|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Mar 23, 2019 11:53:06 GMT -5
Jackson's biographer finding holes in this documentary www.express.co.uk/entertainment/music/1104191/Michael-Jackson-child-abuse-trial-Leaving-Neverland-Safechuck-Robson-lies-true-HBO--- Smallcome said: "In the documentary, Safechuck claims Jackson called him ‘near the end of the trial’ and asked him to testify on his behalf again, as he had done in 1993. Safechuck said he refused, and that Jackson then ‘got really angry’ and threatened him. He repeated this claim under oath, in his ongoing lawsuit against the Jackson Estate. "Very early on in the trial, the judge ruled that he would allow the jury to hear about five boys whom the prosecution claimed were sexually abused by Jackson. “They were Jordan Chandler, Brett Barnes, Jason Francia, Macaulay Culkin and Wade Robson. The judge ruled specifically, that ‘evidence as to Jimmy Safechuck will not be permitted’. Those were the judge’s exact words. “The judge came to this decision because nobody had ever claimed they had seen Safechuck being abused. “So Jackson could not have asked him to testify, and certainly not near the end of the trial, when the judge had ruled months earlier that evidence about Safechuck would not be permitted."
|
|
fw91
Patti Mayonnaise
FAN Idol All-Star: FAN Idol Season X and *Gavel* 2x Judges' Throwdown winner
Tribe has spoken for 2024 Mets
Posts: 39,140
Member is Online
|
Post by fw91 on Mar 23, 2019 12:18:10 GMT -5
Wonder where Norm Macdonald stands on this whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Mar 23, 2019 12:27:17 GMT -5
Jackson's biographer finding holes in this documentary www.express.co.uk/entertainment/music/1104191/Michael-Jackson-child-abuse-trial-Leaving-Neverland-Safechuck-Robson-lies-true-HBO--- Smallcome said: "In the documentary, Safechuck claims Jackson called him ‘near the end of the trial’ and asked him to testify on his behalf again, as he had done in 1993. Safechuck said he refused, and that Jackson then ‘got really angry’ and threatened him. He repeated this claim under oath, in his ongoing lawsuit against the Jackson Estate. "Very early on in the trial, the judge ruled that he would allow the jury to hear about five boys whom the prosecution claimed were sexually abused by Jackson. “They were Jordan Chandler, Brett Barnes, Jason Francia, Macaulay Culkin and Wade Robson. The judge ruled specifically, that ‘evidence as to Jimmy Safechuck will not be permitted’. Those were the judge’s exact words. “The judge came to this decision because nobody had ever claimed they had seen Safechuck being abused. “So Jackson could not have asked him to testify, and certainly not near the end of the trial, when the judge had ruled months earlier that evidence about Safechuck would not be permitted." So as to the title of the OP post did you actually watch the doc or are you just scanning the net for all the bad defenses? It seems to me about 90 percent of the attackers of the victims never actually watched the documentary and just scan the net for the stories put out by people blindly enamored with him and/or still dependent on him.
|
|
|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Mar 23, 2019 12:36:01 GMT -5
How to end your career in 20 seconds.
|
|
Paul
Vegeta
Posts: 9,280
|
Post by Paul on Mar 23, 2019 12:46:35 GMT -5
How to end your career in 20 seconds. This won't end her career. It won't hurt her career one bit. She's an established star with a long career behind her, and she has a very big and loyal fanbase who are behind her. They spend thousands on tickets to see her every time she tours. She's nearly un-touchable short of if she murders someone and even then...
|
|
|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Mar 23, 2019 12:57:19 GMT -5
Jackson's biographer finding holes in this documentary www.express.co.uk/entertainment/music/1104191/Michael-Jackson-child-abuse-trial-Leaving-Neverland-Safechuck-Robson-lies-true-HBO--- Smallcome said: "In the documentary, Safechuck claims Jackson called him ‘near the end of the trial’ and asked him to testify on his behalf again, as he had done in 1993. Safechuck said he refused, and that Jackson then ‘got really angry’ and threatened him. He repeated this claim under oath, in his ongoing lawsuit against the Jackson Estate. "Very early on in the trial, the judge ruled that he would allow the jury to hear about five boys whom the prosecution claimed were sexually abused by Jackson. “They were Jordan Chandler, Brett Barnes, Jason Francia, Macaulay Culkin and Wade Robson. The judge ruled specifically, that ‘evidence as to Jimmy Safechuck will not be permitted’. Those were the judge’s exact words. “The judge came to this decision because nobody had ever claimed they had seen Safechuck being abused. “So Jackson could not have asked him to testify, and certainly not near the end of the trial, when the judge had ruled months earlier that evidence about Safechuck would not be permitted." So as to the title of the OP post did you actually watch the doc or are you just scanning the net for all the bad defenses? It seems to me about 90 percent of the attackers of the victims never actually watched the documentary and just scan the net for the stories put out by people blindly enamored with him and/or still dependent on him. Yes I watched all of it. Very good scenery of California and Australia. Much more dramatic music than I expected. Nice to see non-concert footage of a megastar. I just don't think the content of a production film should be the basis for judging someone, particularly in a subject matter so harrowing and alleging terrible criminal behaviour. Any counter argument, like the one I supposedly scanned the net for and posted should have a valid place to offer rebuttal. How many non-wrestling fans watched The Self Destruction of the Ultimate Warrior "documentary" and concluded he was a piece of shit because he no showed the event where he was supposedly the WWF champion and was going to wrestle Vader based on a poster shown in the film? I don't think trial by media should be the norm regardless of how "real" Wade and James appeared on camera.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Mar 23, 2019 19:33:32 GMT -5
So as to the title of the OP post did you actually watch the doc or are you just scanning the net for all the bad defenses? It seems to me about 90 percent of the attackers of the victims never actually watched the documentary and just scan the net for the stories put out by people blindly enamored with him and/or still dependent on him. Yes I watched all of it. Very good scenery of California and Australia. Much more dramatic music than I expected. Nice to see non-concert footage of a megastar. I just don't think the content of a production film should be the basis for judging someone, particularly in a subject matter so harrowing and alleging terrible criminal behaviour. Any counter argument, like the one I supposedly scanned the net for and posted should have a valid place to offer rebuttal. How many non-wrestling fans watched The Self Destruction of the Ultimate Warrior "documentary" and concluded he was a piece of shit because he no showed the event where he was supposedly the WWF champion and was going to wrestle Vader based on a poster shown in the film? I don't think trial by media should be the norm regardless of how "real" Wade and James appeared on camera. Thank you at least you are a step ahead of most of his defenders. However, did you look into his defenders as close? Because a quick scan of the net shows that Mike Smallcombe has only published a single book and is otherwise just a smalltime hack who writes borderline tabloid pieces for Cornwall England. Maybe he has a financial interest in protecting Jackson's reputation? The more Jackson becomes a pariah the less his only published book will be reprinted. See the rabbithole ad hominem attacks can lead to? Not once in ANY of the recusals has anyone said no Jackson didn't sleep with kids, or have a wedding ring made for one, or have hiding places he took kids too, or have alarms put in the hallway for his bedroom, or have naked pictures of one of the boys or that his penis wasn't described accurately by a child. The damning provable evidence still stands they just say someone lied about a date from 20 years ago or the context of a video clip is misconstrued ergo throw out everything else.
|
|
|
Post by King Boo on Mar 23, 2019 23:58:03 GMT -5
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,201
|
Post by Mozenrath on Mar 24, 2019 0:01:49 GMT -5
Yeah, holy shit. I saw that Streisand had said something, but expected the typical apologia. This is so many times worse, veering into parody.
|
|
|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Mar 24, 2019 4:18:57 GMT -5
Yes I watched all of it. Very good scenery of California and Australia. Much more dramatic music than I expected. Nice to see non-concert footage of a megastar. I just don't think the content of a production film should be the basis for judging someone, particularly in a subject matter so harrowing and alleging terrible criminal behaviour. Any counter argument, like the one I supposedly scanned the net for and posted should have a valid place to offer rebuttal. How many non-wrestling fans watched The Self Destruction of the Ultimate Warrior "documentary" and concluded he was a piece of shit because he no showed the event where he was supposedly the WWF champion and was going to wrestle Vader based on a poster shown in the film? I don't think trial by media should be the norm regardless of how "real" Wade and James appeared on camera. Thank you at least you are a step ahead of most of his defenders. However, did you look into his defenders as close? Because a quick scan of the net shows that Mike Smallcombe has only published a single book and is otherwise just a smalltime hack who writes borderline tabloid pieces for Cornwall England. Maybe he has a financial interest in protecting Jackson's reputation? The more Jackson becomes a pariah the less his only published book will be reprinted. See the rabbithole ad hominem attacks can lead to? Not once in ANY of the recusals has anyone said no Jackson didn't sleep with kids, or have a wedding ring made for one, or have hiding places he took kids too, or have alarms put in the hallway for his bedroom, or have naked pictures of one of the boys or that his penis wasn't described accurately by a child. The damning provable evidence still stands they just say someone lied about a date from 20 years ago or the context of a video clip is misconstrued ergo throw out everything else. The same can be said for Dan Reed. A small time English director who had directed late night smut documentaries on Channel 4 for most of his career. This is his big hit. Why debut the film Leaving Neverland at Sundance? Why not submit it to a news program? Why not try to submit to police or prosecution services? Why is he on all the talk show and live events circuit right next to the two alleged victims? It all reeks of a cash in to me. I maintain that if we disregard Jackson's acquittal, and go on the words of some folk on a film, why do we have a legal process at all? Any rich celebrity will be seen as fair game to be held accountable to accusations if any hack makes a documentary or tweets about it. Trial by media just isn't right. Caveat is of course if accusations lead to successful persecution, then it's an entirely different matter. Edit: - The BBC announce a rival documentary about Jackson. www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/feb/27/we-wont-shy-away-from-controversies-bbc-rival-michael-jackson-film-leaving-neverlandLooks like everyone is happy to get them ratings
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Mar 24, 2019 8:23:50 GMT -5
Yeah, holy shit. I saw that Streisand had said something, but expected the typical apologia. This is so many times worse, veering into parody. It's just such a weird take. Clearly she doesn't have any doubts that he molested those kids&shrugs and goes "well, guess he had needs. Those kids had fun when he wasn't molesting em." It's just a baffling thing to say on more than one level.
|
|
Doctor Of Style
King Koopa
Well, first they love me, and then they don't. Sometimes they do it, and sometimes they won't.
Posts: 12,104
|
Post by Doctor Of Style on Mar 24, 2019 10:09:54 GMT -5
Thank you at least you are a step ahead of most of his defenders. However, did you look into his defenders as close? Because a quick scan of the net shows that Mike Smallcombe has only published a single book and is otherwise just a smalltime hack who writes borderline tabloid pieces for Cornwall England. Maybe he has a financial interest in protecting Jackson's reputation? The more Jackson becomes a pariah the less his only published book will be reprinted. See the rabbithole ad hominem attacks can lead to? Not once in ANY of the recusals has anyone said no Jackson didn't sleep with kids, or have a wedding ring made for one, or have hiding places he took kids too, or have alarms put in the hallway for his bedroom, or have naked pictures of one of the boys or that his penis wasn't described accurately by a child. The damning provable evidence still stands they just say someone lied about a date from 20 years ago or the context of a video clip is misconstrued ergo throw out everything else. The same can be said for Dan Reed. A small time English director who had directed late night smut documentaries on Channel 4 for most of his career. This is his big hit. Why debut the film Leaving Neverland at Sundance? Why not submit it to a news program? Why not try to submit to police or prosecution services? Why is he on all the talk show and live events circuit right next to the two alleged victims? It all reeks of a cash in to me. I maintain that if we disregard Jackson's acquittal, and go on the words of some folk on a film, why do we have a legal process at all? Any rich celebrity will be seen as fair game to be held accountable to accusations if any hack makes a documentary or tweets about it. Trial by media just isn't right. Caveat is of course if accusations lead to successful persecution, then it's an entirely different matter. Edit: - The BBC announce a rival documentary about Jackson. www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/feb/27/we-wont-shy-away-from-controversies-bbc-rival-michael-jackson-film-leaving-neverlandLooks like everyone is happy to get them ratings He's been dead almost 10 years, why the f*** would you go to the cops?
|
|
samantha
AC Slater
Can You Feel The Party Flavour?
Posts: 115
|
Post by samantha on Mar 24, 2019 10:19:49 GMT -5
It's my belief that Michael Jackson was a paedophile who molested children
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Mar 24, 2019 10:26:05 GMT -5
yeah Streisand can go right the f*** to hell with those comments. repulsive.
I'm pretty much 100% convinced now that Wacko Jacko doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt I gave him in the past and is in fact a sick paedo.
|
|
|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Mar 24, 2019 11:20:47 GMT -5
The same can be said for Dan Reed. A small time English director who had directed late night smut documentaries on Channel 4 for most of his career. This is his big hit. Why debut the film Leaving Neverland at Sundance? Why not submit it to a news program? Why not try to submit to police or prosecution services? Why is he on all the talk show and live events circuit right next to the two alleged victims? It all reeks of a cash in to me. I maintain that if we disregard Jackson's acquittal, and go on the words of some folk on a film, why do we have a legal process at all? Any rich celebrity will be seen as fair game to be held accountable to accusations if any hack makes a documentary or tweets about it. Trial by media just isn't right. Caveat is of course if accusations lead to successful persecution, then it's an entirely different matter. Edit: - The BBC announce a rival documentary about Jackson. www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/feb/27/we-wont-shy-away-from-controversies-bbc-rival-michael-jackson-film-leaving-neverlandLooks like everyone is happy to get them ratings He's been dead almost 10 years, why the f*** would you go to the cops? Because if it's that serious you don't just make a film about it that's submitted to Sundance film festival. That's my problem with the whole affair. Not saying how a victim should react but going with it to the movies doesn't sit well with me. Below is a case of criminal investigation into the dead as a result of victims speaking out. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandalJimmy Savile (1926–2011) was an English media personality who was well known in the United Kingdom for his eccentricities and, at the time of his death, was generally respected for his charitable work. He was knighted in 1990. In late 2012, almost a year after his death, reports surfaced indicating that Savile had committed sexual abuse throughout his 50-year career, his alleged victims ranging from prepubescent girls and boys to adults. By 11 October 2012, allegations had been made to thirteen British police forces,[1] which led to the setting-up of inquiries into practices at the BBC and within the National Health Service. On 19 October 2012, London's Metropolitan Police Service launched a formal criminal investigation, Operation Yewtree, into historic allegations of child sexual abuse by Savile and other individuals, some still living, over four decades. The Metropolitan Police stated that it was pursuing over 400 lines of inquiry, based on the claims of 200 witnesses, via fourteen police forces across the UK. It described the alleged abuse as being "on an unprecedented scale", and the number of potential victims as "staggering".[2][3] By 19 December, eight people had been questioned as part of the investigation. The Met stated that the total number of alleged victims was 589, of whom 450 alleged abuse by Savile.[4][5]
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Mar 24, 2019 12:01:00 GMT -5
Is anyone surprised that the woman who gave us the Streisand Effect would make another huge PR blunder?
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Mar 24, 2019 12:04:43 GMT -5
One could argue that making a movie about it would get people talking about it again more than they had&might get people talking about abuse on a macro scale.
The first part of that is clearly happening at least.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,320
|
Post by The Ichi on Mar 24, 2019 12:05:34 GMT -5
Jesus, I've never heard the "they obviously had fun lol" defense for f***ing child rape. Piss off.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Mar 24, 2019 12:41:49 GMT -5
The same can be said for Dan Reed. A small time English director who had directed late night smut documentaries on Channel 4 for most of his career. This is his big hit. Why debut the film Leaving Neverland at Sundance? Why not submit it to a news program? Why not try to submit to police or prosecution services? Why is he on all the talk show and live events circuit right next to the two alleged victims? It all reeks of a cash in to me. I maintain that if we disregard Jackson's acquittal, and go on the words of some folk on a film, why do we have a legal process at all? Any rich celebrity will be seen as fair game to be held accountable to accusations if any hack makes a documentary or tweets about it. Trial by media just isn't right. Caveat is of course if accusations lead to successful persecution, then it's an entirely different matter. Edit: - The BBC announce a rival documentary about Jackson. www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/feb/27/we-wont-shy-away-from-controversies-bbc-rival-michael-jackson-film-leaving-neverlandLooks like everyone is happy to get them ratings The same has been said about Dan Reed and that's my point. But let's actually really look at things then. Dan Reed, whose "smut" documentaries were about exposing exploitation and pedophilia and has interviewed hundreds of victims previously vs a guy who writes for a small time local publication whose only has a book to sell to fall back on leaving him from being lost to local obscurity. muckrack.com/mike-smallcombe/articles vs. www.imdb.com/name/nm0715371/Really if we are questioning credibility here... It's funny to how we shouldn't trust media now when we are discussing a man who built an entire reputation that is propping up all of his known indecencies through the same media previously. I mean if he hadn't been on tv playing the innocent big kid would anybody be defending his admitted degeneracy. He lived by the media, made a fortune off the media, got to borrow kids because of his media and so yeah it's kinda karmic justice that the media is what is FINALLY calling out how wrong everything was here. Should that be disregarded because a "hack" journalist with an agenda starts making ad hominem attacks against the victims? It all reeks of pedophilia. I maintain that if he was just an innocent lover of kids how come there's a type? He didn't have little girl fans or little fat boys who loved him? No it was that he loved svelte little boys. That's like text book victimology.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Mar 24, 2019 13:05:02 GMT -5
|
|