Yes...Killallposers is probably smarter than me.
Guest viewing is limited
- You have a limited number of page views remaining
- 0 guest views remaining
- Register now to remove this limitation
Leaving Neverland
- Thread starter llove
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hbo michael jackson pedophile
Yes...Killallposers is probably smarter than me.
or is it I?
:think:
see?
:think:
see?
I did. Cause of my very big brain. Believe me.
Looks like we have a TRIPLE DIGITER in the house
Im just breaking the tension with some bad jokes....will duck out and go back to silently reading
Of course I did, sillyass
Fillmore/Hydrox
Who me? I’m 6’10” pal!
After having watched the documentary, I think this is required reading for everybody thinking with their hearts and not their minds. It's possible MJ was a molester, but after seeing all the evidence, I don't believe either Safechuck or Robson.
I'm out. This is from Charles Thomson's FB page.
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.
This TV show covers up all of this information, instead presenting two men’s 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.
I'm out. This is from Charles Thomson's FB page.
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.
- 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.
- [Robson’s claim that he was abused in the recording studio while Jackson was working on his Dangerous album is completely refuted by Brad Sundberg who was present in the studio every single time Jackson was and witnessed absolutely no suspicious behaviour.] (Added by u/Catch-up)
- 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.
This TV show covers up all of this information, instead presenting two men’s 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.
Wow, that dude is obnoxiously annoying. No way I can get through that. Doubts always exist in anything which can't be proven. Does he offer anything solid?
Last edited:
After having watched the documentary, I think this is required reading for everybody thinking with their hearts and not their minds. It's possible MJ was a molester, but after seeing all the evidence, I don't believe either Safechuck or Robson.
I'm out. This is from Charles Thomson's FB page.
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- [Robson’s claim that he was abused in the recording studio while Jackson was working on his Dangerous album is completely refuted by Brad Sundberg who was present in the studio every single time Jackson was and witnessed absolutely no suspicious behaviour.] (Added by u/Catch-up)
- 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.
This TV show covers up all of this information, instead presenting two men’s 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.
That is some interesting stuff. However, how is this seeing evidence? It's just something someone wrote up and claims is accurate. Is it verifiable? It references public documents. Is there a link to them?
I was well aware of what I was watching when I watched it. It's a video of two men telling what they say happened to them. It's not a documentary covering the Jackson molestation topic as a whole. People crying that it didn't cover the other side or left out certain things are either being disingenuous or have a lack of understanding of what they were watching.
Btw, I agree with DinnerSocks on something. That anyone lying about being abused is a terrible person and hinders those who really were molested by Michael Jackson (allegedly) and Jerry Sandusky (not allegedly). Oh wait, do I have to still say allegedly if he paid a bunch of them off?
Fillmore/Hydrox
Who me? I’m 6’10” pal!
All the court transcripts should be available. And what you said is actually backwards--it was disingenuous for people to call it it a documentary when in fact it was just a hatchet job masquerading as one with the big HBO logo on top of it, as if to legitimize it. It's disingenous for a "filmmaker" to present one side as if it's the only one that matters, and if you want to draw attention to the righteousness of your cause.
I'm not saying MJ wasn't hugely fucked up as an individual, or that he might not have been inappropriate with kids, I'm simply saying I don't believe Robson and Safechuck after reading all the corresponding literature and holding it up to the LN episodes. This broadcast was chopped up and edited like a motherfucker; if the performances don't seem believeable, cut, roll tape, start again until they do.
It's closer to Inside Edition or some other clickbait bullshit.
Have you looked at the transcripts? Or are you just taking someone else's word they show what is claimed in that list?
It's called a documentary because that's the genre. It documents something. It's a non-fiction film. That's just what it is. I've never seen it claimed to be giving both sides or a look at the whole story. It was two guys telling their story. Were you confused as to that point? Because I found it obvious what this film was presenting.
Last edited:
It was two guys telling their story
But we can't know if it's truly non-fiction...you must admit if they changed their story, there could at least be a chance they're lying for an enormous amount of money.
It's just logic.
Fillmore/Hydrox
Who me? I’m 6’10” pal!
Look it up. A documentary is supposed to be based on factual evidence, not supposition.
I thought Michael Moore's "Roger and Me" was a documentary until I saw how much of his story he manipulated for the purposes of making his point. That and the inconsistencies in "Bowling For Columbine" forever cemented a lot of people's opinions that his word was never to be trusted, and in fact is the reason he now employs a fleet of fact-checkers for subsequent releases.
Fillmore/Hydrox
Who me? I’m 6’10” pal!
I'm going with Merriam Webster, but if you're happy using wikipedia, by all means go with your bad self.
It's in the non-fiction category. It's documenting them telling their story. It doesn't make judgement on the truthfulness of their story. And they could be lying but that's outside the scope of categorizing films.
That's kinda talking in circles.
How? It's a film category. How would you prepose they declare which films are of people telling the truth and which aren't? It's scripted vs not. That's all. It's a film documentation of them telling their story. Of course they could be lying. That's just how life works. I'm not sure what's confusing.
It gets really gross. I was watching it with a couple friends and there were a number of "Oooooooo!"s let out. Don't be a pussy, just watch it. It's not like there's a visual to it.
I have hope you aren't this stupid.
Let me rephrase.
Take these people out of it and just from a logical standpoint
It'd make sense and not exactly be unusual for people to have one story until enormous amounts of money can be attained.
On the OTHER SIDE. (Take notes of this part everyone) i can see how they were scared of mj when he was alive as id imagine mj would out laywer them
I will now since I've read 500 posts about it lol
That could have something to do with you jumping into a discussion where two people were arguing about film genre. Do you sit down in the pool and then complain you got wet?
