independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Sat 23rd Mar 2019 5:37pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Michael Jackson sex abuse documentary coming to Sundance & HBO - PART 2
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 15 123456789>Last »
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 03/14/19 11:29am

luv4u

Moderator

avatar

moderator

Michael Jackson sex abuse documentary coming to Sundance & HBO - PART 2

The last thread self locked http://prince.org/msg/8/457913

[Please be civil to one another, no baiting or flaming, name calling - you know......... the usual "org rules". Any shitty problems with this thread and it will be shut down and offenders will be dealt with accordingly - this is a warning - luv4u]


**********

Hmm...
A documentary about the lives of two boys who accused Michael Jackson of sexual abuse has been added to this year's Sundance Film Festival lineup.

Leaving Neverland, from producer-director Dan Reed, endeavors to tell the stories of two boys, ages 7 and 10, who began long-running relationships with superstar Michael Jackson at the height of his stardom. Now in their 30s, the pair describe how they were sexually abused by Jackson and how they came to terms with it years later.

Michael Jackson's estate has released a statement in response to the news, blasting the doc as "yet another lurid production in an outrageous and pathetic attempt to exploit and cash in on Michael Jackson."


https://www.hollywoodrepo...ssion=true

Edmonton, AB - canada

Ohh purple joy oh purple bliss oh purple rapture!
REAL MUSIC by REAL MUSICIANS - Prince
"I kind of wish there was a reason for Prince to make the site crash more" ~~ Ben
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 03/14/19 11:40am

MichaelJackson
5

This whole thing is just being used as a distraction from real predators in Hollywood and Washington such as Woody Allen, Brian Singer, Weinstein, Polanski, Jeffrey Epstein.

It takes the focus away from them, cause the tribe members always need to be protected by the media.

Oprah is good friends with Harvey Weinstein. Where's her interview with all his accusers?

All MJ fans should be boycotting this bitch and spreading her hypocrisy to the world so she loses her influence and stupid ass channel OWN.

Cosy here

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 03/14/19 12:32pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

MichaelJackson5 said:

This whole thing is just being used as a distraction from real predators in Hollywood and Washington such as Woody Allen, Brian Singer, Weinstein, Polanski, Jeffrey Epstein.

It takes the focus away from them, cause the tribe members always need to be protected by the media.

Oprah is good friends with Harvey Weinstein. Where's her interview with all his accusers?

All MJ fans should be boycotting this bitch and spreading her hypocrisy to the world so she loses her influence and stupid ass channel OWN.

Cosy here


We are all still very aware of the other celebs/artists who have bene accused:

Polanski - cannot even enter the US or he will be arrested

Allen - Accused, but also interviewed by police authorities who found no evidence of criminality

Weinstein - is going to jail and we have seen his accusers interviewed plenty - why does Oprah need to - and I am SURE she is not still "friends" with him (any evidence of that she is?), although many rallied by his wife who was reeling by the avalanche of accusers adn lef thim promptly

Oprah knew she was gona catch shit for this, but she did it anyway because the topic of child abuse is too important not to make it the main focus. She fsaid that the stories the men shared of how they and their families were seduced and groomed was her reason for the interveiw show

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 03/14/19 12:48pm

MichaelJackson
5

DiminutiveRocker said:

MichaelJackson5 said:

This whole thing is just being used as a distraction from real predators in Hollywood and Washington such as Woody Allen, Brian Singer, Weinstein, Polanski, Jeffrey Epstein.

It takes the focus away from them, cause the tribe members always need to be protected by the media.

Oprah is good friends with Harvey Weinstein. Where's her interview with all his accusers?

All MJ fans should be boycotting this bitch and spreading her hypocrisy to the world so she loses her influence and stupid ass channel OWN.

Cosy here


We are all still very aware of the other celebs/artists who have bene accused:

Polanski - cannot even enter the US or he will be arrested

Allen - Accused, but also interviewed by police authorities who found no evidence of criminality

Weinstein - is going to jail and we have seen his accusers interviewed plenty - why does Oprah need to - and I am SURE she is not still "friends" with him (any evidence of that she is?), although many rallied by his wife who was reeling by the avalanche of accusers adn lef thim promptly

Oprah knew she was gona catch shit for this, but she did it anyway because the topic of child abuse is too important not to make it the main focus. She fsaid that the stories the men shared of how they and their families were seduced and groomed was her reason for the interveiw show

There are much bigger fish to fry than a dead MJ. Epstein received a light sentence and served just three months. He was allowed to go back home at night even during those three months.

We're talking about a man who ran a child-sex slave ring in his private island and flew people such as Bill Clinton and Donald Trump there on his Lolita Express.

You don't think that deserves more attention that the claims against a guy who's been dead for a decade if child abuse is so important to her?

And with Woody Allen, who marries their adopted daughter? Who the hell does that?

Polanski - with the international resources of the CIA, you really believe they couldn't force this creep back to America if they really wanted to?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 03/14/19 12:55pm

luv4u

Moderator

avatar

moderator

[Stay on topic folks]



lurking

Edmonton, AB - canada

Ohh purple joy oh purple bliss oh purple rapture!
REAL MUSIC by REAL MUSICIANS - Prince
"I kind of wish there was a reason for Prince to make the site crash more" ~~ Ben
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 03/14/19 1:17pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

MichaelJackson5 said:

DiminutiveRocker said:


We are all still very aware of the other celebs/artists who have bene accused:

Polanski - cannot even enter the US or he will be arrested

Allen - Accused, but also interviewed by police authorities who found no evidence of criminality

Weinstein - is going to jail and we have seen his accusers interviewed plenty - why does Oprah need to - and I am SURE she is not still "friends" with him (any evidence of that she is?), although many rallied by his wife who was reeling by the avalanche of accusers adn lef thim promptly

Oprah knew she was gona catch shit for this, but she did it anyway because the topic of child abuse is too important not to make it the main focus. She fsaid that the stories the men shared of how they and their families were seduced and groomed was her reason for the interveiw show

There are much bigger fish to fry than a dead MJ. Epstein received a light sentence and served just three months. He was allowed to go back home at night even during those three months.

We're talking about a man who ran a child-sex slave ring in his private island and flew people such as Bill Clinton and Donald Trump there on his Lolita Express.

You don't think that deserves more attention that the claims against a guy who's been dead for a decade if child abuse is so important to her?

And with Woody Allen, who marries their adopted daughter? Who the hell does that?

Polanski - with the international resources of the CIA, you really believe they couldn't force this creep back to America if they really wanted to?


Fans of MJ it see the doc like a direct attack on him - but the doc is about the two men and their experience being victms of child abuse - believe them or not - *that* is the main topic.


Reed said he would have made the doc even if MJ were alive... not sure I bleieve that but shrug

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 03/14/19 1:17pm

Cinny

avatar

From the now locked Leaving Neverland thread: http://prince.org/msg/8/458697

nd33 said:

*An interview on YouTube of Wades mom from 2011 on a show talking about dancing, got removed from the official channel (someone else has reuploaded). She talked about moving to LA when Wade was "Just about to turn 9". This contradicts the timeline in the doco about abuse happening constantly from age 7.


First of all, "about to turn 9" means 8 years old, and the first instance of abuse was never claimed to be AFTER they moved to L.A. Wade was 7 years old when Michael first had them visit the ranch and sent the family in an R.V. as tourists to the Grand Canyon while Wade stayed back with Michael to be abused.

Second of all, you can't discredit anyone by saying OH THE ABUSE WASN'T CONSTANT IN MY OPINION.

Third of all, don't use the words of a mom or relative to discredit the abuse of a survivor. Memories are literally blocked from a victim's mind and FORGIVE HIM IF HE WAS EIGHT AND NOT SEVEN, MAYBE?

Don't show me Jimmy Safechuck holding Michael and Lisa Marie's umbrella at age 16 either, because he was still a minor.

These crimes are absolutely heinous, and nitpicking is a bad look.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 03/14/19 1:43pm

MattyJam

avatar

Cinny said:

These alleged crimes are absolutely heinous, and nitpicking is a bad look.


Corrected that for you.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 03/14/19 2:12pm

ForgottenPassw
ord

Cinny said:

From the now locked Leaving Neverland thread: http://prince.org/msg/8/458697

nd33 said:

*An interview on YouTube of Wades mom from 2011 on a show talking about dancing, got removed from the official channel (someone else has reuploaded). She talked about moving to LA when Wade was "Just about to turn 9". This contradicts the timeline in the doco about abuse happening constantly from age 7.


First of all, "about to turn 9" means 8 years old, and the first instance of abuse was never claimed to be AFTER they moved to L.A. Wade was 7 years old when Michael first had them visit the ranch and sent the family in an R.V. as tourists to the Grand Canyon while Wade stayed back with Michael to be abused.

Second of all, you can't discredit anyone by saying OH THE ABUSE WASN'T CONSTANT IN MY OPINION.

Third of all, don't use the words of a mom or relative to discredit the abuse of a survivor. Memories are literally blocked from a victim's mind and FORGIVE HIM IF HE WAS EIGHT AND NOT SEVEN, MAYBE?

Don't show me Jimmy Safechuck holding Michael and Lisa Marie's umbrella at age 16 either, because he was still a minor.

These crimes are absolutely heinous, and nitpicking is a bad look.

What on earth are you on about? It's been established that Wade's timeline makes no sense. His story of alleged abuse makes even less sense. Believe what you like. Their civil case appeal will be heard soon........

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 03/14/19 3:01pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

I do not think the civil case against the estate stands a chance - way past the statute of limitations.

EVen if it were proven to be true (just for the sake of argument) I am not sure that the estate can or should be held accountable for what he did or did not do when he was alive.



[Edited 3/14/19 15:04pm]

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 03/14/19 4:00pm

MichaelJackson
5

DiminutiveRocker said:

MichaelJackson5 said:

There are much bigger fish to fry than a dead MJ. Epstein received a light sentence and served just three months. He was allowed to go back home at night even during those three months.

We're talking about a man who ran a child-sex slave ring in his private island and flew people such as Bill Clinton and Donald Trump there on his Lolita Express.

You don't think that deserves more attention that the claims against a guy who's been dead for a decade if child abuse is so important to her?

And with Woody Allen, who marries their adopted daughter? Who the hell does that?

Polanski - with the international resources of the CIA, you really believe they couldn't force this creep back to America if they really wanted to?


Fans of MJ it see the doc like a direct attack on him - but the doc is about the two men and their experience being victms of child abuse - believe them or not - *that* is the main topic.


Reed said he would have made the doc even if MJ were alive... not sure I bleieve that but shrug

Of course it's about MJ.

It is about how MJ "maniupulated"and "groomed" these young boys and seperated them from their families so he could get busy with them at his condo or at Neverland.

It's about how MJ used his star power and wealth to make this bs happen. Don't know about Safechuk but Robson is a 100% certtified liar to the core and as big an opportunist as Evan Chandler.

Don't let the sappy music prey on your emotions though. If this documentary was legitimate, Reed could at least asked somebody from MJ's side to balance out the narrative. And that's what this is..a narrative, not a true documentary cause nothing is true anymore - not even the news.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 03/14/19 4:37pm

Krystalkisses

avatar

DiminutiveRocker said:



MichaelJackson5 said:




DiminutiveRocker said:




We are all still very aware of the other celebs/artists who have bene accused:

Polanski - cannot even enter the US or he will be arrested


Allen - Accused, but also interviewed by police authorities who found no evidence of criminality


Weinstein - is going to jail and we have seen his accusers interviewed plenty - why does Oprah need to - and I am SURE she is not still "friends" with him (any evidence of that she is?), although many rallied by his wife who was reeling by the avalanche of accusers adn lef thim promptly

Oprah knew she was gona catch shit for this, but she did it anyway because the topic of child abuse is too important not to make it the main focus. She fsaid that the stories the men shared of how they and their families were seduced and groomed was her reason for the interveiw show




There are much bigger fish to fry than a dead MJ. Epstein received a light sentence and served just three months. He was allowed to go back home at night even during those three months.



We're talking about a man who ran a child-sex slave ring in his private island and flew people such as Bill Clinton and Donald Trump there on his Lolita Express.



You don't think that deserves more attention that the claims against a guy who's been dead for a decade if child abuse is so important to her?



And with Woody Allen, who marries their adopted daughter? Who the hell does that?



Polanski - with the international resources of the CIA, you really believe they couldn't force this creep back to America if they really wanted to?





Fans of MJ it see the doc like a direct attack on him - but the doc is about the two men and their experience being victms of child abuse - believe them or not - *that* is the main topic.


Reed said he would have made the doc even if MJ were alive... not sure I bleieve that but shrug



Absolutely, the topic is child abuse. This is at the filmmaker' s discretion on who's "side" he wants his film to focus on , he isn't obligated to give a balanced and fair representation of both sides for his documentary. I think this film is so important in so many ways, the director is an advocate for these men and literally stands with them. Lord knows they need someone like that. There was so much going on in this film I still can't even fully process it all and it's impact.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 03/14/19 5:01pm

MichaelJackson
5

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/documentary

noun

A film or television or radio programme that provides a factual report on a particular subject.

If you believe Wadeson's words, when he was officially supportive of MJ until after he was rejected from choreographing the MJ One show around 2011, as factual then I got a bridge to sell you.

If Culkin comes forward I'd support the notion that MJ was a pedo. Even Barnes but especially Culkin.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 03/14/19 5:34pm

nd33

Cinny said:

From the now locked Leaving Neverland thread: http://prince.org/msg/8/458697

nd33 said:

*An interview on YouTube of Wades mom from 2011 on a show talking about dancing, got removed from the official channel (someone else has reuploaded). She talked about moving to LA when Wade was "Just about to turn 9". This contradicts the timeline in the doco about abuse happening constantly from age 7.


First of all, "about to turn 9" means 8 years old, and the first instance of abuse was never claimed to be AFTER they moved to L.A. Wade was 7 years old when Michael first had them visit the ranch and sent the family in an R.V. as tourists to the Grand Canyon while Wade stayed back with Michael to be abused.

Second of all, you can't discredit anyone by saying OH THE ABUSE WASN'T CONSTANT IN MY OPINION.

Third of all, don't use the words of a mom or relative to discredit the abuse of a survivor. Memories are literally blocked from a victim's mind and FORGIVE HIM IF HE WAS EIGHT AND NOT SEVEN, MAYBE?

Don't show me Jimmy Safechuck holding Michael and Lisa Marie's umbrella at age 16 either, because he was still a minor.

These crimes are absolutely heinous, and nitpicking is a bad look.



In a case where there is no direct evidence, timeline is of utmost importance. That the family moved to LA when Wade was almost 9, doesn’t prove anything by itself, but it is certainly a piece of the puzzle. Hopefully someone will put together a doco that is actually investigative.
Music, sweet music, I wish I could caress and...kiss, kiss...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 03/14/19 5:36pm

scorp84

Cinny said:

From the now locked Leaving Neverland thread: http://prince.org/msg/8/458697

nd33 said:

*An interview on YouTube of Wades mom from 2011 on a show talking about dancing, got removed from the official channel (someone else has reuploaded). She talked about moving to LA when Wade was "Just about to turn 9". This contradicts the timeline in the doco about abuse happening constantly from age 7.


First of all, "about to turn 9" means 8 years old, and the first instance of abuse was never claimed to be AFTER they moved to L.A. Wade was 7 years old when Michael first had them visit the ranch and sent the family in an R.V. as tourists to the Grand Canyon while Wade stayed back with Michael to be abused.

Second of all, you can't discredit anyone by saying OH THE ABUSE WASN'T CONSTANT IN MY OPINION.

Third of all, don't use the words of a mom or relative to discredit the abuse of a survivor. Memories are literally blocked from a victim's mind and FORGIVE HIM IF HE WAS EIGHT AND NOT SEVEN, MAYBE?

Don't show me Jimmy Safechuck holding Michael and Lisa Marie's umbrella at age 16 either, because he was still a minor.

These crimes are absolutely heinous, and nitpicking is a bad look.

Just as the acts are heinous, these accusations should be treated as such - accusations. The act of making false accusations is a heinous crime in itself, that carries a variety of irreparable consequences for those indirectly involved as well. While some view fact-checking and research as "nit-picking", it can also be chalked up to "little" lies adding up to big, ridiculous, disgusting lies, which can, if gone unchecked, have a pretty dangerous impact on an already damaged society.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 03/14/19 5:38pm

Krystalkisses

avatar

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 03/14/19 7:27pm

ThatWhiteDude

avatar

I read on Twitter today that some psychiatrist said that MJ did not fit the pedophile profile. I said in Krystal's thread, that the things I state don't make MJ a pedo, and I'll say it again.

Now, regarding the observations of psychiatrists, let me say this. Three years ago, I talked to my (Now former) psychiatrists. She thought I am schizophrenic. It was during a time, where I did not get enough sleep and started to see and hear things. When she asked me, if I thought these things I saw were real, I said: "At that moment, it felt real." So, she said I am schizophrenic, I was protesting, my mum was there too and the psychiatrist said: "Denial is a common trait in schizophrenics." I kept protesting, "I am not schizophrenic." And my mum said: "But she's an expert." That almost sealed it, I was scared! I went to another one and she knew what was up with me, I was sleep deprived for weeks, that's why I saw and heard things that weren't there.

So, with that being said....psychiatrists are not always right with their judgements. I'm not saying this is the case with MJ, but I'm saying that not every "evidence" is 100% credible, because even experts can be wrong.

Another example might be Jack Unterweger, if you never heard of him, check him out, he was a austrian serial killer. Anyway, his first victim was his then gf, he was in jail for maybe 10 years and some "expert" said that he's harmless and the he learned his lesson. So he was free again and that was the beginning of one of the must brutal murder series europe has ever seen. People, even these experts, fell for his charme, he was good with words, knew what to say to control you and your perception of him.

Again, not saying that MJ is guilty, but I just wanted to give some examples on why experts can give the wrong judgements sometimes....

Honestly, that whole case is just so damn complicated that I really struggle with what I should believe. Of course, Wade could've protected MJ all these years but then again.....he started to claim that MJ molested him when he had a falling out with the Estate......so that seems a bit shady to me.

"Like books and BLACK LIVES, Albums still MATTER."


"Extra cheese, extra HAM, extra bullshit" -DiminutiveRocker
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 03/14/19 10:00pm

Krystalkisses

avatar

I've suspected that MJ's demise was a result of a guilty conscious and not being able to live with himself. People can do incredibly self destructive things when their souls are tortured. That isn't evidence of guilt but that is what my gut tells me.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 03/14/19 10:49pm

darlingnikkkki

Krystalkisses said:

I've suspected that MJ's demise was a result of a guilty conscious and not being able to live with himself. People can do incredibly self destructive things when their souls are tortured. That isn't evidence of guilt but that is what my gut tells me.


I hope so. Especially since he became a father and his kids around the age of the other young boys he was abusing in the past.
"I want to be the only one you come for...."
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 03/14/19 11:14pm

nd33

darlingnikkkki said:

Krystalkisses said:

I've suspected that MJ's demise was a result of a guilty conscious and not being able to live with himself. People can do incredibly self destructive things when their souls are tortured. That isn't evidence of guilt but that is what my gut tells me.


I hope so. Especially since he became a father and his kids around the age of the other young boys he was ALLEGEDLY abusing in the past.


We can’t just assume guilt on people at random. So far he was found not guilty at a trial full of the required cross examination. This current situation will either become clearer or more complicated upon cross examination, if it ever happens. At this point the two main characters and the director are avoiding that happening.
Music, sweet music, I wish I could caress and...kiss, kiss...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 03/15/19 2:38am

kremlinshadow

avatar

Krystalkisses said:

I've suspected that MJ's demise was a result of a guilty conscious and not being able to live with himself. People can do incredibly self destructive things when their souls are tortured. That isn't evidence of guilt but that is what my gut tells me.

Never heard such twaddle before on this board, what absolute rubbish there is no evidence of this let alone that he even done any of these crimes. Vivid imagination springs to mind.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 03/15/19 2:42am

RichardS

nd33 said:

darlingnikkkki said:
I hope so. Especially since he became a father and his kids around the age of the other young boys he was ALLEGEDLY abusing in the past.
We can’t just assume guilt on people at random. So far he was found not guilty at a trial full of the required cross examination. This current situation will either become clearer or more complicated upon cross examination, if it ever happens. At this point the two main characters and the director are avoiding that happening.

Robson and Safechuck are trying repeatedly to take it to court, but they are unsuccessful, due to legal reasons e.g. left it too late, there is no-one to sue (from a legal perspective). If they manage to get to court, which they want to do, they will be cross-examined - that's hardly avoiding it - they are actively trying to get themselves into court.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 03/15/19 2:56am

Free2BMe

[Go cool off snip banned - luv4u]
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 03/15/19 2:59am

RichardS

Free2BMe said:

[Go cool off snip banned - luv4u]

Yes, let's arrest EVERY person that believes MJ possibly had an unhealthy sexual interest in boys. It's the only sensible course of action.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 03/15/19 3:00am

Free2BMe

Krystalkisses said:

I've suspected that MJ's demise was a result of a guilty conscious and not being able to live with himself. People can do incredibly self destructive things when their souls are tortured. That isn't evidence of guilt but that is what my gut tells me.


[Snip - luv4u]
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 03/15/19 3:07am

Free2BMe

DiminutiveRocker said:



MichaelJackson5 said:




DiminutiveRocker said:




We are all still very aware of the other celebs/artists who have bene accused:

Polanski - cannot even enter the US or he will be arrested


Allen - Accused, but also interviewed by police authorities who found no evidence of criminality


Weinstein - is going to jail and we have seen his accusers interviewed plenty - why does Oprah need to - and I am SURE she is not still "friends" with him (any evidence of that she is?), although many rallied by his wife who was reeling by the avalanche of accusers adn lef thim promptly

Oprah knew she was gona catch shit for this, but she did it anyway because the topic of child abuse is too important not to make it the main focus. She fsaid that the stories the men shared of how they and their families were seduced and groomed was her reason for the interveiw show




There are much bigger fish to fry than a dead MJ. Epstein received a light sentence and served just three months. He was allowed to go back home at night even during those three months.



We're talking about a man who ran a child-sex slave ring in his private island and flew people such as Bill Clinton and Donald Trump there on his Lolita Express.



You don't think that deserves more attention that the claims against a guy who's been dead for a decade if child abuse is so important to her?



And with Woody Allen, who marries their adopted daughter? Who the hell does that?



Polanski - with the international resources of the CIA, you really believe they couldn't force this creep back to America if they really wanted to?





Fans of MJ it see the doc like a direct attack on him - but the doc is about the two men and their experience being victms of child abuse - believe them or not - *that* is the main topic.


Reed said he would have made the doc even if MJ were alive... not sure I bleieve that but shrug



[Snip - luv4u]. This fraudomentary is a direct attack on MJ. Not only is Creepy Reed a fucking coward, so are the two pieces of trailer park trash-ROBson and SafeFUCK. There is no way that either of these pedos would say any of these things if Michael were alive. You can bet your life on that.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 03/15/19 3:09am

Free2BMe

DiminutiveRocker said:



MichaelJackson5 said:


This whole thing is just being used as a distraction from real predators in Hollywood and Washington such as Woody Allen, Brian Singer, Weinstein, Polanski, Jeffrey Epstein.



It takes the focus away from them, cause the tribe members always need to be protected by the media.



Oprah is good friends with Harvey Weinstein. Where's her interview with all his accusers?




All MJ fans should be boycotting this bitch and spreading her hypocrisy to the world so she loses her influence and stupid ass channel OWN.



Cosy here




We are all still very aware of the other celebs/artists who have bene accused:

Polanski - cannot even enter the US or he will be arrested


Allen - Accused, but also interviewed by police authorities who found no evidence of criminality


Weinstein - is going to jail and we have seen his accusers interviewed plenty - why does Oprah need to - and I am SURE she is not still "friends" with him (any evidence of that she is?), although many rallied by his wife who was reeling by the avalanche of accusers adn lef thim promptly

Oprah knew she was gona catch shit for this, but she did it anyway because the topic of child abuse is too important not to make it the main focus. She fsaid that the stories the men shared of how they and their families were seduced and groomed was her reason for the interveiw show



Oprah is an “Aunt Jemimma” apologist for white pedophiles and that’s the bottomline.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 03/15/19 3:21am

Free2BMe

RichardS said:



Free2BMe said:


[Go cool off snip banned - luv4u]

Yes, let's arrest EVERY person that believes MJ possibly had an unhealthy sexual interest in boys. It's the only sensible course of action.



No let’s arrest the sick fucks who are gleefully and willingly PROMOTING the doctrine of NAMBLA that was used by these pieces of trailer park trash in this fraudomentary. That IS the only sensible and MORAL course of action. cool
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 03/15/19 3:27am

Free2BMe

RichardS said:



nd33 said:


darlingnikkkki said:
I hope so. Especially since he became a father and his kids around the age of the other young boys he was ALLEGEDLY abusing in the past.

We can’t just assume guilt on people at random. So far he was found not guilty at a trial full of the required cross examination. This current situation will either become clearer or more complicated upon cross examination, if it ever happens. At this point the two main characters and the director are avoiding that happening.

Robson and Safechuck are trying repeatedly to take it to court, but they are unsuccessful, due to legal reasons e.g. left it too late, there is no-one to sue (from a legal perspective). If they manage to get to court, which they want to do, they will be cross-examined - that's hardly avoiding it - they are actively trying to get themselves into court.



What they are actively trying to do is to,force the estate to settle with them. They don’t want to go to court, their lies would be torn into a thousand pieces.
Both of their broke asses already owe the estate THOUSANDS of $$$.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 03/15/19 3:38am

RichardS

Free2BMe said:

RichardS said:

Yes, let's arrest EVERY person that believes MJ possibly had an unhealthy sexual interest in boys. It's the only sensible course of action.

No let’s arrest the sick fucks who are gleefully and willingly PROMOTING the doctrine of NAMBLA that was used by these pieces of trailer park trash in this fraudomentary. That IS the only sensible and MORAL course of action. cool

If you watch the documentary, you'll realise that this is not promoting the doctrine NAMBLA - even if you don't believe them, the tone of the documentary makes that very clear to anyone who has watched it, and who is capable of a rational judgement.

If any good can come of this it is that those who have suffered abuse will feel more able to come forward to tell their stories. Even if Robson and Saefchuck are lying, it still brings the subject of abuse out into the open, which is a good thing, as it has remained hidden for too long. One thing that may prevent those who have suffered abuse coming forward is the fear of people like yourself who will scream 'liar' at them the first chance they get, and threaten them.

There are good, moral ways to react to this, even if you believe they are lying. You are not acting in a moral way, for the benefit of all victims, you are acting solely as MJ's appointed evangelical defender.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 15 123456789>Last »
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Michael Jackson sex abuse documentary coming to Sundance & HBO - PART 2