Leaving Neverland - Michael Jackson Documentary [HBO]

spodoinkle wrote: »

Ray Darcy also said he wont play his music again.

I remember him saying that. It was a number of weeks ago. Ray Darcy is a pr1ck. He said that right after Liveline had finished, where another pr1ck had been on Liveline and went largely unchecked by Joe, spouting allegations as fact, hadn't seen the show, sure nobody had outside of Sundance. He compared Jackson to Hitler, talked about Jimmy Saville and other proven scumbags. No balance, nobody to challenge his opinion. These are allegations that stink rotten of bull$h1t.

Found it. Here's the show, from the 31st January. The 31st January ffs! He starts his BS around 40:45.

https://cdn.rasset.ie/manifest/audio/2019/0131/20190131_rteradio1-liveline-liveline_cl10992706_10995105_261_/manifest.m3u8

Ray the g0b$h1t€ then comes on at 3, immediately after the news and says after listening to the pr1ck on Liveline that he wouldn't be playing Michael Jackson music in future.

Judge, jury and executioner, a fine example of how the media just jump on the bandwagon without seeing the documentary or doing any research that debunks these 2 proven liars.

Well Ray, I haven't listened to your show since and I won't be again.

It's fashionable these days to accuse people of sexual assault, a lot of bitter women and men are making claims these days as an act of revenge. People who accuse people of rape so on should be prosecuted if those claims are made up.
Wade Robson is not creditable at all, he's a proven liar either way you look at it.

valoren wrote: »

The more scrutinized and investigated the claims against Jackson are is inversely proportional to how exonerated and vindicated Jackson becomes. This was a high profile celebrity with a level of fame that rendered him incapable of going out in public without an entourage, a man who was powerful enough to do whatever he wanted and have it enabled and indulged, a weird man who had a pet monkey and a naive man who had sleepovers with boys. Plaintiffs and prosecutors tried to convict him twice and nothing criminal could be found. Yes, he may well have have a predilection for prepubescent boys, he may well have been a pedophile but only he knows that and he is dead.

The bigger questions go down the rabbit hole of thought crime. Is it a crime for a pedophile to be sexually attracted to children? It isn't. Is it a crime to act on those sexual urges? Of course yet Jackson, who very well may have been a pedo, was never charged with any criminal offence. He got justice. Is it weird and highly inappropriate for a grown man to have sleepovers with boys. Of course it is, any rational person can see that.

The whole notion of Jackson's sexuality is subjective and considering he is dead, irrelevant but Robson, under oath, testified that nothing sexual and thus criminal happened between them. He, for me, has no credibility now, ten years after Jackson's death, to say that there was sexual abuse because when he was personally under the gun he foundered and confidently vindicated Jackson. To me that speaks volumes. Had he a thirst for fame, he'd have been the smoking gun, the victim who took down Jackson, who was the big game for rapacious prosecutors who scrambled and failed to find anything incriminating. Robson would have made a fortune from selling his story, book deals, TV appearances, a movie of the week etc. He would be a household name. Anyone accepting his changed tack as proof of Jackson being a pedo is very gullible.

What's more likely? That a man who as you say may have had a predilection for prepubescent boys - and who we know by his own admission found it 'beautiful' to share a bed with them - absolutely did not engage in anything sexual with them, despite many who were close to him alleging he did, or...

a person who has been abused in their youth being unable to bring themselves to admit it out of guilt, shame, denial etc. at the time and then later in their lives developing the courage to do so?

Or are people convincing themselves that it is impossible for someone to be abused and then deny it in the aftermath? Despite the thousands of cases that happen in this country alone where this happens?

Let's be honest, to believe in Jackson's innocence one must ignore numerous red flags that ought to alarm any right-thinking member of society. It is to switch off one's common sense and to drown out cries of rape under the din of his classic tunes.

This Comment From One Of Michael Jackson’s Accusers Has Black Folks Ringing The Alarm

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.bet.com/music/2019/03/04/wade-robson-brillo-pad-reactions.amp.html

Debunking Leaving Neverland 'Lie By Lie' ~ Lie #1: "It's Not About Money"

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Koc1dcRBIUc

Debunking Leaving Neverland 'Lie By Lie' ~ Lie #2: "Not a night went by..."

https://youtube.com/watch?v=8qvnzlvDuSY

Debunking Leaving Neverland 'Lie By Lie' ~ Lie #3: "Safechuck was begged to testify..."

https://youtube.com/watch?v=0xD_jfJr13E

Leaving Neverland 'Why Would They Lie?' - The Jussie Smollet Hoax

https://youtube.com/watch?v=LJXej9tN5oE

Even after a near 2 decade investigation, even the FBI found nothing after looking into the allegations of child molestation against Jackson.

Like his nephew Taj said on the breakfast club power 105.1 on February 28th

When your name is Michael Jackson, you’re just a target

And really he's not wrong, even after nearly a decade since Jackson's passing. His name keeps getting dragged through the mud.

We’ll never know the truth here, so each must make their own mind up. I know what I think.

Lithium93_ wrote: »

Even after a near 2 decade investigation, even the FBI found nothing after looking into the allegations of child molestation against Jackson.

Like his nephew Taj said on the breakfast club power 105.1 on February 28th And really he's not wrong, even after nearly a decade since Jackson's passing. His name keeps getting dragged through the mud.

I recall Jimmy Savile's nephew being interviewed by ITN years ago ahead of the documentary on Savile that was about to be released. Here's the clip:



Some quotes:

"It just to me seems a terribly one-sided programme."

"How can anyone defend themselves if they're not here to do that?"

"If there was any truth in them at all, why didn't they come out years ago when it first happened?"

"All I'm concerned about now is the fact that they really are sort of coming out of the woodwork now when he's not here to answer it."

"He was investigated by the police in Surrey who did a thorough investigation and found there was no evidence, no case to answer, and it was dropped."

"People who I know have read a little about this say 'what a stupid thing to be coming out with'. They don't believe it for a minute.

Remind anyone of similar arguments?

(In fairness to Savile's nephew this was around when the accounts were just being taken seriously so perhaps his views have since evolved in light of subsequent information.)

"It's entirely what we expected," says the documentary's director, Dan Reed. "The go-to strategy is to try to denigrate children who've been sexually abused by Michael Jackson, to shame them into silence, to accuse them of greed, and not to even entertain the possibility that they might be telling the truth."

They are not children, they are adults. It's this sort of exploitative language and careful choice of words which annoys me and questions the true motive of this documentary. The manipulative bent being they are children, how could you be so cruel as not to believe a child, who was abused? Robson testified under oath that he was never sexually abused. That's on record. He chose to do that as an adult who should have had a conscience and was subjected to a grilling cross examination by the prosecution team. An allusion was made to Jimmy Saville above. It's important to note that he was never subjected to any prosecution cases. A police investigation which turned up empty handed is not a criminal trial. Jackson experienced it twice. And he was exonerated despite a concerted effort to convict him. Robson was a key witness in that process.

Yet, because he was a weird man and more pertinently a weird wealthy man his eccentric persona and warped personality is easily manipulated to make him out to be a sexual predator. Just because someone looks like a sexual predator does not make them one. Think of another household name, Bill Cosby who actually was a wolf in sheep's clothing. America's Dad. Despite his public persona he got charged and got locked up. So maybe Jackson, who can easily be looked on as 'hiding in plain sight' was actually innocent of sexual abuse? Is it any stretch of the imagination to believe that his accusers are lying?

The only thing that may be a possibility is that Robson had stockholm syndrome and now with his abuser dead, he and Safechuck are free to divulge their story. The issue here for me is considering Jackson was acquitted then didn't Robson perjure himself during the 2005 trial? Didn't his testimony assist in exonerating his sexual abuser? Is there a statute of limitations in the US after a trial and now that this period passed he is free from potential prosecution for perjury?

valoren wrote: »

Is there a statute of limitations in the US after a trial and now that this period passed he is free from potential prosecution for perjury?

There is, it's 7 years, which Wade Robson conveniently waited for to expire before trying to sue the Jackson estate for $1.5 billion(remember it's not about money). The judge dismissed his case saying that Wade Robson had lied in his witness statement to such an extent that 'no rational fact-finder' could believe his account.

sligeach wrote: »

Not reading all your tripe. Just caught the word "evidence" in the last paragraph. There is ZERO evidence.

Of sleeping with children away from their parents? I thought he admitted that.

sligeach wrote: »

Not reading all your tripe. Just caught the word "evidence" in the last paragraph. There is ZERO evidence.

Is this the only ever sexual assault case you’ve followed? Or do you just think “ZERO evidence” is a fun thing to shout to make you right?

Beyond an invasive inspection the morning after any assault, visible marks or witnesses (something the assailant can often control), there is generally ZERO evidence in these cases. It’s one person’s word against another and difficult to prosecute. That’s why so many accused get away with it and why so many accusers don’t come forward. However if multiple different people make the same claims over the course of years, we’ve learned especially recently that there’s often something substantial to those claims.

Also, Jackson is not the only rich person in America. His enormous wealth also enables him to hire expensive legal teams who can comprehensively fight difficult to prove accusations (yet said legal teams have opted to settle instead of fight the case on multiple occasions despite this degree of difficulty). He has been difficult to prosecute or fully tarnish. People who have attempted to prove wrongdoing have been unsuccessful. Yet why is it ALWAYS him who gets accused? If there’s such an epidemic in America of celebrities getting falsely accused and having to pay out, who else is getting affected by this or is it just Jackson?

I heard an ad about 5 or 10 minutes ago during the break on Liveline that Ray Darcy will be interviewing Dan Reed, the director of the farce mockumentary on today's show. What a c*** he is. I told you before that Ray made up his mind on the 31st January that following the g0b$h1t€ spouting lies on Liveline that there and then wouldn't be playing Michael Jackson songs ever again.

I shouldn't be surprised, he's a w@nk€r that talks about common garbage. Look at his guests on radio and TV, most are gutter vermin and Z list celebrities.

Just finished both parts. Its way too long, needlessly. Reed is some man for Drone shots. I think a 2 hour show would have been more effective.

Journalists had literally covered every aspect of this the last few weeks so no suprises whatseoever. It does cover why they lied previously to authorities but does not mention the changes in stories since 2012, the looking for the book deal before filing a claim, filing the first claim. If they were to clear up the above, I think it would really seal the deal.

I wasnt convinced. Seems very divided, but I suppose it was always going to be. I think the graphic detail was a bit overkill, dont think it needed to go on as long. Really felt for the Robsons about the family splitting up, that whole part. The whole thing was mad.