse. This film, however, does those victims a disservice. Because despite all the disingenuous denials made that this is not about money, it has always been about money – millions of dollars — dating back to 2013 when both Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who share the same law firm, launched their unsuccessful claims against Michael’s Estate. Now that Michael is no longer here to defend himself, Robson, Safechuck and their lawyers continue their efforts to achieve notoriety and a payday by smearing him with the same allegations a jury found him innocent of when he was alive. – The Estate of Michael Jackson

powerful statement from the Estate

SoulAlive said:

Free2BMe said:

SoulAlive said:

powerful statement from the Estate

Yes, the entire statement is very powerful.

and lets not forget, the movie is come up for everyone involved, just like it was come up for bashir who did the interview that led to michaels ultimate demise, everybody wants that come up. a fact i'm mentioning in the thread where another journalist recently tried to call prince some kind of manipulator or "groomer". that's the only way some people can make a name for themselves, by shitting on someone else.

when you have that kind of fame and money it's stupid to let anyone close to you, stupid. the arvizo's certainly were not victimized and that is the trial that happened. the arvizo's were full of shit, i think we can mostly all agree on that. Mike was a fool for letting people like that close.

Mintchip said:

Also, saying that numerous witnesses report MJ only acted respectfully toward children is kind of a straw man argument. No one is saying he didn’t publicly act respectful; of course he did. The crime they’re accusing him of would have been private, away from other adults.

there are also some interting interviews out there like ron newt who says he was offered 200k to say mike touched his kids. if we gonna look at everything, lets look at everything.

Mintchip said:

PeteSilas said:

PeteSilas said:

when you have that kind of fame and money it's stupid to let anyone close to you, stupid. the arvizo's certainly were not victimized and that is the trial that happened. the arvizo's were full of shit, i think we can mostly all agree on that. Mike was a fool for letting people like that close.

Mike was a fool for the kid sleepovers.

Mintchip said:

rdhull said:

Free2BMe said:

rdhull said:

Mike was a fool for the kid sleepovers.

Michael didn’t have kid sleepovers, he had FAMILIES visiting Neverland. That is not a sleepover.

OK chief

Michael Jackson Criminal Defense Lawyer Thomas Mesereau Is “Shocked” By Claims Made By Wade Robson: “He was adamant that nothing had happened to him. So were his mother and sister” https://www.showbiz411.co...and-sister

EXCLUSIVE This morning I spoke with Thomas Mesereau, Michael Jackson’s brilliant criminal defense lawyer in his 2005 child molestation and conspiracy trial. Michael was found not guilty on all counts.

The first witness Mesereau put on the stand in Jackson’s defense was Wade Robson, who now claims Jackson molested him when he was a child. In 2005, Robson, Mesereau says, was “adamant” that Jackson had never done anything wrong to him. Robson’s mother and sister also took the stand and said the same thing.

The Robsons flew in from Australia for the trial. They stayed at Neverland. Mesereau interviewed them extensively.

Mesereau told me: “I found Wade articulate and likeable. But he staunchly defended Michael. His mother and sister supported him in their statements. On the stand, Wade was then subjected to a withering prosecutor. I’m shocked that he’s taken a position contrary to what he told me, and what he testified to in court.”

Mesereau hasn’t seen the documentary “Leaving Neverland” but he is very surprised. And this is a man who has examined and cross examined some of the toughest witnesses ever.

One important thing Mesereau agreed with me on. Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon, now deceased, thoroughly investigated Jackson twice, over a 10 year period. He looked ceaselessly for young boys who might have been abused by Jackson. Sneddon was obsessed with tagging Jackson. It was Sneddon who slid his card on the door of the Arvizo family after he saw them on TV, and crafted an unsuccessful prosecution against Jackson using their crazy testimony.

Sneddon knew the names of Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck, the two men who claim in the documentary to have been molested. If Sneddon had thought there was any real story there, he’d have gone after it. He never did.

Meanwhile, Robson has started a not for profit foundation and is soliciting donations. There can be no transparency, as he’s parked his 501 c3 very cleverly under something called the Hawaii Community Foundation. That way, Robson doesn’t have to file a form 990. We’ll never know if the makers of “Leaving Neverland” have donated money to it, for example. This was done on purpose. Leonardo DiCaprio does the same thing with his Foundation. It’s hidden.

Safechuck, meantime, is accused by Jackson fans of creating his story from a very disgusting book published years ago by a man named Victor Guitierrez. Jackson sued Guitierrez and won a $2.7 million judgement against. The writer has never paid up, and now lives in Chile. I threw my copy out a long time; I didn’t want it in my house.

“Leaving Neverland” can’t be taken seriously, and I’m surprised the press in Sundance– who didn’t cover Jackson — was so swayed by it. The movie offers no independent evidence, or third parties, just the claims of Robson and Safechuck. Just because it’s graphic, doesn’t mean it’s true. The rush to judgement here is alarming, and dangerous.

Free2BMe said:

Mintchip said:

I’ll reserve judgement until I see the film. I do agree with the reviewer from The Hollywood Reporter; it’s not for us to say how and when the victims of sexual abuse come forward. The damage is too deep. If someone lies under oath, it could be that the lie was all they had to cling too, as the truth may have been too horrible to own. The perjury, and the judges decision to throw out their lawsuit, are both easy to understand. Not so easy to understand is Robinson’s money grab; it undermines his character. Maybe that will be addressed in the doc.

The problem with the doc is that it is based on two LIARS with not an ounce of evidence. It would be like me accusing you and only my side being presented with not an ounce of rebuttal. If you are willing to see the one sided lies of These two liars, why not see the actual proof that they are lying. Robson testified that nothing happened to him. He was telling the truth. Even after Michael’s death, he continued to praise Michael and talk about his goodness. Michael and his children were actually invited to family picnic at Robsons house. Those are not the actions of a damaged or abused man. Wade Robson only suddenly came up with these claims when he was not hired to be choreographer for Cirque Soleil. He even told Matt Laure that this revelation was not repressed memomory. He actually claimed that he didn’t even know that he was sexually abused until he looked at his own son.Hmmmn, why was he thinking of molestation while looking at his own son? There is something very strange about that, that I think should be investigated. Let’s not forget that this is a man who claimed that he was abused every night and he didn’t know he was being abused? Robson, who had just #@$&* Britney Spears and brokeup her relationship with Justin Timberlake, claims he didn’t know he had been sexually abused until he looked at his own son. how strange is that? Again, his SUDDEN revelation only came after he lost the job that he had been publicly bragging about. Robson is even more heinous than the grifter family who accused Michael. He waited until Michael was no longer here to defend himself. The bottomline is that Robson is a coward and would never have done this while Michael was alive. Michael’s estate didn’t fall for his and Safechuck’s extortion attempt. A judge threw out their case because it was just that ridiculous. I can guarantee you that this is all about $$$. Fake “victims” like these two liars only undermine the plight of real victims. I sense that some of you who are judging Michael are real victims, so you want to latch on to the bullshit spewed by these liars, Robson and Safechuck, Finally, why didn’t this so called director interview any of the other people (girls and boys) who visted Neverland? Why did he focus on the two liars who tried to extort money from Michael’s estate and case thrown out. Even a fifth grader would be smart enough to figure that out. [Edited 1/26/19 18:27pm]

13june2005‏ @13june2005

Goddess4Real said:

I have a serious question about this trashy tabliod spectacle:

If it was good enough for Joan Crawford (Mommie Dearest) and R Kelly (Surviving R Kelly) then is it not good enough for Michael Jackson?

I haven't seen "Surviving.." for this reason. And I'm not negating the validity of its claims. I just choose not to participate.

PatrickS77 said:

PeteSilas said:

when you have that kind of fame and money it's stupid to let anyone close to you, stupid. the arvizo's certainly were not victimized and that is the trial that happened. the arvizo's were full of shit, i think we can mostly all agree on that. Mike was a fool for letting people like that close.

And what should he have done instead? Live a life in fear and in solitarity. It's easy for you to blame him for forging relationshsips when it doesn't affect you and you can do and befriend whoever the hell you want.

I don't like people, i don't hardly even talk to my closest friends and family, all they bring is drama. I'm unusual, I know, so I wasn't the average person you thought of when you said that. again, i don't like people, think they are vile, deceptive and manipulative. I trust my cats.

and did anyone else find robsons claim that he was molested "everyday" silly? I mean, even a freak wouldn't do something everyday. I wouldn't even screw fine women everyday even if i could.

CynicKill said:

ItsLetoyaBaby said:

PeteSilas said:

PeteSilas said: