Leaving Neverland

pete lashmar

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
LV
0
 
Messages
696
Reaction score
1,080
Awards
4
Location
Portugal
But you 100% believe Jackson was innocent and some higher being incapable of wrong doing. Your tone and bombastic defence of him and the total disregarding of anyone who holds a differing opinion to your own makes you seem more than a little biased and borderline obsessive. Nothing in the known world could convince you that Jackson was a kiddie fiddler but ya know what? There are a whole lot of people who always thought it, and then there a whole lot of new people who think it now. That's just how it is. No need to shut people down rudely or behave like a paid member of the Jackson legal team. It is what it is, keep on believing.

I really wasn't being rude or shutting anyone down. If you would take the time to read through the posts you will see that I was giving facts about the various cases against Michael Jackson in order to explain how and why certain things happened.

I was trying to be helpful, not rude, but some people need to research things before blindly writing things on a forum and expect you to educate them and then not actually understand what you are saying.

As for behaving like someone in his legal team I assume you mean I have done my research and know my facts about the various cases and accusations. Yes I have and therefore I judge him on the facts that are available. Should facts surface that prove his guilt I would believe them, but so far is just money hungry wannabes out for a quick buck.

I judge anyone -absolutely anyone in court cases and accusations based on facts, not tabloid headlines, not salacious documentaries and not hearsay - Fact don't lie, people do.
 
Last edited:

pete lashmar

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
LV
0
 
Messages
696
Reaction score
1,080
Awards
4
Location
Portugal
I've seen some but not all of the documentary but my understanding is that it is very one sided and tells the story as relayed by the 2 men involved and it doesn't really challenge their story to any great extent. That's why I believe the result of a court trial more than this documentary.

I recently read that Brandi Jackson, Michael niece as also defended her uncle. She was the girlfriend of Wade Robson, one of MJ's accusers, during the time when he claims the abuse was going on. She said that many of the times that he claimed he was at Neverland with MJ, he was either at home, with her or Michael was away travelling or working. Given her comments, I very much doubt whether Wade Robson's claims would stand up under the scrutiny of a court case.

It's a great shame that the media have made up their minds about Jackson's guilt - even during the 2005 trial they rushed out to report allegations and were therefore not there when the defense took those claims and tore them up completely.

Yes, Bradi was in a 9 year relationship with Wade, he cheated on her on multiple occasions and even broke up Britney & Justin Timberlake by sleeping with her during a tour.

There have been lots of things in the past few weeks that have really opened up the whole documentary - emails between Wade and his mum trying to work out which dates would work for their claims. Jimmy Safechuck on the receiving end of a $1m law suit - 2 days later he made the abuse claims.

During the documentary, after confirming that the interviews were done over 2 or 3 days, new furniture appears, days into into nights, all during the same story segments. The whole thing looks so set up and scripted and these inconsistencies have been showing up online all over the place. I understand how TV is made, but why claim one thing when it's not true. The rings segment was added in many months after the original interviews took place.

More and more independent people, away from the big stations and channels are coming out with their verdicts, based on the facts rather than towing the media line.

Michael Jackson is seen as a cash cow in my opinion - The Chandler's ran with their civil suit $20m and refused to testify at a criminal trial. During the 2005 trial the family had tried to extort from other celebrities, all whom testified in court...didn't make the headlines though because it didn't fit in with the media's plans.

Only this week dan reed (the director of the documentary) was on a french chat show following a screening in France and when all the facts about Wade and Jimmy were put to him he had no answers, he even said he knew nothing about the Chandler case, which is quite unbelievable considering what his film is saying about Jackson.
 
Last edited:

pete lashmar

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
LV
0
 
Messages
696
Reaction score
1,080
Awards
4
Location
Portugal
But this isn't the research thread, it's the documentary thread. Most comments are based on watching the documentary. Nobody needs to do anything.

I appreciate that, I really do, but it's impossible to discuss accusations about a dead man without looking at the facts.

I don't defend Jackson's sleepovers, as I've said previously, he was down right stupid to continue them after the Chandler case.
 

Toni

Maximum Member
LV
3
 
Messages
3,958
Reaction score
5,201
Awards
13
Location
Fletcher Sanitarium, Barcelona, Spain
Member Since
September 12, 2001 (poster formerly known as Pam's Twin Sister)
I read her initial comment as well as her attempt at back-pedaling. "It didn't kill them" - so that makes it all right?!

Come on you all, respect your elders! Besides, she´s the woman who cloned her dead pets...:spinning:

upload_2019-3-25_1-4-0.jpeg

"Which b*tch is which...?"

upload_2019-3-25_1-4-50.jpeg

"Come on, sweeties, say hi to Mum who is in Dogs´ Heaven..."
PS: One of these pics is true, one is not. Guess which is which?
 

Emelee

Telly Talk Superstar
LV
2
 
Messages
4,344
Reaction score
6,519
Awards
10
Location
Sweden
I'll just rip the bandaid off and say:
I believe he is GUILTY.
I think he got away with it because he was a major star and people wanted to believe in him. He appeared kind.

I can't say for sure he did it, I wasn't there. But I think he is guilty. I really do think he was a pedophile. There are too much things pointing in that direction for me to believe that he was innocent.

No need to jump on me, this is just what I think. I am in no way forcing anyone to share my belief or requesting a list of reasons why I am wrong etc.
 

Alexis

Telly Talk Superhero
LV
1
 
Messages
7,055
Solutions
1
Reaction score
7,604
Awards
8
Member Since
July 2007
I don't see how people can just take court verdicts or judgements as final and all proven. I mean how many mistrials of justice have there been? Judges, juries and the police make mistakes all the time. After all they are only people.
 

Angela Channing

World Cup of Soaps Moderator
LV
4
 
Messages
9,677
Reaction score
12,622
Awards
23
Member Since
1999
I don't see how people can just take court verdicts or judgements as final and all proven. I mean how many mistrials of justice have there been? Judges, juries and the police make mistakes all the time. After all they are only people.
You could turn that argument around and say: I don't see how people can just take the content of a one-sided documentary as final and all proven. I mean how many documentaries have got things wrong? Producers, directors and journalists make mistakes all the time. After all they are only people.

The difference in a court case is that both sides are allowed to present evidence and challenge the evidence of the other side. That's why a court trial is more robust and believable than a TV show.
 

Alexis

Telly Talk Superhero
LV
1
 
Messages
7,055
Solutions
1
Reaction score
7,604
Awards
8
Member Since
July 2007
You could turn that argument around and say: I don't see how people can just take the content of a one-sided documentary as final and all proven. I mean how many documentaries have got things wrong? Producers, directors and journalists make mistakes all the time. After all they are only people.

The difference in a court case is that both sides are allowed to present evidence and challenge the evidence of the other side. That's why a court trial is more robust and believable than a TV show.
And that's just fine, it works both ways. People have the right to believe what they do. I, and many in this thread believe that Jackson was a paedophile. You and others believe he wasn't. Nobody will ever convince me that a man in his thirties and forties sleeping in a bed with young boys didn't have sinister overtones. It just isn't acceptable and yet that's what he did. Whether more happened or not? Only the people that were in the room truly know.

All I know is what I believe. What I feel in my gut.
 

Alexis

Telly Talk Superhero
LV
1
 
Messages
7,055
Solutions
1
Reaction score
7,604
Awards
8
Member Since
July 2007
Yes, Bradi was in a 9 year relationship with Wade, he cheated on her on multiple occasions and even broke up Britney & Justin Timberlake by sleeping with her during a tour.
I just don't understand what that has to do with anything? How do past relationships or past sexual experiences have any bearing on if someone was abused or not?
So if a woman claims she was abused as a child and then it comes out that she cheated on her husband as an adult then she is lying about being abused? Relationships break up, people have affairs, children are abused. These things have nothing to do with each other. It's like bringing up a rape victim's previous sexual history as a reason to discredit their claims. Also the Britney Spears affair has only ever been rumour and hearsay, but yet that's easy for you to believe because it suits your version of reality. I don't believe either Britney, Justin or Wade ever mentioned publicly if that even happened.
There have been lots of things in the past few weeks that have really opened up the whole documentary - emails between Wade and his mum trying to work out which dates would work for their claims. Jimmy Safechuck on the receiving end of a $1m law suit - 2 days later he made the abuse claims.
Yes, well I would imagine it's pretty hard to work out exact dates and times from 20 or so years ago, especially if you were 7 years old at the time.
During the documentary, after confirming that the interviews were done over 2 or 3 days, new furniture appears, days into into nights, all during the same story segments. The whole thing looks so set up and scripted and these inconsistencies have been showing up online all over the place. I understand how TV is made, but why claim one thing when it's not true. The rings segment was added in many months after the original interviews took place.
Well if it was filmed over 2 or 3 days then of course there would be differing light sources, day turning to night etc. A room could be dressed or arranged one way one day and then altered the next, or the day after. These segments seem to be filmed in real family homes, not controlled studio environments. The editing would have been 3 days worth of filming. The course of the interviewing and questions was likely nonlinear. I doubt they sat down and talked about what happened in a strict chronological order. That's not the nature of conversation in general. People get side tracked and branch off etc.
None of this makes any difference to you as you know what is fact and staunchly push that point.
 

pete lashmar

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
LV
0
 
Messages
696
Reaction score
1,080
Awards
4
Location
Portugal
I just don't understand what that has to do with anything? How do past relationships or past sexual experiences have any bearing on if someone was abused or not?
So if a woman claims she was abused as a child and then it comes out that she cheated on her husband as an adult then she is lying about being abused? Relationships break up, people have affairs, children are abused. These things have nothing to do with each other. It's like bringing up a rape victim's previous sexual history as a reason to discredit their claims. Also the Britney Spears affair has only ever been rumour and hearsay, but yet that's easy for you to believe because it suits your version of reality. I don't believe either Britney, Justin or Wade ever mentioned publicly if that even happened.

Yes, well I would imagine it's pretty hard to work out exact dates and times from 20 or so years ago, especially if you were 7 years old at the time.

Well if it was filmed over 2 or 3 days then of course there would be differing light sources, day turning to night etc. A room could be dressed or arranged one way one day and then altered the next, or the day after. These segments seem to be filmed in real family homes, not controlled studio environments. The editing would have been 3 days worth of filming. The course of the interviewing and questions was likely nonlinear. I doubt they sat down and talked about what happened in a strict chronological order. That's not the nature of conversation in general. People get side tracked and branch off etc.
None of this makes any difference to you as you know what is fact and staunchly push that point.

Bradi Jackson has publicly confirmed the affair with Britney and no one has denied it. My point was that Wade wasn't the injured soul he wanted people watching the documentary to believe.

If it's hard to work out dates and he needs help and assistance then how does he remember dates, times, exactly what people said and did when the abuse was going on - in minute detail. The emails are not straight forward questions to his mum, they debate the best timeline for their accusations. It's one of the reasons his court case was thrown out in 2013.

I understand TV production, but in certain segments the chairs change mid story, in one segment the entire room's furniture is completely different. That's fine, but when Dan Reed tells reporters that the interviews were done intensely over 2 or 3 days then he's not telling the truth. It's a cynical ploy, along with the music and lighting to seduce the audience.

I appreciate how you feel about Jackson, many do, I did too, but then I looked at what evidence is available and now staunchly believe he is completely innocent.
 

Willie Oleson

Telly Talk Schemer
LV
3
 
Messages
15,138
Reaction score
19,506
Awards
13
Location
Plotville, Shenanigan
Member Since
April 2002
That's why a court trial is more robust and believable than a TV show.
But it's also easier to believe that MJ is guilty. I mean, look at the alternative. If he's innocent then the men (those handsome, teary men) in the documentary are pure evil.

And I'm not sure if "easy" is the answer to everything. After all, people never fail to surprise me.
 

Angela Channing

World Cup of Soaps Moderator
LV
4
 
Messages
9,677
Reaction score
12,622
Awards
23
Member Since
1999
If he's innocent then the men (those handsome, teary men) in the documentary are pure evil.
Or they are motivated by money to tell the story or they have been manipulated by the documentary makers who are motivated by money.
 

Angela Channing

World Cup of Soaps Moderator
LV
4
 
Messages
9,677
Reaction score
12,622
Awards
23
Member Since
1999
If it's hard to work out dates and he needs help and assistance then how does he remember dates, times, exactly what people said and did when the abuse was going on - in minute detail. The emails are not straight forward questions to his mum, they debate the best timeline for their accusations. It's one of the reasons his court case was thrown out in 2013.
This really backs up the point I made earlier. Testimony given in court can be scrutinised and challenged. If Wade Robson made the same allegations in court the inconsistencies in his story would be exposed and his credibility would be undermined. In a TV documentary, he is free to say what he likes and the documentary maker, who knows painting Michael Jackson as a paedophile will make his film more marketable, will encourage him to say it rather than challenge what he says.
 

pete lashmar

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
LV
0
 
Messages
696
Reaction score
1,080
Awards
4
Location
Portugal
But it's also easier to believe that MJ is guilty. I mean, look at the alternative. If he's innocent then the men (those handsome, teary men) in the documentary are pure evil.

And I'm not sure if "easy" is the answer to everything. After all, people never fail to surprise me.

Just look at Jussie Smollet - tried to create a racist hate crime just to get a pay rise.

I think it must be an American thing - ever since someone sued McDonalds for their "Hot" apple pie burning their mouth and getting tonnes of cash their very culture has changed.

With Jackson, whether you believe the claims against him or not, no one can deny that he was the biggest and richest pop star on the planet - anyone that got anywhere near him wanted a piece of that wealth.
 

pete lashmar

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
LV
0
 
Messages
696
Reaction score
1,080
Awards
4
Location
Portugal
But not just any story. This is a big thing that affects many, many people.

No, it's following the same story as he's been accused of before, therefore creating a doubt - but why are they suing the estate for over $1bn (which isn't mentioned in the documentary), why not just tell their story to help people understand what grooming is, what abuse victims go through and put a positive spin on a terrible crime?
 

pete lashmar

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
LV
0
 
Messages
696
Reaction score
1,080
Awards
4
Location
Portugal
Who was also a man with sexual desires like any other man. Where did he get it? Surely not from Lisa Marie Presley.

Oh, it's such a difficult situation.

It really is. But a pedophile is "usually" insatiable, so out of thousands of kids that visited and stayed in Neverland we're expected to believe 5 of them? 3 of whom had very dodgy parents and the others had very pushy parents - and a court case where all evidence was thrown out.

On Twitter at the moment there are so many people speaking up who visited Neverland (some at the same time as the various accusers) who tell a very different, positive story of being at Neverland.

I would also add, that since this documentary has been so big headline wise, not one single person who knew Jackson or visited Neverland as a kid has come forward to add their voice to support Wade or Jimmy.
 

Willie Oleson

Telly Talk Schemer
LV
3
 
Messages
15,138
Reaction score
19,506
Awards
13
Location
Plotville, Shenanigan
Member Since
April 2002
On Twitter at the moment there are so many people speaking up who visited Neverland (some at the same time as the various accusers) who tell a very different, positive story of being at Neverland
Yeah, but what didn't happen to other people isn't relevant. And there's no need to paint a positive picture because the accused doesn't have to prove his innocence.
 
Top