Jump to content
JONEZY

Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson Documentary, HBO

Recommended Posts

Saw part one last night.  The alleged sex crimes are described in detail and very disturbing.  I did say "alleged", we'll never know for sure.  Part 2 tonight.  Did anyone else see it?

It was difficult to watch.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

I've posted about this recently in another thread.

I believe Michael Jackson to be 100% innocent of all charges that have been brought against him. If you look into the history of the two people in this "documentary", you'll easily find that they're full of shit. 

I know they had hitherto defended Michael at the Arvizo trial which is a considerable u-turn indeed, and they would have been in their early twenties then so you cannot argue about diminished responsibility. I also suspect this documentary will make them very rich. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I find it interesting that is mostly the press and Z-list celebrities on Twitter that are promoting and giving credibility to that doc while most regular people either are against it or just don't care.

It's outrageous that Oprah would give them a platform since Michael gave her a lot of credibility and her biggest ratings in 93, and after he passed she interviewed his family and sons. What a betrayal. I don't believe for a second that she was moved after watching the doc considering she was best buddies with Weinstein and god knows who other sexual predators from Hollywood.

Edited by North Korean Democracy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I know they had hitherto defended Michael at the Arvizo trial which is a considerable u-turn indeed, and they would have been in their early twenties then so you cannot argue about diminished responsibility. I also suspect this documentary will make them very rich. 

He's blatantly a fuckin' wrong 'un.

Share this post


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

He's blatantly a fuckin' wrong 'un.

The second trial was thrown out of court, such was the flawed prosecution based around a pack of lies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only conclude that if none of the numerous allegations are true that there is some other motivation for such a dedicated attack on MJ. And theres rumours about Quincy Jones in the Hip Hop community, too. So why are people so focused on taking MJ down? And why arent people pivoting to a different strategy if accusations of molestation arent working?

Keeping in mind theres a million other ways to get at his money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RussTCB said:

I've posted about this recently in another thread.

I believe Michael Jackson to be 100% innocent of all charges that have been brought against him. If you look into the history of the two people in this "documentary", you'll easily find that they're full of shit. 

I agree Russ. Why did these guys lie under oath all those years ago when Michael was on trial? it's all lies.

Michael was a kind and sweet soul. He would never do anything like this. I say they are lying and probably getting a lot of money to do it. it makes me sick!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two of them will getting a load of cash for this documentary.

Share this post


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

Look, the man made lovely fuckin' songs, thats all well and good but a fuckin' grown man that goes around sleeping in the same bed as kids, to me, is a fuckin' wrong 'un.  Its weird and fuckin' creepy and just because you grow up listening to a man sing songs well and he talks like a fairy don't mean to say that he's Jesus fuckin' Christ come off the cross, most especially not when he likes sleeping with little boys.  

And if that was literally any other male human being on the planet no one would have a problem with calling him a wrong 'un cuz thats what he was.  I like a lot of peoples songs, in fact I've been called damn near obsessive about music and all that but I ain't that fuckin' in love with no one that much to where it'd blind me to what that cunt was about.

Sleeping is not a synonym for bumming.

Share this post


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

Thats normal is it, sleeping with kids, that wouldn't bother you?  Some big grown fucker sleeping with however the fuck old they were boys.  Coupled with the fuckin' weird mucky 'art' books they found in his bedroom, what would that make you think?  I mean say you accidentally walked in on some shit like that, wouldn't bat an eyelid, normal as anything yeah?  Do me a favour.

Straw man argument. Nobody is arguing that Jackson wasn't extremely eccentric, irresponsible and in possession of some deep psychological issues. All of this of course gives you the Peter Pan complex. But this does not necessarily entail paedophilia. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Straw man argument. Nobody is arguing that Jackson wasn't extremely eccentric, irresponsible and in possession of some deep psychological issues. All of this of course gives you the Peter Pan complex. But this does not necessarily entail paedophilia. 

I think Lenny is saying that if a regular Joe Schmoe did the same things Michael did, he would be labeled a pedophile pretty much immediately and there wouldn't be a debate about "well he only had nude pictures and slept in the same bed but never touched them!" But Michael gets an artist pass because "eccentric."

Edited by OmarBradley
  • Like 3
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not dismissing anything. In fact if we were to look at the actually evidence the second trial was thrown out as prosecution was a pack of lies. Would it be fair to condemn someone as guilty for a court case constructed on a pack of lies? Then there are these two who formally defended Michael and will no doubt be made very wealthy by this documentary. The notion of doubt really concerns paying Chandler off. But if you look at it factually there is a lot supporting his innocence. 

Share this post


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

It reminds me of Saville.

Yeah, he was another 'eccentric' and all, weren't he?  Shame he was an ugly bastard that couldn't sing or dance, he might've got off.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FBI investigated for years and could not come up with evidence, during his lifetime instead of buying his way out MJ faced all these accusations in person, in public and in court and he was aquitted of all charges, walking out a free man and probably rightly so. Let the man rest in peace.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

I'm not dismissing anything. In fact if we were to look at the actually evidence the second trial was thrown out as prosecution was a pack of lies. Would it be fair to condemn someone as guilty for a court case constructed on a pack of lies? Then there are these two who formally defended Michael and will no doubt be made very wealthy by this documentary. The notion of doubt really concerns paying Chandler off. But if you look at it factually there is a lot supporting his innocence. 

Like I say, I would never fall on one side or the other without knowing for sure and in these situations I'm not sure that you really can.  But there was enough in what is known for me to call him a wrong 'un and a creepy old cunt.

Edited by Len Cnut
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A wrong 'un who took liberties. A rite old struggle n' grunt when ya have a butcher's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

The two of them will getting a load of cash for this documentary.

And that's what it's all about. 

31 minutes ago, alfierose said:

I an't claim to know the absolute truth but I'm not inclined to dismiss the accusers just because MJ had legend status.

I would never defend Michael Jackson based off "legend status". All I can tell you is that I've done a ton of research on the matter and from everything I've found, he never ever abused any child. 

If I were to find any remote proof otherwise, legend status would have absolutely nothing to do with it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yeah, he was another 'eccentric' and all, weren't he?  Shame he was an ugly bastard that couldn't sing or dance, he might've got off.

Any excuse to post this again. :lol:

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

The FBI investigated for years and could not come up with evidence, during his lifetime instead of buying his way out MJ faced all these accusations in person, in public and in court and he was aquitted of all charges, walking out a free man and probably rightly so. Let the man rest in peace.

Yep. A decade long FBI investigation where Michael was under constant surveillance. Yet absolutely no proof of any child abuse was ever uncovered. 

That's just part of why I think he's innocent. Then again, I'm just a person who's done years of research on this. What would I know lol

  • Like 2

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.

×