Jump to content
JONEZY

Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson Documentary, HBO

Recommended Posts

A tunes a fuckin' tune, if it was a banger yesterday its a banger today, regardless of where the artists fingers been, thats my feeling, it ain't the songs fault, the chord progressions and production and the collection of words and melody ain't done nothing to no one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, action said:

Before 1993, before the first allegations, there were many people who appreciated this character of "grown up man with childlike voice who sleeps in an oxygen chamber and has a pet monkey named bubba" or something.

it's an outrageous character, it speaks to the imagination.

Not that anyone of his fans would go through real life like MJ, it's nothing about that. What it meant to them, is this persona of someone who was completely shut off from the big cruel world, living in his neverland pretending to be an eternal child...... that really spoke to a lot of people.

then came the shock and the illusion was shattered, and the madness began.

I wouldn't want to feed the people, people who are lost in life who are looking for a bit of dreams. some people follow the Queen and wonder at all the richess and the crown.... it's all bells and whistles and it speaks to the imagination. fairytales of kings and queens, peter pan and mickey mouse.... the feeble minded, the lost people (and there are many) eat it all up like hot cakes

Don't get me started on the royals lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I’m surprised anyone ever bought that childlike innocence routine of Jackos, I truly am, it makes me think what sheltered lives some people must lead or else they just REALLY want to believe that shit.

I always thought this was a weird defence.  That Jackson is just a child in his mind because he was robbed of his own childhood.  Lots of children are robbed of their childhoods but still grow up.  Most still understand that sleeping with kids who are not ones own ain't cool. 

And yeah, let's say he's a 12 year old in a 30 year olds body.  But he still has a 30 years body with whatever raging hormones and sexual-psychological needs going on.  That side of a person doesn't go away simply because they have this fantasy of living like a 12 year old.  

8 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

A tunes a fuckin' tune, if it was a banger yesterday its a banger today, regardless of where the artists fingers been, thats my feeling, it ain't the songs fault, the chord progressions and production and the collection of words and melody ain't done nothing to no one.

I think that's the ideal.  But for some, including myself, it's just uncomfortable to hear or see the person within the art.  I think it's a personal decision and I admire people who can separate the two.  But for me, I now feel creeped out when I hear MJ singing.  Doesn't mean I still don't catch myself humming Man in the Mirror.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kittiara said:

Okay, so I have watched the documentary as well as the Oprah interview. Earlier in this thread I said that I had questions. I still do. As others have said, the documentary doesn't offer any actual evidence of sexual abuse. That would have been impossible. It did, however, lead me to draw some conclusions:

- The documentary showed video footage, pictures, recordings etc of just how close Michael Jackson was to these boys. Some of it was pretty creepy, like that interview on the plane, and those faxes, and one of those answer machine messages. The relationship he had with the boys seemed very... intense. Overwhelming. It's easy to see how he made them feel special, and loved, and then he replaced them with the next boy, and the hurt that caused is easily understood. Regardless of whether or not any sexual abuse took place, I would class that as emotional abuse.

- I still stand firm that regardless of whether or not any sexual abuse took place, it was wrong of Jackson to share a bedroom, let alone a bed, with unrelated children.

- The parents, and especially the mothers, came across terribly in the documentary. Their reputation is in pieces forever. I am not sure why they would participate in the documentary if the allegations aren't true. No amount of money would surely make up for being seen as a terrible person, globally, for the rest of your life...

- Like @downzy it was the second half of part 2 that I found the most convincing. If there isn't something to these allegations then the brother and sister especially deserve an Oscar.

- The same goes for James Safechuck towards the end of the Oprah interview. If he isn't being genuine the guy deserves some kind of acting award.

I can't, of course, be 100 percent certain that these guys are telling the truth. On balance, however, I find it difficult to believe they and their families could lie like that. I also find it difficult to understand why they would. They didn't seek to make this documentary. In the Oprah interview, the producer says he was the one who approached them. They, nor their families, received any monetary reward for it. The doors to any monetary reward are pretty much closed. They've made themselves hate figures in the eyes of many, and the same goes for their families and especially their mothers.

Even if they are liars, though, as I mentioned above, it is clear that Jackson wasn't a nice person. As someone who was once a fan, that's not pleasant to admit, but enough evidence was presented for me to conclude that much...

Good summary.  And you're right about all the corroborating evidence with respect to Jackson's character outside of the sexual assault accusations.  

Another aspect of their stories that made them credible is the amount of detail (and like you mention, the corroborating evidence) provided with respect to Jackson grooming the boys with respect to abuse, loyalty to him, and separating them from their parents.  There's a lot of manipulation going on and the amount of detail provided is something I think would be difficult to fake.  Not to say it couldn't' be done, but both Robson and Safechuck would have had to sit down together, concoct one hell of a stories with a level of detail present in a Game of Thrones sized book, and then be able to relay that information in a manner that is wholly believable.  Could it be done?  Sure.  Is it likely, doesn't appear that way to me.   

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, downzy said:

Good summary.  And you're right about all the corroborating evidence with respect to Jackson's character outside of the sexual assault accusations.  

Another aspect of their stories that made them credible is the amount of detail (and like you mention, the corroborating evidence) provided with respect to Jackson grooming the boys with respect to abuse, loyalty to him, and separating them from their parents.  There's a lot of manipulation going on and the amount of detail provided is something I think would be difficult to fake.  Not to say it couldn't' be done, but both Robson and Safechuck would have had to sit down together, concoct one hell of a stories with a level of detail present in a Game of Thrones sized book, and then be able to relay that information in a manner that is wholly believable.  Could it be done?  Sure.  Is it likely, doesn't appear that way to me.   

 

when I watch the documentary, I will specifically pay attention to the finer details. If they match up then this will be a strong indication of their credibility. If not, then more doubt is cast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are going to love it Atari. The only thing which would make you love it more is if Jacko was a Catholic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, action said:

when I watch the documentary, I will specifically pay attention to the finer details. If they match up then this will be a strong indication of their credibility. If not, then more doubt is cast.

Well, glad to hear you're going to watch it.  Like I said, it's not proof of anything, just the stories of two guys and their families.  You can choose to believe them or not and the world will still be here tomorrow.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always feel that MJ character as innocent child in a body man was prefabricated for managers, advertising executive, label. Never i see real. Maybe this character served he to link with little kids , and he take adventage about it.

  • Like 2
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He groomed us all.

That is why the mothers allowed their sons to sleep in his bed, reassured by the Peter Pan facade, denied a childhood himself, innocent and completely asexual etc etc. I recall some anecdote by somebody, and this has nothing to do with the allegations or anything and may have even been a keen supporter of Michael's, when they heard him speak in his normal voice and not that girly voice; in other words that girly voice was a thorough construct (might have even been Slash who said this? Not sure?).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few reasons why I believe Robson and Safechuck are liars:

 

For five years, these men have been suing Michael Jackson’s estate for hundreds of millions of dollars. This lawsuit has generated thousands of pages of court records: witness statements, motions, depositions and disclosure. These public documents PROVE beyond any reasonable doubt that the men are lying. The whole media knows about these documents, but is refusing to report on their contents. I’ve tried not to fill my Facebook feed with posts about this, but you are all being lied to from every direction. So this is my contribution to the debate on Facebook – a list of just some of the public record information the media is refusing to tell you.

  • Both men strenuously defended Jackson, including under oath, for decades, and only decided they’d been molested years after his death, when they were both in financial trouble and filed a lawsuit seeking hundreds of millions of dollars. That lawsuit was thrown out of court – twice – but the men are in the middle of an appeal, giving them a gigantic financial motive to lie.

  • Since filing their lawsuit, both men have repeatedly changed their stories, frequently telling directly contradictory versions of the same supposed events. For example, Wade Robson has told at least four directly contradictory stories about the first time Jackson supposedly abused him.

  • In the lawsuit, Robson was caught lying under oath so brazenly that the judge threw out his entire witness statement and said no rational juror could ever believe his account.

  • Between 2012 and 2014, Robson wrote two drafts of an abuse memoir and tried unsuccessfully to sell them to publishers. Meanwhile, he lied under oath and said he’d never discussed his allegations with anyone except his lawyers. When the Jackson estate discovered he’d actually been shopping books, the court ordered him to produce the drafts as evidence. They revealed the story of his abuse had changed significantly from one draft to the next.

  • Robson was also ordered to release his emails as evidence. He breached the order repeatedly, first by claiming they didn’t exist, then by simply refusing to hand them over. Then he redacted all the emails between himself and his family members and cited ‘attorney-client’ privilege, even though none of his family are attorneys.

  • When he eventually complied with the court order and released the emails, they revealed that at the time he was constructing his lawsuit and abuse memoir, he was researching and emailing himself links to old tabloid newspaper stories about abuse allegations against Michael Jackson.

  • The emails showed Robson found one particular story from the early 1990s which specifically named he and his mother. He emailed it to his mother and asked whether it was true. She replied, ‘Wow, none of that is true’. He then included it in his story anyway.

  • Emails also revealed that throughout 2011/12, Robson was lobbying Jackson’s estate for a job directing and choreographing an official Michael Jackson tribute show in Las Vegas. His campaign to secure this role had included sending emails explaining that his amazing friendship with Jackson meant nobody was better qualified for the role than he was, and he was devoted to doing the best job he possibly could ‘for Michael’. After being told someone else had got the job, he suddenly claimed he’d been abused and filed a creditor’s claim against the estate for millions of dollars.

  • Months later, according to Jimmy Safechuck, he flipped on the TV and saw Wade Robson being interviewed about his lawsuit. In that moment, Safechuck suddenly remembered that he had been abused by Jackson as well, so decided to join the lawsuit. He didn’t mention that this epiphany coincided exactly with his inheritance circling the drain after a relative died and the surviving siblings started suing each other – including him – for control of the family business.

  • Robson was also ordered to produce his diaries as evidence. In them, he’d written about how these allegations might rescue his failing career by making him ‘relatable and relevant’. He also wrote, ‘It’s time for me to get mine.’ When questioned under oath about what he’d meant when he wrote that, he refused to answer.

  • Both men tell stories in the TV show which directly contradict stories told under oath in their lawsuit. In fact, they have continued to change their stories as recently as within the last week.

  • For example, Jimmy Safechuck claims under oath in the lawsuit that he only remembered Jackson had abused him in 2013 when he turned on the TV and saw Robson. Yet in tonight’s TV show and interviews promoting it, he claims he knew he’d been abused in 2005 and thus, when asked to testify for Jackson’s defence ‘towards the end of the trial’, he refused to do so.

  • But that’s a provable lie. Safechuck was never asked to testify for Jackson’s defence. The judge ruled long before the trial began that testimony could only be heard about certain children, and Safechuck was not one of them. All testimony about Safechuck was literally banned from the courtroom. So Jackson’s defence cannot have asked him to testify – and certainly not after the trial was already underway.

  • Robson claimed in a BBC interview last week that Jackson had abused him ‘hundreds of times’. Yet his mother’s sworn testimony is that they went to Neverland roughly 14 times but Jackson was almost never there. She estimates the number of times they visited the ranch and he was actually there was four.

  • Questioned about their financial motive, the men now say they don’t care about money and are only suing to embolden other abuse victims by holding the Jackson estate accountable. This is a provable lie. The lawsuit was originally filed under seal and Robson tried to extract a settlement from the estate with zero publicity. Only when the estate refused to pay a bean did he go public.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a related but adjacent note I was chatting to a friend about this today and they recommended the Netflix documentary Abducted in Plain Sight as having similar undertones e.g.. people culturally groomed to accept weird shit that with hindsight is clearly very off. I haven't seen it yet but this was her take on the similarities, I think that documentary addresses aspects of Mormonism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

He groomed us all.

Oh God, are you serious with this shit? Do you not realise what a totally hysterical bellend comments like this make you sound?

Edited by Towelie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Towelie said:

A few reasons why I believe Robson and Safechuck are liars:

 

For five years, these men have been suing Michael Jackson’s estate for hundreds of millions of dollars. This lawsuit has generated thousands of pages of court records: witness statements, motions, depositions and disclosure. These public documents PROVE beyond any reasonable doubt that the men are lying. The whole media knows about these documents, but is refusing to report on their contents. I’ve tried not to fill my Facebook feed with posts about this, but you are all being lied to from every direction. So this is my contribution to the debate on Facebook – a list of just some of the public record information the media is refusing to tell you.

  • Both men strenuously defended Jackson, including under oath, for decades, and only decided they’d been molested years after his death, when they were both in financial trouble and filed a lawsuit seeking hundreds of millions of dollars. That lawsuit was thrown out of court – twice – but the men are in the middle of an appeal, giving them a gigantic financial motive to lie.

  • Since filing their lawsuit, both men have repeatedly changed their stories, frequently telling directly contradictory versions of the same supposed events. For example, Wade Robson has told at least four directly contradictory stories about the first time Jackson supposedly abused him.

  • In the lawsuit, Robson was caught lying under oath so brazenly that the judge threw out his entire witness statement and said no rational juror could ever believe his account.

  • Between 2012 and 2014, Robson wrote two drafts of an abuse memoir and tried unsuccessfully to sell them to publishers. Meanwhile, he lied under oath and said he’d never discussed his allegations with anyone except his lawyers. When the Jackson estate discovered he’d actually been shopping books, the court ordered him to produce the drafts as evidence. They revealed the story of his abuse had changed significantly from one draft to the next.

  • Robson was also ordered to release his emails as evidence. He breached the order repeatedly, first by claiming they didn’t exist, then by simply refusing to hand them over. Then he redacted all the emails between himself and his family members and cited ‘attorney-client’ privilege, even though none of his family are attorneys.

  • When he eventually complied with the court order and released the emails, they revealed that at the time he was constructing his lawsuit and abuse memoir, he was researching and emailing himself links to old tabloid newspaper stories about abuse allegations against Michael Jackson.

  • The emails showed Robson found one particular story from the early 1990s which specifically named he and his mother. He emailed it to his mother and asked whether it was true. She replied, ‘Wow, none of that is true’. He then included it in his story anyway.

  • Emails also revealed that throughout 2011/12, Robson was lobbying Jackson’s estate for a job directing and choreographing an official Michael Jackson tribute show in Las Vegas. His campaign to secure this role had included sending emails explaining that his amazing friendship with Jackson meant nobody was better qualified for the role than he was, and he was devoted to doing the best job he possibly could ‘for Michael’. After being told someone else had got the job, he suddenly claimed he’d been abused and filed a creditor’s claim against the estate for millions of dollars.

  • Months later, according to Jimmy Safechuck, he flipped on the TV and saw Wade Robson being interviewed about his lawsuit. In that moment, Safechuck suddenly remembered that he had been abused by Jackson as well, so decided to join the lawsuit. He didn’t mention that this epiphany coincided exactly with his inheritance circling the drain after a relative died and the surviving siblings started suing each other – including him – for control of the family business.

  • Robson was also ordered to produce his diaries as evidence. In them, he’d written about how these allegations might rescue his failing career by making him ‘relatable and relevant’. He also wrote, ‘It’s time for me to get mine.’ When questioned under oath about what he’d meant when he wrote that, he refused to answer.

  • Both men tell stories in the TV show which directly contradict stories told under oath in their lawsuit. In fact, they have continued to change their stories as recently as within the last week.

  • For example, Jimmy Safechuck claims under oath in the lawsuit that he only remembered Jackson had abused him in 2013 when he turned on the TV and saw Robson. Yet in tonight’s TV show and interviews promoting it, he claims he knew he’d been abused in 2005 and thus, when asked to testify for Jackson’s defence ‘towards the end of the trial’, he refused to do so.

  • But that’s a provable lie. Safechuck was never asked to testify for Jackson’s defence. The judge ruled long before the trial began that testimony could only be heard about certain children, and Safechuck was not one of them. All testimony about Safechuck was literally banned from the courtroom. So Jackson’s defence cannot have asked him to testify – and certainly not after the trial was already underway.

  • Robson claimed in a BBC interview last week that Jackson had abused him ‘hundreds of times’. Yet his mother’s sworn testimony is that they went to Neverland roughly 14 times but Jackson was almost never there. She estimates the number of times they visited the ranch and he was actually there was four.

  • Questioned about their financial motive, the men now say they don’t care about money and are only suing to embolden other abuse victims by holding the Jackson estate accountable. This is a provable lie. The lawsuit was originally filed under seal and Robson tried to extract a settlement from the estate with zero publicity. Only when the estate refused to pay a bean did he go public.

Fantastic post

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Towelie said:

Oh God, are you serious with that shit? Do you not realise what a totally hysterical bellend comments like this make you sound?

It, image creation, is probably not a lot stranger than the figure he set forth, which is of this Peter Pan who likes to have slumber parties with kids, eating popcorn and watching Spielberg films and benignly playing with them in a schmaltzy fantasy on his ranch. What (innocent) middle aged man wants to sleep with kids? The farts alone would ward most sensible human beings away. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It, image creation, is probably not a lot stranger than the figure he set forth, which is of this Peter Pan who likes to have slumber parties with kids, eating popcorn and watching Spielberg films and benignly playing with them in a schmaltzy fantasy on his ranch. What (innocent) middle aged man wants to sleep with kids? The farts alone would ward most sensible human beings away. 

Well, you won't get any arguments from me about the sleepovers being inappropriate, but that doesn't mean he molested anybody. Plenty of kids stand by these sleepovers. Brett Barnes in particular, who spent an entire year on the road sharing a hotel room with Jackson on the Dangerous tour is currently suing HBO and regularly tweets about what a liar Wade is. I don't imagine many pedophiles could travel half way around the world with a child without feeling the urge to offend. Child molestors are opportunisric and, much like rapists, rarely able to resist the urge to offend if the opportunity is handed to them on a plate. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Towelie said:

Well, you won't get any arguments from me about the sleepovers being inappropriate, but that doesn't mean he molested anybody. Plenty of kids stand by these sleepovers. Brett Barnes in particular, who spent an entire year on the road sharing a hotel room with Jackson on the Dangerous tour is currently suing HBO and regularly tweets about what a liar Wade is. I don't imagine many pedophiles could travel half way around the world with a child without feeling the urge to offend. Child molestors are opportunisric and, much like rapists, rarely able to resist the urge to offend if the opportunity is handed to them on a plate. 

 

Although its easy to imagine that a victim could have a misplaced sense of shame and therefore lie. Or that they have some agreement with the parents who fucked up so bad? Or even that they dont have access to those memories due to aspects of trauma that are difficult to map?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Towelie said:

Oh God, are you serious with this shit? Do you not realise what a totally hysterical bellend comments like this make you sound?

Let's avoid personal attacks because someone doesn't believe the same thing as you do.  Nobody is attacking people who see Jackson as innocent; let's respect the fact that nobody really knows and we all have our own reasons for believing what we did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Towelie said:

A few reasons why I believe Robson and Safechuck are liars:

 

For five years, these men have been suing Michael Jackson’s estate for hundreds of millions of dollars. This lawsuit has generated thousands of pages of court records: witness statements, motions, depositions and disclosure. These public documents PROVE beyond any reasonable doubt that the men are lying. The whole media knows about these documents, but is refusing to report on their contents. I’ve tried not to fill my Facebook feed with posts about this, but you are all being lied to from every direction. So this is my contribution to the debate on Facebook – a list of just some of the public record information the media is refusing to tell you.

  • Both men strenuously defended Jackson, including under oath, for decades, and only decided they’d been molested years after his death, when they were both in financial trouble and filed a lawsuit seeking hundreds of millions of dollars. That lawsuit was thrown out of court – twice – but the men are in the middle of an appeal, giving them a gigantic financial motive to lie.

  • Since filing their lawsuit, both men have repeatedly changed their stories, frequently telling directly contradictory versions of the same supposed events. For example, Wade Robson has told at least four directly contradictory stories about the first time Jackson supposedly abused him.

  • In the lawsuit, Robson was caught lying under oath so brazenly that the judge threw out his entire witness statement and said no rational juror could ever believe his account.

  • Between 2012 and 2014, Robson wrote two drafts of an abuse memoir and tried unsuccessfully to sell them to publishers. Meanwhile, he lied under oath and said he’d never discussed his allegations with anyone except his lawyers. When the Jackson estate discovered he’d actually been shopping books, the court ordered him to produce the drafts as evidence. They revealed the story of his abuse had changed significantly from one draft to the next.

  • Robson was also ordered to release his emails as evidence. He breached the order repeatedly, first by claiming they didn’t exist, then by simply refusing to hand them over. Then he redacted all the emails between himself and his family members and cited ‘attorney-client’ privilege, even though none of his family are attorneys.

  • When he eventually complied with the court order and released the emails, they revealed that at the time he was constructing his lawsuit and abuse memoir, he was researching and emailing himself links to old tabloid newspaper stories about abuse allegations against Michael Jackson.

  • The emails showed Robson found one particular story from the early 1990s which specifically named he and his mother. He emailed it to his mother and asked whether it was true. She replied, ‘Wow, none of that is true’. He then included it in his story anyway.

  • Emails also revealed that throughout 2011/12, Robson was lobbying Jackson’s estate for a job directing and choreographing an official Michael Jackson tribute show in Las Vegas. His campaign to secure this role had included sending emails explaining that his amazing friendship with Jackson meant nobody was better qualified for the role than he was, and he was devoted to doing the best job he possibly could ‘for Michael’. After being told someone else had got the job, he suddenly claimed he’d been abused and filed a creditor’s claim against the estate for millions of dollars.

  • Months later, according to Jimmy Safechuck, he flipped on the TV and saw Wade Robson being interviewed about his lawsuit. In that moment, Safechuck suddenly remembered that he had been abused by Jackson as well, so decided to join the lawsuit. He didn’t mention that this epiphany coincided exactly with his inheritance circling the drain after a relative died and the surviving siblings started suing each other – including him – for control of the family business.

  • Robson was also ordered to produce his diaries as evidence. In them, he’d written about how these allegations might rescue his failing career by making him ‘relatable and relevant’. He also wrote, ‘It’s time for me to get mine.’ When questioned under oath about what he’d meant when he wrote that, he refused to answer.

  • Both men tell stories in the TV show which directly contradict stories told under oath in their lawsuit. In fact, they have continued to change their stories as recently as within the last week.

  • For example, Jimmy Safechuck claims under oath in the lawsuit that he only remembered Jackson had abused him in 2013 when he turned on the TV and saw Robson. Yet in tonight’s TV show and interviews promoting it, he claims he knew he’d been abused in 2005 and thus, when asked to testify for Jackson’s defence ‘towards the end of the trial’, he refused to do so.

  • But that’s a provable lie. Safechuck was never asked to testify for Jackson’s defence. The judge ruled long before the trial began that testimony could only be heard about certain children, and Safechuck was not one of them. All testimony about Safechuck was literally banned from the courtroom. So Jackson’s defence cannot have asked him to testify – and certainly not after the trial was already underway.

  • Robson claimed in a BBC interview last week that Jackson had abused him ‘hundreds of times’. Yet his mother’s sworn testimony is that they went to Neverland roughly 14 times but Jackson was almost never there. She estimates the number of times they visited the ranch and he was actually there was four.

  • Questioned about their financial motive, the men now say they don’t care about money and are only suing to embolden other abuse victims by holding the Jackson estate accountable. This is a provable lie. The lawsuit was originally filed under seal and Robson tried to extract a settlement from the estate with zero publicity. Only when the estate refused to pay a bean did he go public.

thanks for this post, just in time before I'm going to watch the docu.

the tone is set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, soon said:

Although its easy to imagine that a victim could have a misplaced sense of shame and therefore lie. Or that they have some agreement with the parents who fucked up so bad? Or even that they dont have access to those memories due to aspects of trauma that are difficult to map?

Or it just didn't happen to them.  Who really knows.  I'm not sure we can assume that because Jackson didn't molest some he didn't molest others.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Towelie said:

A few reasons why I believe Robson and Safechuck are liars:

 

For five years, these men have been suing Michael Jackson’s estate for hundreds of millions of dollars. This lawsuit has generated thousands of pages of court records: witness statements, motions, depositions and disclosure. These public documents PROVE beyond any reasonable doubt that the men are lying. The whole media knows about these documents, but is refusing to report on their contents. I’ve tried not to fill my Facebook feed with posts about this, but you are all being lied to from every direction. So this is my contribution to the debate on Facebook – a list of just some of the public record information the media is refusing to tell you.

  • Both men strenuously defended Jackson, including under oath, for decades, and only decided they’d been molested years after his death, when they were both in financial trouble and filed a lawsuit seeking hundreds of millions of dollars. That lawsuit was thrown out of court – twice – but the men are in the middle of an appeal, giving them a gigantic financial motive to lie.

  • Since filing their lawsuit, both men have repeatedly changed their stories, frequently telling directly contradictory versions of the same supposed events. For example, Wade Robson has told at least four directly contradictory stories about the first time Jackson supposedly abused him.

  • In the lawsuit, Robson was caught lying under oath so brazenly that the judge threw out his entire witness statement and said no rational juror could ever believe his account.

  • Between 2012 and 2014, Robson wrote two drafts of an abuse memoir and tried unsuccessfully to sell them to publishers. Meanwhile, he lied under oath and said he’d never discussed his allegations with anyone except his lawyers. When the Jackson estate discovered he’d actually been shopping books, the court ordered him to produce the drafts as evidence. They revealed the story of his abuse had changed significantly from one draft to the next.

  • Robson was also ordered to release his emails as evidence. He breached the order repeatedly, first by claiming they didn’t exist, then by simply refusing to hand them over. Then he redacted all the emails between himself and his family members and cited ‘attorney-client’ privilege, even though none of his family are attorneys.

  • When he eventually complied with the court order and released the emails, they revealed that at the time he was constructing his lawsuit and abuse memoir, he was researching and emailing himself links to old tabloid newspaper stories about abuse allegations against Michael Jackson.

  • The emails showed Robson found one particular story from the early 1990s which specifically named he and his mother. He emailed it to his mother and asked whether it was true. She replied, ‘Wow, none of that is true’. He then included it in his story anyway.

  • Emails also revealed that throughout 2011/12, Robson was lobbying Jackson’s estate for a job directing and choreographing an official Michael Jackson tribute show in Las Vegas. His campaign to secure this role had included sending emails explaining that his amazing friendship with Jackson meant nobody was better qualified for the role than he was, and he was devoted to doing the best job he possibly could ‘for Michael’. After being told someone else had got the job, he suddenly claimed he’d been abused and filed a creditor’s claim against the estate for millions of dollars.

  • Months later, according to Jimmy Safechuck, he flipped on the TV and saw Wade Robson being interviewed about his lawsuit. In that moment, Safechuck suddenly remembered that he had been abused by Jackson as well, so decided to join the lawsuit. He didn’t mention that this epiphany coincided exactly with his inheritance circling the drain after a relative died and the surviving siblings started suing each other – including him – for control of the family business.

  • Robson was also ordered to produce his diaries as evidence. In them, he’d written about how these allegations might rescue his failing career by making him ‘relatable and relevant’. He also wrote, ‘It’s time for me to get mine.’ When questioned under oath about what he’d meant when he wrote that, he refused to answer.

  • Both men tell stories in the TV show which directly contradict stories told under oath in their lawsuit. In fact, they have continued to change their stories as recently as within the last week.

  • For example, Jimmy Safechuck claims under oath in the lawsuit that he only remembered Jackson had abused him in 2013 when he turned on the TV and saw Robson. Yet in tonight’s TV show and interviews promoting it, he claims he knew he’d been abused in 2005 and thus, when asked to testify for Jackson’s defence ‘towards the end of the trial’, he refused to do so.

  • But that’s a provable lie. Safechuck was never asked to testify for Jackson’s defence. The judge ruled long before the trial began that testimony could only be heard about certain children, and Safechuck was not one of them. All testimony about Safechuck was literally banned from the courtroom. So Jackson’s defence cannot have asked him to testify – and certainly not after the trial was already underway.

  • Robson claimed in a BBC interview last week that Jackson had abused him ‘hundreds of times’. Yet his mother’s sworn testimony is that they went to Neverland roughly 14 times but Jackson was almost never there. She estimates the number of times they visited the ranch and he was actually there was four.

  • Questioned about their financial motive, the men now say they don’t care about money and are only suing to embolden other abuse victims by holding the Jackson estate accountable. This is a provable lie. The lawsuit was originally filed under seal and Robson tried to extract a settlement from the estate with zero publicity. Only when the estate refused to pay a bean did he go public.

Can you provide a link?  Generally we don't allow for entire articles to be reposted and prefer links to said articles.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, downzy said:

Or it just didn't happen to them.  Who really knows.  I'm not sure we can assume that because Jackson didn't molest some he didn't molest others.  

I could have included that too. Certainly aligns with my thinking. Theres that now ominous "one year" thing, but I was speaking mostly to the reasoning presented.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, alfierose said:

On a related but adjacent note I was chatting to a friend about this today and they recommended the Netflix documentary Abducted in Plain Sight as having similar undertones e.g.. people culturally groomed to accept weird shit that with hindsight is clearly very off. I haven't seen it yet but this was her take on the similarities, I think that documentary addresses aspects of Mormonism.

Mormonism is as retarded as all the other religions. Like the "let's pretend to eat and drink the blood of the suicidal-zombie-son-of-himself-magician" one, for example lmfao.

The imbedded poison of religion has undermined humanity's judgement and brainpower on a deep level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, downzy said:

Can you provide a link?  Generally we don't allow for entire articles to be reposted and prefer links to said articles.  

This is not an article, it is a list summarising information that is in the public domain, most of which is taken from court records. If you think it is bogus, check the court transcripts online. It's all there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Towelie said:

This is not an article, it is a list summarising information that is in the public domain, most of which is taken from court records. If you think it is bogus, check the court transcripts online. It's all there.

Summarized by who?  You must have got it from somewhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×