[News] Leaving Neverland- Michael Jackson documentary

Triggaaar · Mar 8, 2019

pishhead said:
You can take what you want from it, I was merely putting a different slant on it. Look, Michael Jackson could well have been the biggest predatory paedophile of our lifetime, or not. My point was that the agenda of said documentary was to put across a particular narrative.

The documentary was doing one thing - putting forward the story of two people (and their families) who claim they were abused by Jackson. That's it. So I don't see a problem with the 'narrative', it wasn't trying to provide two sides to the story, just the account of those families. Either Wade and James are lying, or they're not. I'm sure they're not.

The tweet you've quoted is from someone claiming that Wade has lied. Someone who wouldn't be in a position to know whether Wade was lying or not.

symyjym · Mar 8, 2019

pishhead said:
You can take what you want from it, I was merely putting a different slant on it. Look, Michael Jackson could well have been the biggest predatory paedophile of our lifetime, or not. My point was that the agenda of said documentary was to put across a particular narrative.

I understand the different slants and I have always given MJ the benefit of the doubt because people were out to get him etc etc etc. In fact that was my position in earlier comments on this thread.

I believe in my own abilities in detecting deception and I went into the documentary without any bias and my bullshitometer was on a steady zero through both docs. No doubt there will be a counter documentary from everyone who was ignorant of what was going on who will sincerely believe that nothing happened. Will there side prove that nothing happened? I await their narrative.

Would you claim that you orally pleasured MJ if you had a good chance to win some of his estate? This does require answering because you avoided it in my last reply to you and it is very important.

Wrong-Direction · Mar 8, 2019

pishhead said:
Again for context only. I don't have a dog in the fight.

This was a tweet from music executive Clyde Jenkins. This is just some of the stuff this one sided documentary conveniently left out. Anyone can make a documentary and make it look like it’s the whole truth. It’s not.

Tweet[emoji1313]
Wade Robson... you should be ashamed of yourself!!! You and your family befriended the biggest star in the world. I personally recall your mom Joy calling MJJ Music with a sob story about needing money knowing that Michael Jackson loved her and your entire family and would do anything to help her. Michael especially loved you like a son because you dreamed of being a dancer as your mother took you around Australia impersonating who.... Michael Jackson.

Your family moved to the United States leaving your father behind and Michael gave you a record deal as part of a rap duo named QUO! It FAILED!!!

Michael Set you up with his niece Brandi and you guys were together for several years... until you CHEATED with other woman several Times.... she left you!

You still remained in the Jackson Circle.... Why? Because it opened doors for you being associated with Michael Jackson and his family.

That association with Michael Jackson afforded you the opportunity to befriend such artist as Justin Timberlake and Brittany spears... and what did you do...You started working with Justin as a Choreographer and then slept with his girlfriend Brittany Spears and was FIRED. Justin then wrote a song about it called "Cry Me A River". And yet you called Justin your FRIEND!!!

You used your association with Michael Jackson to befriend PRINCE and Mayte.... and what did you do.... You slept with HER!!! Some friend you are!!

You use your association with Michael Jackson to get yourself a gig on a television dance show.... word gets out about your previous disregard and loyalty toward high profile celebrities... and what happens.... you get CUT from that show.

Michael Jackson plans his THIS IS IT concert and you BEG to be the choreographer for the show.... Michael Chooses another Choreographer.... what do you do now that your web of lies are catching up with you and you are now Hollywood damaged goods.... You turn on the one man who looked out for you and your family your ENTIRE life and make up child abuse/molestation allegations that you have emphatically stated for many many years....NEVER HAPPENED!!

Fast forward to today... Michael Jackson is sadly NO LONGER with us. You now beg Michaels Nephew Taj Jackson for VIP access to Michael Jacksons funeral for YOU and your entire family. yet you claim this monster molested you...Sick.

You are now considered a home wrecking, disloyal individual and is essentially blackballed from Hollywood. What do you do? Because You know the world knows you are associated with Michael Jackson.... you use that association once again to change your LIFE LONG STORY to now claim... Michael Jackson molested you. Why? because you are BROKE and your wife is demanding you start making money or she will leave you.

You now convince another broke kid from Michaels past (Pepsi commercial) to join you in a frivolous lawsuit against Michael Jacksons Estate for 100's of Millions of dollars. The courts agree that there is no merit to this lawsuit and dismiss it!!

The Jackson family never fight back when people say disparaging things about their family. Mrs. Jackson once told me when i questioned her about this... she replied "because DIRT sinks and CREAM rises"

Wade knows this to be true as well.... so what does he do? He and James Safechuck concoct a story so salacious, so scandalous so despicable, and presents it to HBO for a one sided EXPLOSIVE televised documentary of LIES... in hopes that the Michael Jackson BILLION DOLLAR ESTATE will settle with you financially to make this documentary go away.

Well that documentary of LIES will air this weekend.... and unlike the Jackson's past... this new generations of Jackson kids are not having it!! they are suing HBO for airing your lying ass!!

I hope when this is all said and done, the estate counter sues YOU in civil court and WIN! I hope it renders you penniless for the rest of your life. Michael Jackson was good to YOU, your mother Joy and your sister Chantel.... and because your gravy train has run out... THIS is how you repay him. You are a sad excuse for a human being!!!

Sorry for this long post... but knowing what i know I just couldn't be silent.

For any of you who thought Michael Jackson was strange... I get it... because there is no one else on earth to compare him to. Yes, there are other child stars who grew up to "blend in" to society...and i get it... But when you are Michael Jackson and the only thing on earth that is more recognizable than you is the yellow "M" at McDonalds..... that in itself is "Strange!"

Anyways.... i say... boycott the documentary... and if you MUST WATCH... know that you now know the basis of the scandalous lies contained within the documentary!

Let that man rest in PEACE!!!

Clyde

Do you work for the government?

Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk

Triggaaar · Mar 8, 2019

symyjym said:
Would you claim that you orally pleasured MJ if you had a good chance to win some of his estate? This does require answering because you avoided it in my last reply to you and it is very important.

I know you're not asking me, but I wouldn't and most here wouldn't I'm sure, but that doesn't mean no one would. However, whilst I understand that some people would lie to get money, do I think these two people are, given how great their relationship must have been with Jackson? No. He was their idol, their best friend, their mentor. I don't believe they're making all this up about someone they loved. Add to that the fact that he took the kids away from their families when he could, and slept with them - then the next year he'd be doing the same with a different boy, and it seems very clear to me. Why wouldn't he have this fun sleepover time with more than one boy at a time? My kids have friends round for sleepovers, and as far as they're concerned, the more the merrier, as it is innocent sleepover fun.

BBassic · Mar 8, 2019

symyjym said:
Of course it helped his career, but he was also a very good dancer and teacher of dance with hundreds of students wanting his time. How is your dancing these days? Could you fake it to the top if you had the right contacts?

If you want more details about his life I am sure Google will be of good use to you. But you do realise that you are almost saying that "he didn't do too bad out of it and was a small price to pay because he got what he wanted"?

That's not how I intended my post to be read at all. I thought I had been clear that what happened to him was inexcusable regardless.

pishhead · Mar 8, 2019

symyjym said:
Would you claim that you orally pleasured MJ if you had a good chance to win some of his estate? This does require answering because you avoided it in my last reply to you and it is very important.

If you're asking me personally I would say no of course not, however obviously I don't know the individuals in question and their moral compass. I would say that the tweet I quoted wether the points raised are true or not is trying to bring one of their morality into question.

I'm genuinely not trying to get into an argument about this and I 100% get your own stance on this.

BBassic · Mar 8, 2019

Triggaaar said:
Most of us have never idolised someone to the extent Wade idolised Jackson. On top of that, they became great friends and Wade's career was helped greatly by Jackson. Given that, why on earth would he then make all this up?

I don't think he made it up at all. Not even a little bit of it.

symyjym · Mar 8, 2019

BBassic said:
That's not how I intended my post to be read at all. I thought I had been clear that what happened to him was inexcusable regardless.

I know it's not how you intended. I was just pointing out that it could be read like that.

Triggaaar · Mar 8, 2019

BBassic said:
I don't think he made it up at all. Not even a little bit of it.

Indeed.

symyjym · Mar 8, 2019

pishhead said:
If you're asking me personally I would say no of course not, however obviously I don't know the individuals in question and their moral compass. I would say that the tweet I quoted wether the points raised are true or not is trying to bring one of their morality into question.

I'm genuinely not trying to get into an argument about this and I 100% get your own stance on this.

If you would find it too embarrassing to make up a story about yourself orally pleasuring MJ, you should also apply this to others as being the case too. All you have given me is some twitter rant saying that MJ gave him everything and that he should be more grateful. And basically demonising the victim.

Mellotron · Mar 8, 2019

Triggaaar said:
What is it I worded wrong? Some said there was no evidence. I disagree, as testimony is evidence.

OK one last time.

Triggaaar said:
the people who he raped say that he raped them. That's evidence, and would be more than enough to put someone away.

This is what you said, above.

You intimate above that someone saying someone raped them is evidence enough to put someone in prison on it's own. Thank **** that is utter unadulterated bollocks, eh?

By your own logic - given there is absolutely no mention of sworn testimony, other circumstantial evidence which led to it being brought to court etc, I could state now that you are a mass murderer and get you put in prison, because according to your own words someone saying something is evidence enough on it's own.

Try not to move the goalposts in your response this time by bringing in other elements, which were not in your original statement. We're not talking about testimony backed up by other circumstantial evidence. I am purely talking about the sentence of yours I quoted above.

Wouldn't it be so much easier and less painful to just once accept that you're a fallible human, didn't articulate yourself very well in the first instance, and then clarify what you meant?

Try it, it's honestly not that bad. I've admitted many times on here to getting things wrong, and nothing bad happened afterwards, if anything it probably helped matters.

And fair enough - see, me admitting I got something wrong! - you can't libel the dead.

Triggaaar · Mar 8, 2019

Mellotron said:
OK one last time.

This is what you said, above.
"There is evidence - the people who he raped say that he raped them. That's evidence, and would be more than enough to put someone away."

You intimate above that someone saying someone raped them is evidence enough to put someone in prison on it's own.

I said (and you just quoted me) 'people'. That's more than one person. But each time you claim I said 'someone', which is one person. I was also talking about this specific case. Not any case where anyone claiming anything is enough, but this specific case, where two people have made specific allegations. The allegations of the two people in the documentary would be enough to have Jackson found guilty. My post (which you have quoted) was replying to someone who said there was no evidence, and I disagree, as the testimony of the two men in the documentary would count as evidence.

By your own logic - given there is absolutely no mention of sworn testimony

It's not sworn testimony because the case isn't going to court.

I could state now that you are a mass murderer and get you put in prison, because according to your own words someone saying something is evidence enough on it's own.

Again you're saying 'someone'. You're trying to take my post out of context and assume that anyone saying anything is enough, which is clearly not what I said. What I'm saying is that in a paedophile case, the testimony of victims alone can be all the evidence needed to find someone guilty.

Try not to move the goalposts in your response this time by bringing in other elements, which were not in your original statement. We're not talking about testimony backed up by other circumstantial evidence.

Other elements! You're the one trying to compare this with murder, which would at least require a missing person.

Wouldn't it be so much easier and less painful to just once accept that you're a fallible human, didn't articulate yourself very well in the first instance, and then clarify what you meant?

Try it, it's honestly not that bad. I've admitted many times on here to getting things wrong, and nothing bad happened afterwards, if anything it probably helped matters.

I have also admitted getting many things wrong on here, I have no problem with it. What I do have a problem with is pretending I was wrong in order to keep the peace, when I don't think I was.

In this case it's simple - someone said there is no evidence against MJ, and I'm saying that what these people have said in the documentary would count as evidence. Sure, you can say you don't think I said that clearly, as you believe I was saying that anyone saying anything would be enough, but that's not what I meant, as it's clear I was talking about this specific case.

mejonaNO12 aka riskit · Mar 8, 2019

Triggaaar said:
I said (and you just quoted me) 'people'. That's more than one person. But each time you claim I said 'someone',

Seriously!?!?!!? You said 'someone' in the context of "enough to put SOMEONE away". That's the SOMEONE Mellotron is referring to. How can you not see that? I'm starting to think you are doing this on purpose.

Triggaaar said:
I was also talking about this specific case.

So why didn't you say 'him' instead of 'someone'

It seems truly bizarre to me that you have been stitched up by your own words....yet claim you didn't write them. Truly odd.

Triggaaar · Mar 8, 2019

mejonaNO12 aka riskit said:
Seriously!?!?!!? You said 'someone' in the context of "enough to put SOMEONE away". That's the SOMEONE Mellotron is referring to. How can you not see that?

No it isn't. There were two parts to my sentence: 1) "the people who he raped say that he raped them."
2) "more than enough to put someone away."

We're discussing the first part, because Mellotron said
"Your evidence was someone saying something."

We're not dealing with the word of one person, we're talking about the testimony of a two victims.

(he later added "You intimate above that someone saying someone raped them"

So why didn't you say 'him' instead of 'someone'

Because similar evidence from victims would be enough to put away a different paedophile.

It seems truly bizarre to me that you have been stitched up by your own words....yet claim you didn't write them. Truly odd.

You can take that back when you realise you've got the wrong 'someone'.

Rodney Thomas · Mar 8, 2019

This is like the Brexit bus debate all over again :lolol:

The Clamp · Mar 8, 2019

Rodney Thomas said:
This is like the Brexit bus debate all over again

It's like an Alan Partridge phone in.

LlcoolJ · Mar 8, 2019

The Clamp said:
It's like an Alan Partridge phone in.

"I also knew John".

LlcoolJ · Mar 8, 2019

Rodney Thomas said:
This is like the Brexit bus debate all over again [emoji38]ol:

...

symyjym · Mar 8, 2019

https://youtu.be/6p8CgdRLnDQ

mejonaNO12 aka riskit · Mar 8, 2019

Triggaaar said:
What I'm saying is that in a paedophile case, the testimony of victims alone can be all the evidence needed to find someone guilty.

Any examples where the ONLY evidence given in a case where someone was found guilty was a victims testimony alone?

I'd be fascinated.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[News] Leaving Neverland- Michael Jackson documentary

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

I changed this.

Well-known member

I changed this.

Banned

Well-known member

Banned

I've asked for soup

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Mama said knock you out.

Mama said knock you out.

Banned

Well-known member

Share this page