I did link the YouTube video...
Leaving Neverland - heehee
- Iniciador del tema samuraicrack
- Fecha de inicio
-
🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Registrado
- 2 de Oct, 2017
Do we have reports of any other adult celebrity hanging with kids? Ever? In any case or context; fucking in the history of the world?
How can you even defend MJ based on that fact alone? That a childish man who hung around kids, as the only character to ever having done this, wouldn't fiddle their trunks?
How can you even defend MJ based on that fact alone? That a childish man who hung around kids, as the only character to ever having done this, wouldn't fiddle their trunks?
- Registrado
- 4 de Ago, 2018
Piers Morgan is trash and no one should take the diarrhea that comes out of his mouth seriously
- Registrado
- 24 de Oct, 2017
So from what I was reading, the Police had watched Neverland Ranch for 10 years, the FBI had a 300 page report on him, the police did 2 raids. MJ was acquitted of all charges, the jury was interviewed years later after the men in Leaving Neverland made their case to a judge(which was thrown out). And they said even in light of that, they'd still vote not guilty.
Anyone who says they think MJ is guilty after a decade of investigations from multiple agencies and 2 raids, and an 18 month trial, after a few internet searches on MJ blog and watching a documentary. Is either incredibly gullible, or so arrogant they believe they can do better than a team of prosecutors, the FBI, and the police, over a decade, all by themselves.
Anyone who says they think MJ is guilty after a decade of investigations from multiple agencies and 2 raids, and an 18 month trial, after a few internet searches on MJ blog and watching a documentary. Is either incredibly gullible, or so arrogant they believe they can do better than a team of prosecutors, the FBI, and the police, over a decade, all by themselves.
- Registrado
- 13 de Dic, 2016
I watched Razor's rebuttal out of sheer curiosity, and he brought up the Hawaii tape, the one where Michael Jackson said that his favorite thing about Hawaii was "you." Razor pulled up a transcript of the whole tape, since it was used in Safechuck's case against the estate in 2013, and showed that Michael didn't just say "you."; specifically he said it was spending time with Jimmy and Jimmy's family. In context, the tape was of a mock interview MJ made for Safechuck.
I don't necessarily think this is proof that Michael wasn't being inappropriate towards Safechuck or anything, especially since in the document Razor pulls up, you can plainly see that Michael lists his favorite things as "writing songs, performing, and being with Jimmy." At the same time, they did doctor the tape to deliberately make Michael say something incriminating, which I'm always wary about.
- Registrado
- 3 de Ene, 2017
Well there was Jimmy Savile.
Less sarcastically, there was Fred Rogers, but I'm pretty sure he didn't have a copy of Boys Will Be Boys.
- Registrado
- 13 de Jun, 2016
I didn't watch the UK version, I don't know who this YT is or why I should take his word for it. Even if they did cut out 15 seconds of certain statements doesn't that mean they are trying to be as accurate as possible?
What's more interesting to me is why the fuck this dude is devoting so much time to defending Jackson. Do you really think this dude carefully combed through every second of both documentaries to find an edit within 24 hours of it airing in the UK? Do you maybe think he's being paid to put out these videos? I mean this dude claims to be a heavy metal fan/ hatebit dude why the fuck is he doing FOUR videos defending a gay pedo pop star from the 1980's that wanted to "heal the world with love"??? Huh?
Jimmy Savile and Catholic Priests.
Crazy, ain't it? But remember much of the defense you are seeing online is paid work. Most of the accounts you will see defend Jackson online and on SM usually have histories of commenting on Sony media subs, if there is much of a comment history. There's also some sweet money for any YT'ers who want to get into the Jackson is innocent industry.
I'm an American and I've literally never met anyone IRL who thought Jackson was innocent. For twenty years it was given for the majority of the American public. The only thing you heard about Jackson from 1994 until his death was pedo jokes and what totally weird shit he was currently up too. (Creating three IVF babies with other people's sperm and eggs.)
But now with the magic of the online world and SM companies can pay to give the illusion of there being lots of people who think MJ is innocent.
and Fred Rogers didn't have boys in his bed or regularly sleep overs, vacations and trips with little boys. Rogers is actually a real life example of what Jackson tried to pretend to be - someone who cared about kids. (Rogers didn't need to spend endless nights alone with boys in his bedroom and he interacted with kids of ALL ages and genders - not just boys ages 7 to 12 - because unlike Jackson he wasn't fucking kids whenever possible.)
- Registrado
- 24 de Oct, 2017
What you mean this book? Listed under Christian titles?
Wait.... it says at the bottom ANYONE WHO HAS EVER LOVED LITTLE BOYS IT'S THE SMOKING GUN! WE GOT HIM.
- Registrado
- 3 de Ene, 2017
That's cute. You're aware it's full of naked pictures of prepubescent boys and was authored by a NAMBLA contributor, right?
EDIT: Also, you have the wrong one.
Boys Will Be Boys!: Georges St. Martin, Ronald C. Nelson: Amazon.com: Books
Boys Will Be Boys! [Georges St. Martin, Ronald C. Nelson] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Boys Will Be Boys!
www.amazon.com
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 12 de Jul, 2018
Forgive em, they probably aren't going to watch it. Funny how the some will watch a 4 hour documentary in it's entirety, but not a video that points out the inaccuracies within it that's about 30 minutes.
Michael Jackson Rebuttal (Part 3): Skeeving Slumberland
If drone photography and awkward pauses were evidence, this film would be the Batcomputer. Part 1: https://youtu.be/6pnoQqlygQs Part 2: https://youtu.be/9yTT...
youtu.be
Because it calls into question the validity of documentary? When they silently remove contradicting evidence that is extremely dodgy and should raise red flags.
Oh fuck off. Are you really suggesting the guy is a shill? Why is this your go-to argument for everyone that disagrees with you?
You ask "why should I take this guys word for it?" but are happy to take Wade and James at face value? It sounds like to me you already made up your mind a long time ago and are working backwards to prove your conclusions.
As much as you don't want to admit it, this isn't an open and shut case. It's not black or white (ignore the pun), but very very grey.
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 24 de Oct, 2017
Well I'm sure that was brought up by the prosecution at trial wasn't it? Why are we going over evidence thats been gone over in a court of law?
A Judge and Jury would look at that and go, "and?" It's grasping. And the book is still being sold right now.
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 11 de Mar, 2019
I understand the discomfort. It was used to dismiss the very idea of healthy homosexual relationships for a hideous duration. But there are heterosexual pedophiles (Jeffrey Epstein, Woody Allen, most likely Alan Dershowitz and Donald "I've known Jeff 'Terrific Guy' Epstein for fifteen years!" Trump) and homosexual pedophiles (Kevin Spacey, Jerry Sandusky, most likely L. Ron Hubbard). Few of 'em are exclusive pedophiles (Spacey'd hit on anything with a dick), and many were themselves victims of rape and molestation as children (Spacey was assuredly raped by his father, and Hubbard by Snake Thompson).
For a long time, statutory rape wasn't taken seriously when done by celebrities: nobody checked IDs 'til the '80s at the earliest, and many apostles of the free love movement were far more interested in themselves than the betterment of the community.
But even by the lower standards of the time, Jacko was extremely predatory: he pestered a thirteen-year-old Brit for phone sex, and stopped talking to the kid once he hit puberty; he traveled everywhere with Emmanuel Lewis for a decade because Webster's disorder made him his ideal lover, and still dumped him when he started looking too old; the only "special friend" he hung out with beyond teenage years to my knowledge is Omer Bhatti, and that's probably 'cause Bhatti's the most credible candidate for being Blanket's biological father.
These are all matters of public record. Among celebrity crimes, only OJ Simpson had more damning evidence.
You're basically a creatard: bringing up minor inconveniences; ignoring overwhelming evidence.
And unlike @Saffronette, you joined two weeks ago. The best case scenario involves you being a stan. It's not beyond the realm of possibility you're a PR hack for the most enthusiastic pedophile who ever lived.
Just to mind: R. Kelly, Dan Schneider, and Lou Pearlman.
Though to be fair, all three men were mostly interested mostly in older jailbait than Jacko.
To be honest, he's probably an agent of influence for the Jackson Estate. There's no way he's doing this out of love for Jacko.
Thanks for the laugh, I almost spat out my drink when I read this. You do realize you signed up today, yes? Who are you to point out my join date? lol
For the record (not that you will believe me) but I couldn't care less about Jackson. I can probably count the amount of songs I like from him on three fingers. I just don't like jumping to autistic conclusions.
- Registrado
- 12 de Jul, 2018
I don't really have much of an opinion on him, but all he's doing is asking Reed simple questions. Reed shouldn't have to deflect them if the he's saying that we should believe everything that Wade and Safechuck say at face value.
- Registrado
- 24 de Oct, 2017
Forgive em, they probably aren't going to watch it. Funny how the some will watch a 4 hour documentary in it's entirety, but not a video that points out the inaccuracies within it that's about 30 minutes.
It's at 29:48Michael Jackson Rebuttal (Part 3): Skeeving Slumberland
If drone photography and awkward pauses were evidence, this film would be the Batcomputer. Part 1: https://youtu.be/6pnoQqlygQs Part 2: https://youtu.be/9yTT...
They've already decided. If the accusers recant, they were paid off. If the documentary is found to be fraudulent, then the Jackson Estate falsified evidence. Literally, there isn't a single shred of evidence you could produce that could convince them otherwise.
God himself could drop from the sky and tell them Jackson was not a pedo and they wouldn't believe him.
- Registrado
- 11 de Mar, 2019
On a slight tangent, Mrs. Donald Trump, Sr. I weighed in on the Jacko issue in the distant year of 2017, and what she admitted of her own free will was so damning, I doubt it'll ever get brought up again.
I wonder if Donny June and Eric'll step in to defend their very special friend. Surely they'd care about accusations such as these.
I wonder if Donny June and Eric'll step in to defend their very special friend. Surely they'd care about accusations such as these.
- Registrado
- 5 de Abr, 2015
There is a difficulty in prosecuting sexual abuse cases - especially historical child sexual abuse cases - that is neatly illustrated here, whether or not you believe the allegations against MJ in particular.
An old boss of mine once told me, "There are only difficult victims," in this context, and he was right.
Victims of sexual violence - especially victims who have taken a long time to come forward - have always done, or been, something that can be used to discredit them. (If you are familiar with the 'rape myths' discourse, you will know many of these already). It is ALWAYS possible to interpret the actions and testimony of ANY victim in such a way as to make at least a fair attempt at discrediting them. (I do mean any victims. I have an unpleasant story involving a 13 year old girl snatched into a bush by a 17 year old stranger whose nose she broke getting away from him, and the willingness of the police to believe that 13 year old girls out of the blue are choosing to have 'rough sex' in the train station bushes at 4pm on a Saturday afternoon with total strangers.)
The "bad victims mean no proceedings" rule of thumb is extensively and horrendously outlined in the Jay Report into the child grooming gangs in Rotherham. The police and CPS decision not to prosecute for years is outlined as not being due to "fears of seeming islamophobic" (although that is what the alternative media claimed the report says) but due to the perceived unreliability and lack of credibility of the victims. The victims had refused to cooperate, had recruited other victims, had repeatedly given exonerating statements about the abusers, had substance abuse problems, had extensive criminal records, had learning disabilities, and had continued apparently consensual relationships with the abusers into adulthood.
And this was all deliberate. The most vulnerable are chosen by abusers to be victimised, because the most vulnerable are also the easiest to discredit and the least likely to be believed. They are the most difficult victims. They are the least likely to ever have their accusations come to trial, or even to be very fully investigated.
The MJ accusers are horrifically difficult victims. Robson is the most egregious example. Robson states he has repeatedly perjured himself, including in adulthood, regarding MJ's conduct towards him. Robson has actively in the past discredited other accusers. Some accusers have not come forward in MJ's lifetime. Others (Jordy Chandler) have accepted enormous sums of money in settlement of accusations.
They are all difficult victims, and no, they are not, in the main, accusers I would like to build a case around.
But.
Difficult victims are not always liars, by any means. The fact that a prosecutor's professional judgement is that a jury would not, because of your past actions or present circumstances, find your testimony credible and reliable beyond reasonable doubt, is not, and never has been the same as "tl;dr u r a liar"
Bad things happen to bad and broken people too.
It's just something to keep in mind when you're forming your own judgements in such trials-by-media. Take your eyes off assessing the credibility of the victim just long enough to assess the credibility of the accused, too.
An old boss of mine once told me, "There are only difficult victims," in this context, and he was right.
Victims of sexual violence - especially victims who have taken a long time to come forward - have always done, or been, something that can be used to discredit them. (If you are familiar with the 'rape myths' discourse, you will know many of these already). It is ALWAYS possible to interpret the actions and testimony of ANY victim in such a way as to make at least a fair attempt at discrediting them. (I do mean any victims. I have an unpleasant story involving a 13 year old girl snatched into a bush by a 17 year old stranger whose nose she broke getting away from him, and the willingness of the police to believe that 13 year old girls out of the blue are choosing to have 'rough sex' in the train station bushes at 4pm on a Saturday afternoon with total strangers.)
The "bad victims mean no proceedings" rule of thumb is extensively and horrendously outlined in the Jay Report into the child grooming gangs in Rotherham. The police and CPS decision not to prosecute for years is outlined as not being due to "fears of seeming islamophobic" (although that is what the alternative media claimed the report says) but due to the perceived unreliability and lack of credibility of the victims. The victims had refused to cooperate, had recruited other victims, had repeatedly given exonerating statements about the abusers, had substance abuse problems, had extensive criminal records, had learning disabilities, and had continued apparently consensual relationships with the abusers into adulthood.
And this was all deliberate. The most vulnerable are chosen by abusers to be victimised, because the most vulnerable are also the easiest to discredit and the least likely to be believed. They are the most difficult victims. They are the least likely to ever have their accusations come to trial, or even to be very fully investigated.
The MJ accusers are horrifically difficult victims. Robson is the most egregious example. Robson states he has repeatedly perjured himself, including in adulthood, regarding MJ's conduct towards him. Robson has actively in the past discredited other accusers. Some accusers have not come forward in MJ's lifetime. Others (Jordy Chandler) have accepted enormous sums of money in settlement of accusations.
They are all difficult victims, and no, they are not, in the main, accusers I would like to build a case around.
But.
Difficult victims are not always liars, by any means. The fact that a prosecutor's professional judgement is that a jury would not, because of your past actions or present circumstances, find your testimony credible and reliable beyond reasonable doubt, is not, and never has been the same as "tl;dr u r a liar"
Bad things happen to bad and broken people too.
It's just something to keep in mind when you're forming your own judgements in such trials-by-media. Take your eyes off assessing the credibility of the victim just long enough to assess the credibility of the accused, too.
I like how this went from talking about a simple documentary to conspiracies involving the US president and his children.
Última edición:
- Registrado
- 11 de Mar, 2019
Batshit stans and crazies put up an unwatchable volume of content every day. Bearing in mind that Man is fallen and bound by time, judgement calls on what is and isn't worthy of Man's time.Forgive em, they probably aren't going to watch it. Funny how the some will watch a 4 hour documentary in it's entirety, but not a video that points out the inaccuracies within it that's about 30 minutes.
It's at 29:48Michael Jackson Rebuttal (Part 3): Skeeving Slumberland
If drone photography and awkward pauses were evidence, this film would be the Batcomputer. Part 1: https://youtu.be/6pnoQqlygQs Part 2: https://youtu.be/9yTT...
Daniel "Razorfist" Harris' has already made Jacko rebuttal videos I have watched, which themselves have been brutally rejoindered, and he hasn't refuted any of the rejoinder, nor responded to it. Amongst his follies:
- Razor himself hasn't looked at the boy-naturist book pictures available online despite living in a country where it's legal to view.
- The fingerprint-tampering accusation has no basis in reality.
- Papa Chandler never attempted extortion. He was a broken man trying to defend his son Jordie from being raped. He failed, and killed himself out of grief.
- Dave Schwartz wasn't with the Chandlers during the medical exam.
- Jordie Chandler wasn't given laughing gas by his father.
- A ton of other damning points.
VenomfangX, assuming he's still alive, is more worth the time of a biology student.
The poster doth protest to much, methinks.
The only reason anyone says this is 'cause Jacko was a talented celebrity with a sympathetic past.
Just like Kevin Spacey! And R. Kelly!
This is even funnier than Gayzorfist chiding R. Kelly for his inappropriate relationships with young girls.