Michael Jackson - Leaving Neverland on HBO
- Thread starter james t kirk
- Start date
Yes, perjury is limited by the statute of Limitations. Under US federal law, it's 5 years.Perjury has a statue of limitation?
If he lied under oath is that not perjury? He would of been 22-23 in 2005 Why is he not going to jail himself?
Don't get me wrong, its convincing, I certainly do not think Jackson is innocent but how can an adult get away with such a thing (lying under Oath) , when I am sure it was clearly explained to him
That trial was 14 years ago so Robson is free and clear.
They repeatedly spoke in the present tense, every victim of abuse I have heard has always talked in the past test.So what did the two men say exactly that you didn't believe?
Yes, perjury is limited by the statute of Limitations. Under US federal law, it's 5 years.
I never knew Thanks
In the past I always thought Jackson did "innocent inappropriate things" all done because he really never had a childs childhood, but after the documentary I have changed my mind he was a manipulative mental predator that took advantage of people that Idolized him.
I never knew Thanks
In the past I always thought Jackson did "innocent inappropriate things" all done because he really never had a childs childhood, but after the documentary I have changed my mind he was a manipulative mental predator that took advantage of people that Idolized him.
uh, ok. I thought you were going to have a little more than that.They repeatedly spoke in the present tense, every victim of abuse I have heard has always talked in the past test.
I don't think I could watch that doc again to check your claim. But not sure how grammar factors into it.
Hook them up to a lie detector as far as it goes.
But I believe them and it doesn't look like either of them is going to be making any money from Jackson's estate.
How could you not believe them? It's like believing a cop's side of a story in a citizen killing, if you only hear the cop's side of the story parsed into a carefully crafted into documentary.But I believe them and it doesn't look like either of them is going to be making any money from Jackson's estate.
Did they get paid by HBO?
Wade set up a GoFundMe account after the release of the documentary: https://theblast.com/wade-robson-donation-page-switch-michael-jackson-leaving-neverland/
In response, others have created campaigns supporting MJ - "Facts don't lie, people do"
https://ca.gofundme.com/f/MJ-INNOCENT
I've not yet but it reminds me of those agenda driven Michael Moore documentaries of years ago. If you watch them, they're extremely convincing, but they're actually garbage when you look at all the facts.Have you watched the documentary?
People have no common sense and are blinded to reality.
The reality is Michael had a new "boy" friend every 6 months to a year which is well documented and each new "boy" friend slept with him. Are you fucking kidding me that you can't see through his stardom to the facts that he is a pedophile!
The two "boys" in the documentary were so young and had no concept of sex or love were awestruck by his stardom and fell easily as prey to his words and at the time had no idea they were being abused.
The doc is very difficult to watch and sickens you to the core! Both boys have difficult relationships with their mothers because they fell victim to his manipulations as well and did not protect them.
The reality is Michael had a new "boy" friend every 6 months to a year which is well documented and each new "boy" friend slept with him. Are you fucking kidding me that you can't see through his stardom to the facts that he is a pedophile!
The two "boys" in the documentary were so young and had no concept of sex or love were awestruck by his stardom and fell easily as prey to his words and at the time had no idea they were being abused.
The doc is very difficult to watch and sickens you to the core! Both boys have difficult relationships with their mothers because they fell victim to his manipulations as well and did not protect them.
39:12 my husband and I had to had said yes, you can sleep with Michael.uh, ok. I thought you were going to have a little more than that.
I don't think I could watch that doc again to check your claim. But not sure how grammar factors into it.
Hook them up to a lie detector as far as it goes.
But I believe them and it doesn't look like either of them is going to be making any money from Jackson's estate.
In Paris he introduced me to Masturbation and that's how it started.
Minute 41:02 he showed me something I was going to like. I remember I masturbated so much. Michael gave me a cup of warm water so I could pee.
(Remembers the cup but mentioned nothing about Michael telling him how to Masturbat. That be kind of a big thing, eg. Told me to use my hand move it back and forth etc. Etc.
43:25 That is something he tells you over and over again. (We move from past to present, why? Dude is been dead for how long now?
Like I said I know full well the power of the state, and I know how narcissistic cops are, and nothing would have made their career bigger than taking the biggest music star of all time for peadophilia.
Maybe you should watch it so you might learn a thing or two rather than just being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian.I've not yet but it reminds me of those agenda driven Michael Moore documentaries of years ago. If you watch them, they're extremely convincing, but they're actually garbage when you look at all the facts.
I'll watch it when I get a chance.Maybe you should watch it so you might learn a thing or two rather than just being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian.
Both of the accusers in the documentary are appealing their lawsuits. Interesting timing. But it's not at all about money, right? https://www.elle.com/culture/movies...accusers-wade-robson-james-safechuck-lawsuit/
"The men's individual lawsuits were dismissed in 2017, and they are both appealing."
If it happened to you when you were 7 years old wouldn't you sue?I'll watch it when I get a chance.
Both of the accusers in the documentary are appealing their lawsuits. Interesting timing. But it's not at all about money, right? https://www.elle.com/culture/movies...accusers-wade-robson-james-safechuck-lawsuit/
"The men's individual lawsuits were dismissed in 2017, and they are both appealing."
Charge Criminally first then sue, remember Ron Goldmans family they sued oj after.If it happened to you when you were 7 years old wouldn't you sue?
Ask yourself one question, why is there no time stamp on the statement they gave. Also it is very important to tell the full story in its true version before clarify ING facts.
Additionally the present tense happens when the person usually makes things up, it's happening now, and often being submitted for experience with other people.
So we'll put you squarely in the "Michael Jackson didn't do it category".Charge Criminally first then sue, remember Ron Goldmans family they sued oj after.
Ask yourself one question, why is there no time stamp on the statement they gave. Also it is very important to tell the full story in its true version before clarify ING facts.
Additionally the present tense happens when the person usually makes things up, it's happening now, and often being submitted for experience with other people.
And I assume that you would be completely comfortable letting your 7 year old son sleep in the same bed as Michael Jackson if he were still alive. After all, "present tense" clearly dictates that these 2 men are lying.
Michael Jackson never wrote social commentary songs like Stevie Wonder or Marvin Gaye. Besides that MJ was emotionally abused throughout his childhood, he never had one. His father wanted to get his family out of Gary Indiana regardless of cost, MJ was his meal ticket. I can't fault him for that, Gary is a God forsaken place. If he did not drive his family to succeed a few of his children would have been murdered before they reached 20.
I have no interest in watching it.
michael had amazing songs with great social commentary!
i watched half the doc last night and i still have half to go and i just read ALL y0ur comments and i'm going to watch the other half now and then i'll think about it some more.
that chris rock bit was soooo good!
that chris rock bit was soooo good!
So now the dilemma is, should Sirius/XM, radio stations, DJ's.....etc.. stop playing his music, or should his legacy and his music be left alone????
I watched the first half yesterday, and I'm not entirely sure what to make of it. This is a film (not a documentary which would mean it's impartial) featuring two guys claiming they were abused. If we were forced to take their claims at face value, we must conclude guilt, but there is no reason to take what they said at face value. I'll watch the second half this week but so far, this is the best take on the entire film I've heard:
Based on the above video, Wade can't be trusted no matter what he says.
Both men seem rehearsed, contrived, and unemotional. Their stories are a bit fantastic - experience sexual abuse while their parents are in a hotel room down the hall. This makes MJ seem both calculating yet immensely sloppy simultaneously. Any mention of indiscretions by either kid, even by mistake, and his tour would have been toast.
Near the end of the first half it does seem like the men and their families felt hurt and abandoned by MJ as they were replaced with new kids (Caulkin, Brett - both claim MJ was a good guy, with Brett apparently threatening to sue HBO) as props/gimmicks for his shows. They had grown to love MJ because he was like a child (one mother describes him as being another one of her sons) and he allowed them to experience the high life on his dime.
I'm still agnostic about his innocence or guilt but a movie like this is unlikely to sway rational minds. Why have a judicial system at all if people can come back, without evidence, only their words, and make claims against you, especially if you're not around to debunk them.
Based on the above video, Wade can't be trusted no matter what he says.
Both men seem rehearsed, contrived, and unemotional. Their stories are a bit fantastic - experience sexual abuse while their parents are in a hotel room down the hall. This makes MJ seem both calculating yet immensely sloppy simultaneously. Any mention of indiscretions by either kid, even by mistake, and his tour would have been toast.
Near the end of the first half it does seem like the men and their families felt hurt and abandoned by MJ as they were replaced with new kids (Caulkin, Brett - both claim MJ was a good guy, with Brett apparently threatening to sue HBO) as props/gimmicks for his shows. They had grown to love MJ because he was like a child (one mother describes him as being another one of her sons) and he allowed them to experience the high life on his dime.
I'm still agnostic about his innocence or guilt but a movie like this is unlikely to sway rational minds. Why have a judicial system at all if people can come back, without evidence, only their words, and make claims against you, especially if you're not around to debunk them.
It may be wise to not play the music with this movie recently released. It may not be worth potential backlash. But it'll be yesterday's news before long and the songs will play on. Much to the chagrin of some, the movie may actually increase album sales as bad publicity often has such an effect.So now the dilemma is, should Sirius/XM, radio stations, DJ's.....etc.. stop playing his music, or should his legacy and his music be left alone????
As for social commentary I think 'Black and white', and 'Man in the mirror' are examples of popular MJ songs that fit the bill .
The FBI likely went thru this already, but I'll ask here. Based on the claims of oral sex, did the FBI ever have the kids draw MJ's penis? They either didn't or they did and the drawings were dissimilar. Apparently MJ's penis was rather unique with various blotches. If he was constantly beating off and having these kids turned teenagers give him oral, it's not a stretch to think they could describe its physicality and whether it was cut or uncut. I've watched enough porn where I can tell who a male porn star is in a scene based on just his penis. If these kids couldn't identify or draw the penis, the obvious reason would be because they never saw it.
Again, I suspect this and much more was done during the intense investigations and this movie is treading exonerated ground
Maybe there are more substantive claims in the second half of the film. Will check it.
Again, I suspect this and much more was done during the intense investigations and this movie is treading exonerated ground
Maybe there are more substantive claims in the second half of the film. Will check it.
