‘Leaving Neverland’, Docu about MJ’s Victims, Coming to HBO in March

[Rock & Roll Hall of Game]

7 hours ago, jarrylf said:

 

Except judging off of the inconsistencies of the total 4 accusers, he "choose" kids who couldn't stick to a story? The fact that 3 of the 4 accusers were white and male is why guilty is so easily assumed, yet on the other hand, I think it's why the police worked so much harder to look for any hair out of place that can get a guilty verdict.  

Michael had so much porn but nothing traceable to pedophilia, someone so nieve (again if the drug use was the topic, that wasn't that hidden that was being reported for years, alot of what he was doing in what he thought was private was revealed and searched) yet something so massive and so major he's this "neat" on yet according to 3 of his accusers he's so bold to do such terrible things so openly and sloppily? I agree in general it's a tough spot and it's hard to prove, but it's why if you're accusing your word needs to be credible about your accusations, and since that doesn't exist with ANYONE who's accused him, to believe them or to believe he did anything, takes a level of disbelief I can't condone because there's nothing credible to prove it.

 

As if there were just four

He’s a child molester... not a child pornographer. There’s a difference and if you don’t understand the difference, that’s cool.

He definitely didn’t do any molesting out in the open. All done behind his hotel rooms & his Amusement Park 

Again, It is nearly impossible to find evidence of child molestation. Again, what do you think a child molester would leave behind? 

I just watched Abducted In Plain Sight, another documentary about an adult male’s infatuation over a 8-15 girl in the 1970s... He was married, he manipulated & groomed the parents and snatched the girl thrice times. He obviously raped her but when the doctors checked, said he didn’t. He eventually brainwashed her and she didn’t official come forward with it until 2003... thirty years after losing contact 

I watch and read a lot of crime documentaries... court cases from current events (violent crimes.. not white collar). While there is no smoking gun (impossible) there is unreasonable doubt that he has molested children. Take his fame & name away and you Wackos would be singing a different tune (lol get it?)

[Rock & Roll Hall of Game]

7 hours ago, jarrylf said:

 

Except judging off of the inconsistencies of the total 4 accusers, he "choose" kids who couldn't stick to a story? The fact that 3 of the 4 accusers were white and male is why guilty is so easily assumed, yet on the other hand, I think it's why the police worked so much harder to look for any hair out of place that can get a guilty verdict.  

Michael had so much porn but nothing traceable to pedophilia, someone so nieve (again if the drug use was the topic, that wasn't that hidden that was being reported for years, alot of what he was doing in what he thought was private was revealed and searched) yet something so massive and so major he's this "neat" on yet according to 3 of his accusers he's so bold to do such terrible things so openly and sloppily? I agree in general it's a tough spot and it's hard to prove, but it's why if you're accusing your word needs to be credible about your accusations, and since that doesn't exist with ANYONE who's accused him, to believe them or to believe he did anything, takes a level of disbelief I can't condone because there's nothing credible to prove it.

 

As if there were just four

He’s a child molester... not a child pornographer. There’s a difference and if you don’t understand the difference, that’s cool.

He definitely didn’t do any molesting out in the open. All done behind his hotel rooms & his Amusement Park 

Again, It is nearly impossible to find evidence of child molestation. Again, what do you think a child molester would leave behind? 

I just watched Abducted In Plain Sight, another documentary about an adult male’s infatuation over a 8-15 girl in the 1970s... He was married, he manipulated & groomed the parents and snatched the girl thrice. He obviously raped her but when the doctors checked, said he didn’t. He brainwashed her and she didn’t official come forward with it until 2003... thirty years after losing contact when she and her mother wrote a book

I watch and read a lot of crime documentaries/cold cases, court cases from current events (violent crimes.. not white collar). While there is no smoking gun (impossible) there is reasonable doubt that he has molested children. Take his fame & name away and you Wackos would be singing a different tune (lol get it?)

[Illi]

Assumption=/=Truth

I don't think anything will ever fully vindicate MJ, but implying something because of something is a slippery slope. No one can reasonable prove that it is impossible for his relationship with those children to be plutonic.

[bonsaibutterfly]

29 minutes ago, Illi said:

Assumption=/=Truth

I don't think anything will ever fully vindicate MJ, but implying something because of something is a slippery slope. No one can reasonable prove that it is impossible for his relationship with those children to be plutonic.

Even if it was platonic, it was still wrong. And he should have been held accoubtable for it. He just got away with a lot cause he was rich and famous.

[bonsaibutterfly]

.

 

[Rock & Roll Hall of Game]

51 minutes ago, Illi said:

Assumption=/=Truth

I don't think anything will ever fully vindicate MJ, but implying something because of something is a slippery slope. No one can reasonable prove that it is impossible for his relationship with those children to be plutonic.

Wackos thinks what’s true is based off vindictive police department and a late FBI raid and court documents

Youre assumung these relationship weren’t inappropriate from a man who didn’t have a mock relationship until he was well into his thirties... by a man with hormones but ACTED like a child.. by a man who manipulated adults.. by a man with MULTIPLE locks on his bedroom door

YOU DO NOT KNOW HIM so stop pretending as if you do. You don’t know went on behind closed doors, 1-on-1 with him.. you know who does? James Safechuck And Wade Robson and many other little boys

But you’re going to assassinate their character and timetables as if that matters... but that only works on Wade like lawyers. You’re not a lawyer. You’re a blind follower... sheep  

[Illi]

1 hour ago, BlueEyedSpirit34 said:

Even if it was platonic, it was still wrong. And he should have been held accoubtable for it. He just got away with a lot cause he was rich and famous.

Do you know what platonic means?

[bonsaibutterfly]

15 minutes ago, Illi said:

Do you know what platonic means?

my apologies English isnt my first language. I meant to refer to a relationship that is not sexual, just friendship. plutonic platonic whatever the right word is

[Illi]

1 hour ago, Game For Now said:

Wackos thinks what’s true is based off vindictive police department and a late FBI raid and court documents

Youre assumung these relationship weren’t inappropriate from a man who didn’t have a mock relationship until he was well into his thirties... by a man with hormones but ACTED like a child.. by a man who manipulated adults.. by a man with MULTIPLE locks on his bedroom door

YOU DO NOT KNOW HIM so stop pretending as if you do. You don’t know went on behind closed doors, 1-on-1 with him.. you know who does? James Safechuck And Wade Robson and many other little boys

But you’re going to assassinate their character and timetables as if that matters... but that only works on Wade like lawyers. You’re not a lawyer. You’re a blind follower... sheep  

Nobody's ever gonna have the absolute truth, but at least documentation exists to vindicate him. Most anti-MJ articles I see is just the media fanning flames.

And where did I ever implied to know him? I only said to stop making your assumptions into facts. All those claims you keep making do not mean that abuse took place. You're the one who wants to make it seem you know what took place.

Honestly, Wade and James can say what they want. It doesn't exempt their statement from being challenged. You're mad because it's completely warranted.

[Illi]

1 minute ago, BlueEyedSpirit34 said:

my apologies English isnt my first language. I meant to refer to a relationship that is not sexual, just friendship. plutonic platonic whatever the right word is

Yeah I spelled it incorrectly the first time.

[bonsaibutterfly]

8 hours ago, Game For Now said:

Wackos thinks what’s true is based off vindictive police department and a late FBI raid and court documents

Youre assumung these relationship weren’t inappropriate from a man who didn’t have a mock relationship until he was well into his thirties... by a man with hormones but ACTED like a child.. by a man who manipulated adults.. by a man with MULTIPLE locks on his bedroom door

YOU DO NOT KNOW HIM so stop pretending as if you do. You don’t know went on behind closed doors, 1-on-1 with him.. you know who does? James Safechuck And Wade Robson and many other little boys

But you’re going to assassinate their character and timetables as if that matters... but that only works on Wade like lawyers. You’re not a lawyer. You’re a blind follower... sheep  

yes to all of this. people be like no illegal material was found so he can't be a molester. as if molesting would need to leave some evidence behind. yet at the same time there are so many public pics and videos which scream inappropriate behaviour with underage kids.

[jarrylf]

6 hours ago, EphraimAdamz said:

They say it's not about money but they have been exposed for collecting "donations" on thier website. It's also now been exposed that the gifts they burned at the end of the film were already auctioned off in 2011! Julien's Auctions

But this wasn't a scripted "doc".......Nah they probably gotta hang on to the real stuff so they can sell it again. 

2 hours ago, Game For Now said:

As if there were just four

He’s a child molester... not a child pornographer. There’s a difference and if you don’t understand the difference, that’s cool.

He definitely didn’t do any molesting out in the open. All done behind his hotel rooms & his Amusement Park 

Again, It is nearly impossible to find evidence of child molestation. Again, what do you think a child molester would leave behind? 

I just watched Abducted In Plain Sight, another documentary about an adult male’s infatuation over a 8-15 girl in the 1970s... He was married, he manipulated & groomed the parents and snatched the girl thrice times. He obviously raped her but when the doctors checked, said he didn’t. He eventually brainwashed her and she didn’t official come forward with it until 2003... thirty years after losing contact 

I watch and read a lot of crime documentaries... court cases from current events (violent crimes.. not white collar). While there is no smoking gun (impossible) there is unreasonable doubt that he has molested children. Take his fame & name away and you Wackos would be singing a different tune (lol get it?)

Really?Jordie, Gavin, Wade & James who else? or is this just what you imagine 

Not every molester is a pornographer, but most have porn of what they're attracted to "and barely legal Womens" isn't pre-teen boys.

Allegedly, more people say that didn't happen than the 4 who did but change their stories (that's the thing too, he specifically goes after kids that exhibit memory issues or something now :lmao:

And also that crime, like murder, like raping was easier to commit in the 70s, there wasn't child porn on the web

Problem is you said "there's unreasonable doubt".....yet he's been on trial if there was unreasonable doubt he would've gotten at LEAST 1 of those charges, so that's your opinion. I'm also someone who watches this doc's as a hobby I can break down what went wrong & right in so many cases, and in this one everything went right, there was never any reasonable doubt on the books, every assumption you have and you have come to a jury had to look at and consider it all.....and he got off, the FBI had to look through...nothing. Reasonable doubt literally is about the assumptions you & others have exhibited.....and they ruled no if there was reasonable doubt he would've at LEAST got something. Wade & James both have nothing to contribute to this beyond the assumptions some already.

2 hours ago, Illi said:

Assumption=/=Truth

I don't think anything will ever fully vindicate MJ, but implying something because of something is a slippery slope. No one can reasonable prove that it is impossible for his relationship with those children to be plutonic.

4

YAS

And yup, it's proudly ignorant honestly. ESPECIALLY when you have a ton of credible names of kids who were those kids and defending his actions and his character.

36 minutes ago, Illi said:

Do you know what platonic means?

 #gather

[Bailey]

a child molester might leave behind a stained clothing item ....I mean Monica kept the dress and shit you feel me?   you mean to tell me all those little boys and no one has a pair of stained tightie whiteys

[bonsaibutterfly]

.

 

[jarrylf]

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

[bonsaibutterfly]

.

 

[jarrylf]

2 minutes ago, BlueEyedSpirit34 said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/us/jacksons-books-about-boys-are-allowed-as-evidence-in-trial.html

Top portion remains, ESPECIALLY since they were allowed as evidence. What you assume is up to you, but unless it's porno, it's not enough.

[bonsaibutterfly]

.

 

[jarrylf]

Just now, BlueEyedSpirit34 said:

I know it wasn't enough. That wasn't my point.

I know, your point is assuming what's not porn could be used as porn and that should be enough, but it's not. 

[bonsaibutterfly]

.

 

[Bailey]

how much longer can this have life?

[Rock & Roll Hall of Game]

54 minutes ago, Bailey said:

how much longer can this have life?

There’s no end. It is history now. It’s apart of MJ’s already tarnished legacy as a human 

There’s a court date for the accusers in June on the tenth anniversary of his own self-demise  

[Bailey]

1 hour ago, Game For Now said:

There’s no end. It is history now. It’s apart of MJ’s already tarnished legacy as a human 

There’s a court date for the accusers in June on the tenth anniversary of his own self-demise  

because the Estate is going after them right?

[Rock & Roll Hall of Game]

5 minutes ago, Bailey said:

because the Estate is going after them right?

Gurl idk 

2 million people watched it in the UK  While that is way more than the US fews but keep in mind, HBO isnt in every household 

[Bailey]

54 minutes ago, Game For Now said:

Gurl idk 

2 million people watched it in the UK  While that is way more than the US fews but keep in mind, HBO isnt in every household 

I predict this will die down, it's going to take time though, it's not sticking as bad as R Kelly did and reactions are mixed I did the thing you swear not to do, I read comments