Micky Jackson in trouble again

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

Can you give me an example of a two sided documentary?

Off the top of my head and one I watched recently.

The Vietnam War

Epic watch if you the time to invest.

Far better than watching 4 hours of fiction.

Its a very difficult thing to prove. Paying off families with 20m quid is a bit of a giveaway though.

Boggles wrote: »

Off the top of my head and one I watched recently.

The Vietnam War

Epic watch if you the time to invest.

Far better than watching 4 hours of fiction.

I watched that, it was brilliant alright.

The point i'm trying to make is that most documentaries are told from the perspective of an individual or a collective experience. Not including the opposing viewpoint does not invalidate the subject.

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

I watched that, it was brilliant alright.

The point i'm trying to make is that most documentaries are told from the perspective of an individual or a collective experience. Not including the opposing viewpoint does not invalidate the subject.

Thats true, but it offers more credibility to the story. Every documentary Ive seen about Ted Bundy includes Ann Rule, who worked with him. Jeff Dahmers documentaries always have his father included. Gacy's sister is always in documentaries. Abducted in plain sight had the brother. Regardless of whether they defend the subject or not, they are included to offer a different perspective to further strengthen the story. By leaving out any opposing view in this case shows up the directors goal. Including family members/workers could very well have given the doc the credibility many are saying its lacking, whether you believe them or not.

Boggles wrote: »

Off the top of my head and one I watched recently.

The Vietnam War

Epic watch if you the time to invest.

Far better than watching 4 hours of fiction.

What documentary did you watch, or what facts have you read that lead you to your conclusion that OJ did not murder Nicole?

Boggles wrote: »

Absolutely and Safechuck had that eureka moment when he saw Wade on telly suing for 100s millions and he wanted in on the action.

It's just cracking luck their journeys knitted together so perfectly.

And with the same law firm.

How would a “two sided” documentary be relevant in this case? There are two parties to what went in on his bedroom behind closed doors, a dead man and these men. What would a line of Jackson foundation people saying Jackson was a great guy really add? No - one is challenging the facts to which input can be provided by others: the time spent alone with young boys, the nature of the obsessional relationships, etc. Indeed the mothers verified all of that in the documentary anyway.

What balance do you seek?

gimli2112 wrote: »

I remember the original trial, people outside the courthouse releasing doves upon the acquittal. I remember feeling uncomfortable watching it and that he may have gotten away with something.


There is a presumption of innocence and they obviously didn't prove anything conclusively in court but there's certainly enough here to make anyone feel uneasy.

About the 2005 trial and the subsequent verdicts.

Michael Jackson was subjected to a decade-long investigation by an overly-zealous, ethically-challenged, and ultimately disgraced prosecutor in Santa Barbara County, Tom Sneddon, who looked anywhere and everywhere for supposed “victims” of Jackson’s. Yet, he never found those “victims.” Indeed, the 2005 criminal trial of Jackson was a complete farce, and Michael Jackson was completely exonerated. As anyone who has studied that trial knows, the jury utterly repudiated the prosecution’s case. In both his opening and closing statements, Jackson’s attorney, Tom Mesereau, took the unusual step of telling the jury that they should acquit Jackson because Mesereau and his team had proven Jackson innocent. In other words, he did not try the case as a “reasonable doubt” case. Mr. Mesereau tried the case with the purpose and goal of proving Jackson innocent. And he did exactly that. As recently as 2017, several jurors were re-interviewed about the case in light of Robson’s about-face, and they all agreed that they would still acquit Jackson today. The jurors have been interviewd many times; they are articulate bright people, not the gullible idiots that Dan Reed tries to paint them as in his “documentary.” Yet HBO is relying on the uncorroborated stories of two admitted perjurers over the weight of the American justice system.

https://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress.com/2019/02/09/michael-jackson-estate-letter-of-facts-debunking-leaving-neverland/

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

That if one of the accusers makes a false claim or tells a lie its immediately called to account by another person. That's generally how good documentaries work. One side says something and the other side often says "that's completely false and here's why".

Because nobody has the authority to state “that’s completely false and here’s why”. The only person who could possibly counter the allegations is deceased. I have no problem with the victims being given a platform to speak out. There’s nothing stopping another filmmaker from making a documentary to the contrary. I wonder would the defenders here be so quick to call that “one sided”, however.

at least they showed the kids now despised the mothers after what happened.


It's weird that they consented to being in it



Anybody who thinks that having kids sleep in with a weirdo is a grand idea needs to do some time in the big house to honest.


And anybody who doesn't think that they are lying needs a head check


The pay off, like with Ronnie Ronaldo is the smoking gun



Not the greatest ever documentary I've got to say, no reason to make it a two-parter, or even extend it beyond an hour

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

That if one of the accusers makes a false claim or tells a lie its immediately called to account by another person. That's generally how good documentaries work. One side says something and the other side often says "that's completely false and here's why".

‘Michael would never have hurt a little kid, he was a kid himself in his mind’. Or chipping away at their credibility by focusing on minute details wrong in their recollections?

How do you want their essential truth about how Michael Jackson repeatedly abused them in his bedroom to be challenged?

Think about it.

What victims of child sexual abuse actually get the chance to testify, take a stand, speak under oath, to get it all officially and legally recorded against their abuser? To have the chance to corroborate a co-accuser, to get closure, to get justice and have them jailed?

That's the smoking gun for me against Robson and Safechuck. They had that chance, they both had an open goal to finally bury Jackson and they both foundered. One choosing not to, the other exonerating Jackson. And they only realized the scale of the abuse they'd been subjected to after they had children? I don't believe that, it's emotional manipulative bull**** for me.

I've only watched part one so far and they both appear incredibly disingenuous. To read the background about their civil suits against the estate has validated that for me.

retro:electro wrote: »

What documentary did you watch, or what facts have you read that lead you to your conclusion that OJ did not murder Nicole?

I haven't watched anything on OJ in years. So maybe new evidence has come to light

But I had an interest in the trial as did most of the world, as far as I can remember I think it was the BBC who made a documentary a few years after and they were the first to highlight that his son was a very credible suspect and that was never followed up on, the reason given is the prosecution had all ready blown it's wad on OJ and there was no backing down.

His son apparently had a rage problem and a history of extreme violence, drug problem and wasn't too keen on his step mother. He was also a chef.

A credible theory posed at the time, was that the slowest car chases in the history of car chases with the Ford Bronco was not in fact to get away from the police but to lead them away from his son.

Again it's a very long time since I researched the subject but I remember thinking at the time backed with discussion that son was a very credible suspect.