Jump to content

jarrylf

Members
  • Posts

    14,403
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    133

Posts posted by jarrylf

  1. 1 hour ago, Game For Now said:

    :umm: 

    He’s literally a stan. That’s like me being a journalist and writing articles about how Janet didn’t murder every one’s career. It’s biased af period. I don’t care how many journalist awards he won... its biased

    He's literally cited and respected for his ability to break down court docs and report on them. Another case of facts being FACTS no matter who's reporting them, and credible reporting being credible. But again, you'd have a point if his blog was a hobby and he wasn't a respected journalist :coffee:

    1 hour ago, Game For Now said:

    No. I don’t think you understand that or you wouldn’t say that.

    Many victims get timelines wrong, events, even places after so many years have past (Justice Kavanuage and his accuser). The tiniest details doesn’t matter especially when the abuse is obviously happened

    Nah....it's being abundantly clear you don't get it (and probably haven't read a single thing that proves any MJ accuser is lying) or you wouldn't be referring to "tiniest details".....which nobody is referring to, we're talking entire stories being proven to be made up.....and you're treating like they forgot if it was in a Wednesday of 88 or a Friday of 90....no you're mistaken.

    What's become very clear in the more I look into things, when you said the other day "I'm too close"....that's kind of the thing.... judges &, jurors & journalists, when anyone gets close to all the details, more often than not, it points to my side (and if it doesn't it keeps people in the middle), I'm "too close" because I'm looking at everything thoroughly. It's lazy and easy to go "oh he spends time with kids and lets them sleep in his bed, pedophile" than it is to actually look at all the testimony and all the files and all the history in depth. Getting a date or 2 wrong isn't the same as coming up with an entire story that didn't happen, having a history of extortion attempts & abuse claims, having a history of hiding information, and being caught on tape gloating about how accusing someone will help your career.....that's not the same (and every 1 of those examples is from their claims, not digging into the past of stealing or lying about taxes or something), the big lies make the little lies count more than they would without them. If it's so obvious.....abuse happened he would've gotten a charge, in your imagination it's obvious. In the details it's obvious the accusers are fucked up and trying to manipulate the public and the system, they lied about SO much they didn't even have to lie about, that's not comparable to anyone guilty :lmao:

  2. The fact that there's literally not a single accuser who has been able to tell a consistent story (unlike cases with real victims) speaks more to the likelihood that nothing happened, than the assumption & imagining that it takes to say something did. 

    "he coulda" ain't cuttin it and isn't concrete enough. Alot of people coulda done alot of things unless there's evidence & air-tight testimony he probably didn't. :coffee:

  3. 18 minutes ago, Game For Now said:

    I will not take a blog’s word for it 

    Can you please provide a valid link with credibility to the table. Not some fan’s blog

    Also the link to the blog isn’t valid 

    Also a journalist who isn’t a Wacko would be nice too. Unbiased. I found his blog and it’s basically an MJ fan page

    The word of an award-winning investigative journalist for Huffington Post, who's profiled many black legends including MJ is more credible than anyone & anything on your side.....so yea, not exactly a blog post from someone who's just "some fan". Nice try tho, if he weren't an award-winning journalist you'd have a point, but he is, so you don't. Prove his words wrong. 

    • Upvote 1
  4. 1 hour ago, Game For Now said:

    You have proof of any of that or is that bullshit :umm: 

    Always, I can't fathom making accusations about someone without proof to back it up. :coffee:
     

    … Jordan Chandler went to court when he was 16 and gained legal emancipation from both of his parents. When called to appear at Jackson’s 2005 trial, he refused to testify against his former friend. Had he taken the stand, Jackson’s legal team had a number of witnesses who were prepared to testify that Jordan – who now lives in Long Island under an assumed name – had told them in recent years that he hated his parents for what they made him say in 1993, and that Michael Jackson had never touched him.

    The evidence surrounding the 1993 allegations overwhelmingly supports Michael Jackson’s innocence. It is for this reason that during the lengthy investigation, which continued for many months before Jackson’s insurance carrier negotiated a settlement, Michael Jackson was never arrested and he was never charged with any crime.

    The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that Evan Chandler masterminded the allegations as a money making scheme, believing it would help him to achieve his dream of working in Hollywood. The aforementioned tape-recorded telephone conversation heard him dismiss the boy’s wellbeing as ‘irrelevant’ and claim that he was out to take Jackson for all he was worth. – Award-winning journalist, Charles Thomson, http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2009/11/evan-chandler-suicide-higlights-media.html

     

     

    .............................................................................*whispers* this is why I say there's 4 cases and only 3 accusors...... soooo telling....

  5. 2 hours ago, Game For Now said:

    It was one case. He payed that first family off... or someone did on his behalf.. that’s guil— that speaks loudly

    Nah it speaks louder that after he did that the boy emancipated himself, it's come out years later that the father was physically abusing the boy, and it's come out that the father was threatening to blackmail Michael for a meeting with Spielberg until he did come to an amount.....that speaks loudly to the entire situation. Like Janet elaborated on it's the mindset of "Let me give you what you really want, to get you out of my life faster". That's

    Him buying kids gifts & families houses would be so much more incriminating if he didn't do the same for damn near everybody in his life he was cool with :lmao: . But nah, y'all gotta let your imaginations make it suspicious, vs. it wasn't for the FBI, the judge or jury.

     

  6. 1 hour ago, Bailey said:

    I dont know I think Beyonce would have pretty much gone over really well :umm:

    I think it'd have exactly the same reaction, the majority for it, and a handful (not just here but across the fanbase) that wouldn't ask "why not ____?". I don't think there's anyone that wouldn't be the case for. Hell I'd be Ok with Bey (she's way more fitting than Mariah just based on the entertainment and activist level), but folks would counter with why not Rihanna, and vice versa.

    Like you said, I don't really give a fuck 1 way or another, I mean I'm glad it's my fave highly melanated ArchAndroid electric lady of this generation, but seriously, it's about Janet......and she'll be there....and unless she's performing with the inductee (I'd live, but I'd bet on the RN & janet. Tours getting BlueRay & Youtube releases before that happens at the ceremony) it don't matter who it is.

    Hell my #1 pick is Bruno, but he already proved himself for the world last year at the BMA's so we good. :coffee:

  7. 3 minutes ago, BlueEyedSpirit34 said:

    It's not only my imagination. There's lots of disturbing images, videos, paintings, phone calls etc. We as adults shouldn't normalize it. We should protect the kids. Anyways, I've stated my opinion and I hope the victims get help and that child abuse wouldn't happen. #peace

    And literally none of that equals "molestation", "rape", or "danger" unless you imagine any of it does, and if you do for this you have to imagine it does for all instances.

  8. 3 hours ago, BlueEyedSpirit34 said:

    After seeing the doc I definitely believe both of them. Wade seemed more trained to speak on camera (of course with his background in entertainment). But Safechuck's story broke my heart. He seemed so sweet and was so in love with MJ and then all those terrible things happened to him. :( It's very toxic so don't watch it if you're sensitive to that kind of stuff.

     

    Yea after all those edits to their stories they came up with, the final performance seemed so real. It truly does show the dangers of a good performance, people will believe it without fact-checking what's easy to fact check. Their thing is about manipulation when judging by the facts, that's what they are doing and intend on doing to everyone that believes them...it's quite sad how easy it is for them...

    2 hours ago, Game For Now said:

    I’m not sure why people bring up R Kelly when talking about MJ but sure

     

    Agreed, it is annoying as hell to compare a proven molester to MJ, it never adds up.

    2 hours ago, Game For Now said:

    James’s story is the one Wackos try to ignore or has a weak argument as to why he’s “lying” (timetable and perjury after coerced statement to police/grand jury)

    ..................Except......his lies have been proven to be lies....and the inconsistencies are proven to be inconsistent......He literally came up with stories in the doc that were completely provable lies. But if you need the list. Just because Wade told more lies and was less convincing telling them didn't mean Jimmy didn't lie at all (just in comparison it looks that way :lmao:)

    • Safechuck claims in the TV show that Jackson spent Thanksgiving Day 1987 at his home. Jackson was not only Not at Safechuck's home on Thanksgiving Day 1987, he was not even in the country. He was in Australia on tour. Footage of the Australian tour is even included elsewhere in the TV show, unwittingly airing evidence which disproves its own 'star witness's testimony.

    • Safechuck's mother claims in the TV show that she woke up to the news of Jackson's death and danced around because he 'couldn't hurt anymore children'. The Safechuck family lives in California, where Jackson also lived. His death was pronounced at 3pm on June 25, 2009, and became a news story within minutes. Does Safechuck's mother typically wake up after 3pm?

    • Safechuck claims in the TV show that he and Jackson had a mock wedding in 1989 and then went on 'honeymoon' to Euro Disney. Euro Disney did not open until 1992. By 1992, Safechuck claims in the film he was already being phased out and 'replaced' with another boy.

    • 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.

    • 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 defense cannot have asked him to testify – and certainly not after the trial was already underway.

    • Upvote 1
  9. 2 hours ago, BlueEyedSpirit34 said:

    Thanks for the list. Well I don't know what to say. I won't start debating about this since I don't know enough about it. Whatever their motives are to talk now, I hope them speaking out helps other victims and their families of similar crimes to seek help.

     

    But what I'm absolutely sure about is that MJ was a pedophile. There is enough evidence in pictures, videos, interviews, love letters and faxes and phone calls and in his overall actions and behaviour. People need to see him for what he really was and stop defending a man who clearly was dangerous for children.

    You're welcome, and really there's no reason to debate since most of the source there is from their own trials when they tried to sue the estate. And that last part is dangerous because what's going on right now and people so blindly believing them is this can inspire others to make up similar stories of similar situations and have a full example that their lies will go unchecked by the masses

    Thing is, that's your opinion & what you imagine based off of what you think, facts are and as far as we have available right now, he was not dangerous for children only 4 ever said he was out of 1,000's. Your imagination doesn't hold up to witness character testimony.

    1 hour ago, BlueEyedSpirit34 said:

    But she should acknowledge the fact that many kids were hurt regardless. And she should do it asap in my opinion.

     

    That's crazy, since nobody credible is saying he did, only 4 people who got caught in lies, she should not "apologize" to them

    • Upvote 2
    • Downvote 1
  10. 1 hour ago, BlueEyedSpirit34 said:

    You think this is funny? Well, like I said I don't know all the details. But it'd be interesting to see a description of all the stories they have allegedly changed. So far I haven't seen any. In any case, I believe these men and them being victims. Maybe they haven't gotten all the dates/places right (they were kids after all) but to me their stories seem convincing and I wish them all the best.

    I do think it's hilarious (yet disturbing) that people who have proven to have lied in their claims are treated as serious (if not more) as people who are actual victims and who's stories and accusations & witnesses & credibility have remained intact and airtight, so yes I'm laughing at these 2 and I'm laughing at you & all who believe them, and I wish them nothing but the worst for trying to take advantage of real victims and real supporters. And it's not surprising you haven't "seen" any descriptions of all that they lied about (despite the fact that it's been posted in multiple threads now), it seems they claimed something you assumed and you made up your mind. And it's not just about "dates/places" it's about entire instances, THATS hilarious, you should wish they just got dates/places wrong. But here's the facts (thanks @bu.), and the sources on most of the testimony listed here...........THIER COURT DOCS :lmao: Their own transcripts & trial is the biggest fact checkers here, not the media, not some blog post, the actual court docs & transcripts. So yes again, it's funny that people are letting these 2 assholes manipulate them so willingly :lmao:

    On 3/8/2019 at 7:32 AM, bu. said:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/MichaelJackson/comments/ay42cx/a_condensed_version_of_the_major_credibility/?ref=share&ref_source=embed&utm_content=title&utm_medium=post_embed&utm_name=4bf28035b0cb492797cfae0c0cd2aef6&utm_source=embedly&utm_term=ay42cx

     

    A condensed version of the major credibility issues of Robson and Safechuck.

     

    From Charles Thomson:

    FACT-BOMB: The evidence the media refuses to show you about Michael Jackson’s accusers

    I’ve felt total and utter shame at my industry as the coverage of tonight’s Michael Jackson TV show has grown increasingly dishonest and dangerous. I’ve worked in the media since I was a teenager. The whole media knows these two men are liars. But that’s not good for clicks or ratings.

    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.

    • Safechuck claims in the TV show that Jackson spent Thanksgiving Day 1987 at his home. Jackson was not only at Safechuck's home on Thanksgiving Day 1987, he was not even in the country. He was in Australia on tour. Footage of the Australian tour is even included elsewhere in the TV show, unwittingly airing evidence which disproves its own 'star witness's testimony.

    • Safechuck's mother claims in the TV show that she woke up to the news of Jackson's death and danced around because he 'couldn't hurt anymore children'. The Safechuck family lives in California, where Jackson also lived. His death was pronounced at 3pm on June 25, 2009, and became a news story within minutes. Does Safechuck's mother typically wake up after 3pm?

    • Safechuck claims in the TV show that he and Jackson had a mock wedding in 1989 and then went on 'honeymoon' to Euro Disney. Euro Disney did not open until 1992. By 1992, Safechuck claims in the film he was already being phased out and 'replaced' with another boy.

    • Despite such glaring issues with the witness's testimony, director Dan Reed claims he 'forensically' researched their allegations before including them in his TV show.

    • 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.

    I could continue, but if you’re still on board with the TV show and its accusers at this point, you are irrational to the point of mania.

    Tonight’s TV show covers up all of this information, instead presenting two professional actors’ heavily edited and completely unchallenged testimony without ever examining their credibility, their proven lies and perjury, their constantly changing stories or their financial motives.

    It is a stain on the journalistic profession, as has been the rest of the media’s coverage.

    12
    5
    7
    8

     

  11. 9 minutes ago, BlueEyedSpirit34 said:

    I'm not so invested in all of this that I'd know all the details. But weren't they small children when they testified for the first time. They and their families were probably emotionally and financially dependent on MJ. And the second time the same, I'm sure it had to do with both financial and emotional aspects as well. And the other guy didn't even want to testify in the second trial?! I don't think they should be blamed for not being ready to talk until now (that MJ is dead).

     

    :lmao: I'm talking about their stories have changed since they 1st started accusing, I'm not even talking about the perjury, I'm talking about accusations that they've been making and changing since 2013, they can't stick to their own allegations and all along the way (from the first accusations to the documentary itself) they've named instances that have been proven to not have happened, being places they're proven not to have been. :lmao: (also the 2nd time they were both grown ass independant men who both say Michael had next to nothing to do with their life, and 1 blatantly lied at claiming to have not testified when he was begged by Michael & his defense for him to, when in reality he was never allowed to at all).......but all their new edits should instantly be believed :coffee:

  12. 6 minutes ago, BlueEyedSpirit34 said:

    Just because he was announced innocent in two cases doesn't mean he was innocent with these two men who are now speaking. Just because he didn't molest all boys doesn't mean he didn't do it to some.

    Well these 2 men speaking and being proven to have lied multiple times about their stories does mean they likely lied about everything. If nobody credible and who's storie's remained in tact has accused then it's not for us to assume what we can't prove and what nobody credible witnesses are claiming. :coffee:

  13. 7 minutes ago, BlueEyedSpirit34 said:

    What about all those "art books" about boys that were found.

    First, if it's not porn, it's not guilty, its just up to you to assume, but a jury & the FBI & a judge already did and their opinions and assumptions trump yours. Also, what's your source on that? Cause a "art book about boys" was never in the headlines or cliffnotes of what was found, and most tabloid's that post fake stories for people to easily believe, that would've been huge to trick people with :coffee:

  14. 1 hour ago, eli's_rhythm said:

    Amen.

    Janelle is an amazing choice and the obvious artistic child of Janet and Prince.

    All truth. She's so damn unopologetic in her everything, I live for it, and the chick is a talented as she is? She is a queen in the making.

    1 hour ago, Voodoo said:

    And Alicia Keys inducted Prince in 04 :ph34r:

    Not to mention NSYNC inducted MJ :ph34r:

    Image result for clutches pearls gif

    Alicia I get cause she covered Prince on her 1st album......but....homegirl was UBER new still in 04....that's....a damn mess & shame for both legacies. 

    • Upvote 1
  15. 2 hours ago, Voodoo said:

    Janelle Monae is an incredible artist and had an amazing last year, you can tell she was directly influenced by Janet and she is articulate enough to read a teleprompter and give an amazing ass speech. Should be cute.

     

    2 hours ago, Bailey said:

    Janelle Monae is perfect *approved*

    PREACH. Her presence has always been what Control is about, her music (ESPECIALLY her masterpiece last year) is the child of Rhythm Nation, janet., & The Velvet Rope. Janet has many musical daughters, some represent her singing style, some represent her performance style, most represent both, but few represent her artistry and activism at it's best (and in many ways keeps the conversations that Janet got started and got popular 20-30yrs ago going), and Janelle is that daughter.

    • Upvote 3
×
×
  • Create New...