It premiered at Sundance. Sounds pretty disturbing.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/insid...ifying-michael-jackson-child-rape-documentary
https://www.thedailybeast.com/insid...ifying-michael-jackson-child-rape-documentary
Michael Jackson child rape doco.
- Thread starter Tha_Wood
- Start date
I still didn't watch the R Kelly stuff. Not afraid of being scarred for life, or anything, but I'd rather just read the bullet points on what victims say he did, and that's it. I'm not interested in seeing the faces of the people or literally hearing their voices tell their stories. That just feels weird to me.
If the MJ one has similar recounts of the stories then someone needs to do a TLDR for it for those of us that have the time to watch it but just want to spared the visual aspect of it.
If the MJ one has similar recounts of the stories then someone needs to do a TLDR for it for those of us that have the time to watch it but just want to spared the visual aspect of it.
In June 2009, Jackson died of a benzodiazepine overdose. Four months later, Chandler committed suicide.
I don't know.
I like watching documentaries like these. I have no trouble with it. Seeing the fracial expressions and demenour of the people making the accusations, and seeing how the movie producer structures the argument, are valid parts of the picture we're trying to understand here (what the truth is). Those people needing counseling, man.... How the fuck can you be so affected by a one-sided account? Like obviously, if the point of the film is to make it seem as if a certain something has happened, there's all kinds of tools you could use to support that experience for the viewer. We KNOW that films and books do this all the time.
So how can you sit there and watch this one side of the story, which is made to be convincing based on decades and ceturies of studies and experimentation on what convinces people, and be so convinced that this horrible thing has happened that they need counseling afterwards? That's fucking weird to me. Those people are like PETA people. They're like, all the worst things you can imagine. WTF. They're the kinds of people that, if you were in a war with them, they'd take off and run when they got enough and leave you to die. Pussies, carebears, and heart-on-sleeve-wearing motherfuckers.
That said, I don't know. Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. So many plausible scenarios in both directions and none of us will truly ever know. Good music is good music, and since I have no way of ever knowing I don't reserve an opinion.
I like watching documentaries like these. I have no trouble with it. Seeing the fracial expressions and demenour of the people making the accusations, and seeing how the movie producer structures the argument, are valid parts of the picture we're trying to understand here (what the truth is). Those people needing counseling, man.... How the fuck can you be so affected by a one-sided account? Like obviously, if the point of the film is to make it seem as if a certain something has happened, there's all kinds of tools you could use to support that experience for the viewer. We KNOW that films and books do this all the time.
So how can you sit there and watch this one side of the story, which is made to be convincing based on decades and ceturies of studies and experimentation on what convinces people, and be so convinced that this horrible thing has happened that they need counseling afterwards? That's fucking weird to me. Those people are like PETA people. They're like, all the worst things you can imagine. WTF. They're the kinds of people that, if you were in a war with them, they'd take off and run when they got enough and leave you to die. Pussies, carebears, and heart-on-sleeve-wearing motherfuckers.
That said, I don't know. Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. So many plausible scenarios in both directions and none of us will truly ever know. Good music is good music, and since I have no way of ever knowing I don't reserve an opinion.
I certainly do. Where shall I start......
OK, let's start with the director, Dan Reed. He's most well known for a documentary called "The Paedophile Hunter". It's about a literal gang that pose as underage girls to trap paedophiles. The main issue with this is that they sometimes got it wrong, and the wrongfully accused people literally killed themselves. As far as I know, neither Reed or the gang were ever held to justice for this. So after this documentary was successful, of course, these general themes become his modus operandi. Regardless of truth. Reed wonders how he can boost his own career.
So #MeToo happens and the climate changes. Whilst it's undoubtedly created a better climate for actual victims to tell their story, it also provides the perfect environment for false accusations. Reed spots this, and spots the opportunity to make his name from the biggest false accusation of all time.
Here's some facts, that regardless of how anyone spins anything, remain true.
Michael Jackson was found innocent by a jury in a criminal trial. The jury all agreed that the "accusers" were lying, their stories were inconsistent, they lacked credibility, and what they were saying had no elements of truth to it. The corrupt District Attorney, who had vowed to take Michael down, went as far as planting false evidence at Neverland, and was caught red-handed doing so.
Michael Jackson was also investigated by the FBI for TEN YEARS. How much credible evidence did the FBI find in that timeframe? None. Zero. Zip, Zilch, Nada. Nothing.
Third point - defamation laws only apply to the living. Representatives of the deceased can not file defamation laws on behalf of the deceased, at least not in the UK where this "documentary" has been made. What this means is that if @Tha_Dilla dropped dead tomorrow, I'd be perfectly within my legal rights to make a documentary about how he touched kids, truth be damned.
Let's move on to the two "stars" of this documentary, Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck.
Wade, first of all, testified in the 2005 trial that Michael never did anything to him. He was a star witness, who was thoroughly cross examined, and credibly maintained that Michael never did anything to him. He had no reason to lie at this time. He was not under employ of Michael or involved in any business dealings with him, and in fact his own career at this time was doing OK, he'd done choreography work for the likes of Britney Spears.
Fast forward to after Michael dies. Wade has been offered a big directing gig to direct one of the "Step Up" movies and he blows it. Falls apart under the pressure and loses the gig. The work dries up. His career is gone. He hears about the Michael Jackson Cirque De Soleil show in Vegas and he begs to be involved. He literally petitions the Estate. He goes on TMZ acting as if he's got the gig. But he didn't have it. He was never offered it. They didn't consider him qualified enough for the job. In fact he was never even seriously considered.
Wade has a breakdown. He has a wife and a kid and no income. He could get a normal job, but why work when you can sue Michael Jackson? After all - people sued Michael in the past alleging things who never even met Michael, and their cases were heard. He comes up with a scheme, and he files a lawsuit saying that Michael abused him. What is he asking for in damages? $1.6 BILLION dollars.
Oh, one another thing. Before he filed the lawsuit, he wrote a book and hired an agent. Because, obviously, if you've been abused, the first thing you do is hire an agent. Duh. Shopped the book around - not one bite.
Wade's story is so full of inconsistencies that it just doesn't make any sense to anyone. At one point, he thinks he repressed the memories. At another point, he's always remembered but he never understood that it was wrong. What? You didn't know something was wrong when you testified at one of the biggest criminal trials OF ALL TIME?
The court asked for all relevant emails. Wade redacted all emails between him and his family under "attorney-client privilege"..... despite the fact that his family are not attorneys.
Predictably, his case was laughed out of court.
Now let's talk about Safechuck. He only files his lawsuit after he finds out about Wade's lawsuit, because free money for everyone who knew Michael Jackson! Zero evidence, again. Oh, and his story? It's almost word-for-word the plot of a fictional novel by a pro-pedophilia author named Victor Gutierrez, who wrote his fiction novel about Michael Jackson, was sued by Michael, lost, and then fled the country to avoid paying damages. Safechuck's case was also thrown out of court.
Both men used the same legal firm. The speciality of that legal firm? Public mud-slinging to try and get the accused to back down and pay out. Perhaps worth pointing out they've been trying to appeal their cases ever since they were originally thrown out.
This isn't a documentary, it's a fictional hit job to support a bullshit legal case.
A REAL documentary must endeavour to tell both sides of a story. That doesn't, however, fit their narrative, because there were plenty of other young people around at the times when both Wade and Jimmy were around, and they've all spoken out in support of Michael. These include Brett Barnes, Macaulay Culkin, Sean Lennon, Brandon Adams, Kelly Parker, Talun Zeitoun and many more.
Tellingly, this is what Brett Barnes tweeted when Wade first made his allegation.
"I wish people would realise, in your last moments on this earth, all the money in the world will be of no comfort. My clear conscience will."
and when the "documentary" premiered at Sundance last month:
"So people are getting their facts from a movie now? I wonder how they feel about the documentary showing the great alien invasion of ‘96. I think it was called Independence Day."
Also, worth mentioning this written by Roger Friedman from Showbiz411.
"Meanwhile, Robson has started a not for profit foundation and is soliciting donations. There can be no transparency, as he’s parked his 501 c3 very cleverly under something called the Hawaii Community Foundation. That way, Robson doesn’t have to file a form 990. We’ll never know if the makers of “Leaving Neverland” have donated money to it, for example. This was done on purpose. Leonardo DiCaprio does the same thing with his Foundation. It’s hidden."
How convenient.
OK, let's start with the director, Dan Reed. He's most well known for a documentary called "The Paedophile Hunter". It's about a literal gang that pose as underage girls to trap paedophiles. The main issue with this is that they sometimes got it wrong, and the wrongfully accused people literally killed themselves. As far as I know, neither Reed or the gang were ever held to justice for this. So after this documentary was successful, of course, these general themes become his modus operandi. Regardless of truth. Reed wonders how he can boost his own career.
So #MeToo happens and the climate changes. Whilst it's undoubtedly created a better climate for actual victims to tell their story, it also provides the perfect environment for false accusations. Reed spots this, and spots the opportunity to make his name from the biggest false accusation of all time.
Here's some facts, that regardless of how anyone spins anything, remain true.
Michael Jackson was found innocent by a jury in a criminal trial. The jury all agreed that the "accusers" were lying, their stories were inconsistent, they lacked credibility, and what they were saying had no elements of truth to it. The corrupt District Attorney, who had vowed to take Michael down, went as far as planting false evidence at Neverland, and was caught red-handed doing so.
Michael Jackson was also investigated by the FBI for TEN YEARS. How much credible evidence did the FBI find in that timeframe? None. Zero. Zip, Zilch, Nada. Nothing.
Third point - defamation laws only apply to the living. Representatives of the deceased can not file defamation laws on behalf of the deceased, at least not in the UK where this "documentary" has been made. What this means is that if @Tha_Dilla dropped dead tomorrow, I'd be perfectly within my legal rights to make a documentary about how he touched kids, truth be damned.
Let's move on to the two "stars" of this documentary, Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck.
Wade, first of all, testified in the 2005 trial that Michael never did anything to him. He was a star witness, who was thoroughly cross examined, and credibly maintained that Michael never did anything to him. He had no reason to lie at this time. He was not under employ of Michael or involved in any business dealings with him, and in fact his own career at this time was doing OK, he'd done choreography work for the likes of Britney Spears.
Fast forward to after Michael dies. Wade has been offered a big directing gig to direct one of the "Step Up" movies and he blows it. Falls apart under the pressure and loses the gig. The work dries up. His career is gone. He hears about the Michael Jackson Cirque De Soleil show in Vegas and he begs to be involved. He literally petitions the Estate. He goes on TMZ acting as if he's got the gig. But he didn't have it. He was never offered it. They didn't consider him qualified enough for the job. In fact he was never even seriously considered.
Wade has a breakdown. He has a wife and a kid and no income. He could get a normal job, but why work when you can sue Michael Jackson? After all - people sued Michael in the past alleging things who never even met Michael, and their cases were heard. He comes up with a scheme, and he files a lawsuit saying that Michael abused him. What is he asking for in damages? $1.6 BILLION dollars.
Oh, one another thing. Before he filed the lawsuit, he wrote a book and hired an agent. Because, obviously, if you've been abused, the first thing you do is hire an agent. Duh. Shopped the book around - not one bite.
Wade's story is so full of inconsistencies that it just doesn't make any sense to anyone. At one point, he thinks he repressed the memories. At another point, he's always remembered but he never understood that it was wrong. What? You didn't know something was wrong when you testified at one of the biggest criminal trials OF ALL TIME?
The court asked for all relevant emails. Wade redacted all emails between him and his family under "attorney-client privilege"..... despite the fact that his family are not attorneys.
Predictably, his case was laughed out of court.
Now let's talk about Safechuck. He only files his lawsuit after he finds out about Wade's lawsuit, because free money for everyone who knew Michael Jackson! Zero evidence, again. Oh, and his story? It's almost word-for-word the plot of a fictional novel by a pro-pedophilia author named Victor Gutierrez, who wrote his fiction novel about Michael Jackson, was sued by Michael, lost, and then fled the country to avoid paying damages. Safechuck's case was also thrown out of court.
Both men used the same legal firm. The speciality of that legal firm? Public mud-slinging to try and get the accused to back down and pay out. Perhaps worth pointing out they've been trying to appeal their cases ever since they were originally thrown out.
This isn't a documentary, it's a fictional hit job to support a bullshit legal case.
A REAL documentary must endeavour to tell both sides of a story. That doesn't, however, fit their narrative, because there were plenty of other young people around at the times when both Wade and Jimmy were around, and they've all spoken out in support of Michael. These include Brett Barnes, Macaulay Culkin, Sean Lennon, Brandon Adams, Kelly Parker, Talun Zeitoun and many more.
Tellingly, this is what Brett Barnes tweeted when Wade first made his allegation.
"I wish people would realise, in your last moments on this earth, all the money in the world will be of no comfort. My clear conscience will."
and when the "documentary" premiered at Sundance last month:
"So people are getting their facts from a movie now? I wonder how they feel about the documentary showing the great alien invasion of ‘96. I think it was called Independence Day."
Also, worth mentioning this written by Roger Friedman from Showbiz411.
"Meanwhile, Robson has started a not for profit foundation and is soliciting donations. There can be no transparency, as he’s parked his 501 c3 very cleverly under something called the Hawaii Community Foundation. That way, Robson doesn’t have to file a form 990. We’ll never know if the makers of “Leaving Neverland” have donated money to it, for example. This was done on purpose. Leonardo DiCaprio does the same thing with his Foundation. It’s hidden."
How convenient.
Last edited:
Here's that Oprah link: https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...jackson-documentary-oprah-20190301-story.html
I wrote this article. It went viral. Just got interviewed by The New York Times about it.
https://thevioletreality.com/leavin...llection_home---4------0---------------------
https://thevioletreality.com/leavin...llection_home---4------0---------------------
Yeah, that's how I see it too. R Kelly's was well known but despite charges being cleared against him a decade ago, he's in jail now. And everyone joked about his actions much like people joked about MJ's. I can't help but see a similar fate, in regards to MJ's name and reputation. And I'm pretty positive celebs know about this but are staying quiet about it. That's usually how it works when they stick together to protect each other.
OK, so your "belief" is better than a judge and jury who found him innocent, plus the FBI and several child safety organisations who investigated him for over 10 years and found nothing?
We don't deal with "beliefs" in our society - we deal with facts, evidence, proof.
Otherwise I am perfectly fine to say that I believe that you regularly engage in auto-erotic asphyxiation whilst watching My Little Pony. Do I have any proof? Nah, but I "believe" it.
You really should read what I wrote again.
By the way, in this joke of a film, they infer that another boy - Brett Barnes, who I mentioned above, "replaced" them. They're implying he was molested. One problem - it's not true, and now Barnes is suing the fuck out of HBO.
We don't deal with "beliefs" in our society - we deal with facts, evidence, proof.
Otherwise I am perfectly fine to say that I believe that you regularly engage in auto-erotic asphyxiation whilst watching My Little Pony. Do I have any proof? Nah, but I "believe" it.
You really should read what I wrote again.
By the way, in this joke of a film, they infer that another boy - Brett Barnes, who I mentioned above, "replaced" them. They're implying he was molested. One problem - it's not true, and now Barnes is suing the fuck out of HBO.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.