Latest on MJJC

Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

MJTruth said:
In my opinion it is vital that fans are willing to argue against the tabloid articles. They rely on spreading misinformation, and that misinformation is largely why were are where we are today. Even with the acuittal, even with two grand juries rejecting the Chandler case (and without MJ being charge at all), MANY people still thought MJ was a pedo. Why? Because of false reporting. Now more than ever it is imperitive that MJ fans provide corrective FACTs with as much supporting evidence as possible. If they don't read the articles then they can't do that. If they don't click on the sites they CAN'T post comments.

I DO understand that these newspapers earn money from clicks etc and so the more arguing there is, the more clicks they get, the more money they earn, but what is the alternative? Say nothing? That doesn't seem a very good alternative IMO.
Click to expand...
During the 03-05 trial tabloid articles were collected in a different thread, so they weren't ignored, just treated separately. It worked well IMO, as fans didn't generate traffic to them, facts didn't get lost among misinformation, and you could choose the battles worth fighting for (and it didn't cause unnecessary panic either, which is also important).

MJTruth said:
They DIDN'T disprove the abuse allegations. There was no acquittal. The case was dismissed due to statue of limitations without ANY judgment on the veracity of the claims. Sadly that actually works against the MJ Estate.
Click to expand...
You're right, I should have worded it more precise.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

MJTruth said:
In my opinion it is vital that fans are willing to argue against the tabloid articles. They rely on spreading misinformation, and that misinformation is largely why were are where we are today. Even with the acuittal, even with two grand juries rejecting the Chandler case (and without MJ being charge at all), MANY people still thought MJ was a pedo. Why? Because of false reporting. Now more than ever it is imperitive that MJ fans provide corrective FACTs with as much supporting evidence as possible. If they don't read the articles then they can't do that. If they don't click on the sites they CAN'T post comments.

I DO understand that these newspapers earn money from clicks etc and so the more arguing there is, the more clicks they get, the more money they earn, but what is the alternative? Say nothing? That doesn't seem a very good alternative IMO.



They DIDN'T disprove the abuse allegations. There was no acquittal. The case was dismissed due to statue of limitations without ANY judgment on the veracity of the claims. Sadly that actually works against the MJ Estate. The verdict doesn't help at all!
In a way, as long as they could convincingly destroy the allegations in court, the MJ Estate may have been better off if the case had not been rejected at all.
After all the allegations etc are all in the mainstream anyway. The only difference with the current situation is at least the MJ Estate could have provided counter evidence. And many people woudl listen to a not guilty verdict. Right now these guys can say what they like.



Makes you realise how clueless these media people are.
Even the ones who are involved in the misreporting and who have been in the industry for years seem to STILL believe the news that's printed. Ridiculous.
Not only that but EVERY time their is a so-called expert on TV, question whether they really know what they're talking about. MOST of the time they're just a "talking head" - somebody willing to get paid and say whatever is most sensational, adding credibility to the agenda of the network/news outlet.
There have been plenty of those "experts" discussing MJ on TV over the years and most don't have the slightest knowledge about THE FACTS of any of the allegations or the court cases!



Exactly! Even though MJ was not charged in 93 and two grand juries rejected the case against him the media reported TO THIS DAY that he "paid off" his accuser and the the settlement ensured he didn't go to trial. I'd say not being charged with a crime is a DAMN good indicator that there was no evidence, and THAT is a DAMN good indicator that the guy wasn't guilty. But no they twisted it to make him look MORE guilty! They make up whatever they want and ignore the truth when they're told. They don't care about the truth.
Click to expand...


i didn't say fans should shut up and say nothing. I said that we shouldn't cliick on tabloid articles. It's not necessary to read the crap they write to defend MJ. You can keep spreding facts on Twitter or Instagram or other places but don't click on the articles. You will only "create demand" that way and it will only egg them on to write MORE bullshit articles. I know you mean well but we will only reach the opposite effect. If it's a newspaper like the LA Times or somethig like that, by all means BOMBARD them with facts ad correct them because they are SUPPOSED TO BE RELIABLE. But everyone who reads the Sun for example KNOWS it's a tabloid. People only read it for shock value. Not to get actual "news". And those who read the Sun and believe MJ is guilty will already have had their minds set up anyways. Make noise and spread facts...YES!!! It is VITAL!!! But don't do it on the tabloid websites to give the traffic and ratings!!! The tabloids won't care about "bad reviews" like a newspaper that wants to be seen as somewhat "respectable" will care...it will only show the tabloiids that people are interested and willing to click and that's all they want. They make money based on whatever is "popular", so you will only help them to write more about MJ. You will NOT be helping to get the to shut up. But to each their own....

As for people caring about "not guilty" from Wade's lawsuit....If they can't give a rat's ass about MJ being found NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES in 2005....you really think the current lawsuit would change their minds in any way? Some have made up their minds long ago and no matter what facts you hit them with....they ignore it and stay in their hate bubble. They aren't hating on MJ because they "got confused based on tabloid stories"....they hate MJ because they are stupid haters with low IQs and have serious issues with theselves. And some are just trolls. Sure it would be great if the Estate could make Wade and James (and dan) responsible and kick their asses in court but if that would change people's minds who already are convinced he's guilty...I doubt it. Haters gonna hate. But of course from a legal point of view it could make it possible for the Estate to mute Wade and James and Dan. So that would be good.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

SmoothGangsta said:
Maybe someone should send some of these articles to the estate to bring their attention to it. Although I'm sure they've seen it already. Still, it would be nice to see if they respond.
Click to expand...

That would be a good idea but how do you contact them? Do they have an email address? I tred tweeting Taj but he gets so many messages that I doubt he'll see it. That's why more people should keep making him aware so that he'll know about it.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

The estate knows, the fbi knows.. it is part of there job to!
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

During the 03-05 trial tabloid articles were collected in a different thread, so they weren't ignored, just treated separately. It worked well IMO, as fans didn't generate traffic to them, facts didn't get lost among misinformation, and you could choose the battles worth fighting for (and it didn't cause unnecessary panic either, which is also important).
---------------------

Well said. People also need to realise whats worth rebuting and what isnt. whats worth posting and what isnt.for eg why is the radar grave rubbish even been discussed or posted The story is illogically ridiculous due to mj having family alive that samples could be taken from and any trial involving robson and co would be inregards to the appeal of the companies been negligent anyway. radar is well known for s$/^ stiring and having sources such as stacy brown.heck even randy.they are bottom feeding entertainment websites.they should be ignored unless supposed mainstream credible sites run with it then post facts in the comment section etc to educate the numb nuts
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

When this trash comes out, the media will have to dissect this doc. I do not know if anyone following politics in America but drama is going on in Virginia. The governor did blackface of MJ which many take was an insult to blacks and MJ even though it was done as a custome. Also, the focus is on this governor changing his story. The other involved the Lt governor who has been accused of sexual assault. Many jumped on the Judge Kavanak story when it broke last year and as journalist are saying now, "this has come back to bit the media who RUSH TO JUDGE Judge Kavanak WITHOUT waiting on the facts (he still won the Supreme Court Judge position. Now a Democrat Lt governor is accused and people need to hold judgment and wait on an investigation. The media from CNN, MSNBC, etc are all now saying WE NEED TO DO OUR JOBS RIGHT. one anchor said "some of these people writing do not invest and just jump to conclusion". The point I am making this came even at a good time. See, the mainstream media is on their guard. Like I said, when this trash comes out, people are going to have to pull it apart and changing stories.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I have one short question:
In which time span claimed the Chandler Family that MJ should have molested Jordan?
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

It is time for a paradigm shift with this entire matter. With all the information that has been released to the public. (Court transcripts, FBI files, private phone conversations, emails, paper trials, contradicting stories and so on) and the age of the internet that everyone can find this information..

It is time for those who believe he is guilty to start answering questions. It is at the point that we should no longer need to explain the obvious, sound like we are making excuses, and be in the defensive..

It is OUR ball now, our topic, I can go as far as saying somewhat our expertise.

ENOUGH with feeling like we are this group of misfits that are trying to prove something. They are now the backward misfits that are late to the game..

At one point people stopped trying to prove the world is round and the 'flat earthers' became the ones to have to prove their case.

That's them now.. they are the short sighted individuals that don't bother to read or educate themselves enough.

To break the cycle, remember that.. and if you hear someone accuse them, ask them why do they believe what they do..

All they are going to do is state things that can be proven false or go off topic. The evidence of guilt is NOT there..

Fitting a profile doesnt mean guilt, and in the grand scheme of.things.. he does not fit the profile! He only does when you segment portions of his actions and look at it out of context.
 
Last edited:
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I also have a question, I have read several times to fans saying that the demand of the chandler case was rejected by two grand juries before an agreement was reached. Where can I read that documentation? I remember that there was negotiation between the lawyers of the two parties and outside the court (without a jury) several agreements monetary agreements proposed by both parties outside trial precisely to avoid a jury trial, but never were to go to trial.
why many are telling that the case was rejected by two grand juries? The chandler case Never had trial.
Where did you get that? If you read it in some document please put it here because I would like to read it.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I always thought the rule of thumb regarding tabloids here, was the first person who posted it would copy and paste the article. That way the rest of us could read what was being said and we didn't have to click on the tab and give them any business.
If somebody tweets the tabloid article, we could post that and so much the better.

From what I'm reading here, the Sun story about Michael grooming nephews and son is a rehash of the Radar Online story a few years back-the one Taj, Taryll, and TJ sued over. Now I know that case was dropped, but don't know if they ended up settling with Radar, or was it deemed too expensive to go after them. Not sure-never heard about a settlement, or an apology from Radar.

And of course, the Radar story is a rehash of an old New York Post story by Stacy Brown. The "relative" was supposedly Rebbie's husband (why many people don't like Rebbie today).

Now the new story is naming names-we've got multiple nephews-Tito's kids, Austin, Michael's own child, Bigi all named here. Seems like this is a big slander suit IMO. Take 'em to court all the way this time, please.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Lovepeace1 said:
I also have a question, I have read several times to fans saying that the demand of the chandler case was rejected by two grand juries before an agreement was reached. Where can I read that documentation? I remember that there was negotiation between the lawyers of the two parties and outside the court (without a jury) several agreements monetary agreements proposed by both parties outside trial precisely to avoid a jury trial, but never were to go to trial.
why many are telling that the case was rejected by two grand juries? The chandler case Never had trial.
Where did you get that? If you read it in some document please put it here because I would like to read it.
Click to expand...

NO NO AND NO.

The settlement was done BEFORE the two grand juries in two different citys REFUSED to INDICT Jackson.

The negotiations between Jacksons camp and the Chandler camp was about ending the CIVIL TRIAL ONLY.

The settlement did NOT hamper or have any legal effect on the criminal case. Jordan Chandler and his family was still allowed to take part in a criminal trial etc. Obviously they choose to take the money and run with it! Why? Probably because they had no case - and did not want to get embarrased in court.

Tom Sneddon went on with his business and amazingly summoned TWO SEPARATE grand jurys to get Michael indicted - and both jurys turned him down because of lack of evidence.

And again, the grand-jurys were summoned several months AFTER the settlement happened!
---
I suggest you read the following page below - ALL OF IT :)

It has the perfect timeline of when and how everything happened.

https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/the-1993-allegations/

I also recomend you listen to this pod, it covers all the aspect in detail:

 
Last edited:
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
Agreed! Let's stop with sharing stories from absolute scum who don't deserve to live really as far as I'm concerned. So that means Radar Online, because really, do they even deserve a second of our time after what they did? The Sun etc.

A dozen new victims their insider says, yet they were nowhere to be found when it actually mattered. And really, I highly doubt this doc will start a new criminal investigation. Before that even happens let's discuss the two subjects shall we? Sigh. Please let us ignore these terrible excuses for journalism from now on.

Even if the estate or Jacksons were to do something, there's no stopping the tabloids. Tabloids should be banned really.
Click to expand...

I agree tabloids should be banned or better yet, tabloids should be DEAD!
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

KOPV said:
It is time for a paradigm shift with this entire matter. With all the information that has been released to the public. (Court transcripts, FBI files, private phone conversations, emails, paper trials, contradicting stories and so on) and the age of the internet that everyone can find this information..

It is time for those who believe he is guilty to start answering questions. It is at the point that we should no longer need to explain the obvious, sound like we are making excuses, and be in the defensive..

It is OUR ball now, our topic, I can go as far as saying somewhat our expertise.

ENOUGH with feeling like we are this group of misfits that are trying to prove something. They are now the backward misfits that are late to the game..

At one point people stopped trying to prove the world is round and the 'flat earthers' became the ones to have to prove their case.

That's them now.. they are the short sighted individuals that don't bother to read or educate themselves enough.

To break the cycle, remember that.. and if you hear someone accuse them, ask them why do they believe what they do..

All they are going to do is state things that can be proven false or go off topic. The evidence of guilt is NOT there..

Fitting a profile doesnt mean guilt, and in the grand scheme of.things.. he does not fit the profile! He only does when you segment portions of his actions and look at it out of context.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, "they" are the "flat Earthers" now, anyone I speak to doesn't believe any allegations, the press have miss read the public's perception of MJ for a very long time now. We have the facts to hand, Twitter is proving a very powerful tool for fans and the transcripts and videos being posted are fantastic, someone needs to tell Rubert Murdoch this isn't 1993, WE have a voice now too, Long Live the King
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

summer said:
That would be a good idea but how do you contact them? Do they have an email address? I tred tweeting Taj but he gets so many messages that I doubt he'll see it. That's why more people should keep making him aware so that he'll know about it.
Click to expand...

They do have an email but I don't know it. I know other fans do though.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Lightbringer said:
NO NO AND NO.

The settlement was done BEFORE the two grand juries in two different citys REFUSED to INDICT Jackson.

The negotiations between Jacksons camp and the Chandler camp was about ending the CIVIL TRIAL ONLY.

The settlement did NOT hamper or have any legal effect on the criminal case. Jordan Chandler and his family was still allowed to take part in a criminal trial etc. Obviously they choose to take the money and run with it! Why? Probably because they had no case - and did not want to get embarrased in court.

Tom Sneddon went on with his business and amazingly summoned TWO SEPARATE grand jurys to get Michael indicted - and both jurys turned him down because of lack of evidence.

And again, the grand-jurys were summoned several months AFTER the settlement happened!
---
I suggest you read the following page below - ALL OF IT :)

It has the perfect timeline of when and how everything happened.

https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/the-1993-allegations/

I also recomend you listen to this pod, it covers all the aspect in detail:

Click to expand...


I just read the documents. First of all, as I said, we did not go to trial, or to a civil trial or a criminal trial. in the documents it states that an agreement was reached before the civil trial began, in the previous mediations.
and I am saying the same as you, that the agreement as I said was made before anything else, and also was done before getting to develop the civil trial .

In the other hand the father of chander wasnt interested in going to criminal trial (because he wanted his money), And michael wasnt interested in going to civil trial (because in a civil trial it is easier to blame someone for something because the evidence is accepted more easily than in criminal trials that are harder pass more filters for everything, ie a civil trial based on few evidences can make someone guilty, while a criminal trial needs much more to make someone guilty, and also if someone is made guilty in a civil trial, then it is easier legally to be guilty in a criminal trial because this is how it works legally), therefore in the pre-civil trial before the civil trial was developed, a monetary agreement was reached between the two.

On the other hand, when It says that two grand juries rejected the case, I have already read it, and it was not that they went to trial as some of them seem to indicate, but they did not admit the prosecutor's demands and they were dismissed because there was no accusation since they were chandler signed the agreement refused to submit any criminal complaint.
that is, it is logical that it be rejected because there was no accusation of any presumed victim.
the accusation was made by the agreement by the prosecutor, and he presents the records of his house( oficina michael ) and other things but without accusation from anyone.

finally I read the agreement of chandler and michael, in the puts that jordan chandler, his family and his successors if they accept the agreement can not file any civil lawsuit against michael or against his successors or companies ever again, he cant participate as a collaborator in other civil lawsuits of other people, he cant to mention michael in forums, television, magazines, or with investigators, or participate in anything that involves talking about michael about the accusations or about his case with the risk of leaving the monetary agreement null and at the risk that face civil arbitration for breaking confidentiality.
This is probably the reason that Jordan chandler never Will talk about this.
 
Last edited:
Lovepeace1;4240085 said:
I just read the documents. First of all, as I said, we did not go to trial, or to a civil trial or a criminal trial. in the documents it states that an agreement was reached before the civil trial began, in the previous mediations.
and I am saying the same as you, that the agreement as I said was made before anything else, and also was done before getting to develop the civil trial .

In the other hand the father of chander wasnt interested in going to criminal trial (because he wanted his money), And michael wasnt interested in going to civil trial (because in a civil trial it is easier to blame someone for something because the evidence is accepted more easily than in criminal trials that are harder pass more filters for everything, ie a civil trial based on few evidences can make someone guilty, while a criminal trial needs much more to make someone guilty, and also if someone is made guilty in a civil trial, then it is easier legally to be guilty in a criminal trial because this is how it works legally), therefore in the pre-civil trial before the civil trial was developed, a monetary agreement was reached between the two.

On the other hand, when It says that two grand juries rejected the case, I have already read it, and it was not that they went to trial as some of them seem to indicate, but they did not admit the prosecutor's demands and they were dismissed because there was no accusation since they were chandler signed the agreement refused to submit any criminal complaint.
that is, it is logical that it be rejected because there was no accusation of any presumed victim.
the accusation was made by the agreement by the prosecutor, and he presents the records of his house( oficina michael ) and other things but without accusation from anyone.

finally I read the agreement of chandler and michael, in the puts that jordan chandler, his family and his successors if they accept the agreement can not file any civil lawsuit against michael or against his successors or companies ever again, he cant participate as a collaborator in other civil lawsuits of other people, he cant to mention michael in forums, television, magazines, or with investigators, or participate in anything that involves talking about michael about the accusations or about his case with the risk of leaving the monetary agreement null and at the risk that face civil arbitration for breaking confidentiality.
This is probably the reason that Jordan chandler never Will talk about this.
Click to expand...
I still think we should never say never considering the timing of then he got the restraining order against Evan in 2006 and I remember Evan also sued Jordan for what seemed to be breach of contract. He first filed it on August 5 2005 and we could see for a fact that Evan was suing Jordan but I don’t think we found out why so ofcourse it could have been about something else but still the timing so soon after the trial. I ’m sorry if I’m getting out of topic and speculating.
 
Last edited:
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

This is probably the reason that Jordan chandler never Will talk about this.


I he wanted to do the right thing and clear MJ's name, Jordan can. NOTHING stop Jordan from talking at the 2005 (even his mother was supeona and not one time did she say MJ abused my son and she could have said anything regardless to the agreement). And remember MJ talked and he was the accused.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Lovepeace1 said:
finally I read the agreement of chandler and michael, in the puts that jordan chandler, his family and his successors if they accept the agreement can not file any civil lawsuit against michael or against his successors or companies ever again, he cant participate as a collaborator in other civil lawsuits of other people, he cant to mention michael in forums, television, magazines, or with investigators, or participate in anything that involves talking about michael about the accusations or about his case with the risk of leaving the monetary agreement null and at the risk that face civil arbitration for breaking confidentiality.
This is probably the reason that Jordan chandler never Will talk about this.
Click to expand...

I don't know what your point is.
When I must pay 25 million and want to have my absolut peace from this allegation I whould be so intelligent to whrite all this in the settlemant.
Whouldn't you do this?
MJ on the other hand agreed to behave the same on his sight.
It was a risk for him and Lisa to talk about the Chandler case in the interview with Diane Sawyer.
And E. Chandler tried to sue MJ and Lisa for this.
That MJ and his lawers were inteligent and also good businessmen shouldn't be interpreted as bad cause it was good thing in the case of the moneygreedy attentionhungry and evil E. Chandler.
Sometimes I miss empathy by some people.
Imagine that MJ never dreamed to fight ever again aginst any allegations in the future.
It whould be really great when the people who have doubts in MJs innocent stay to discuss their points in the "Doubts" thread.
 
Last edited:
La74;4240089 said:
I still think we should never say never considering the timing of then he got the restraining order against Evan in 2006 and I remember Evan also sued Jordan for what seemed to be breach of contract. He first filed it on August 5 2005 and we could see for a fact that Evan was suing Jordan but I don’t think we found out why so ofcourse it could have been about something else but still the timing so soon after the trial. I ’m sorry if I’m getting out of topic and speculating.
Click to expand...

Even Emmitt Til accuser finally admitted she LIED. It happens that is why I believe Jordan will admit he lied oneday. Look at what is going on, all of this is because of his family LIE.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Excuse me if I bothered you, it was not my intention. I think I've only asked for information here because this is where the chandler case was discussed and I wanted to know where to find the documents they were talking about. Once I have read some documents, I have simply commented on what I have read.it is also good to clarify the points that are spoken, then many people do not seem to know exactly how the trials work or how they actually did in the documents.
that doesnt mean that you doubt or stop doubting the innocence of anyone, if you read what I have written is enough objective, I simply speak of what he puts in the documents, I do not make any personal assessment of them.
Even so, excuse me if I have bothered you
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="de"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">When we did the Michael Jackson Opus we did a chapter on Wade Robson who bragged about his 20 year relationship with his Mentor Michael. I don’t believe his being in that trashy movie. Our book examined every aspect of Michael’s life don’t believe Wade</p>&mdash; Jeff Wald (@JeffWald) <a href="https://twitter.com/JeffWald/status/1093376655731511296?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">7. Februar 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="de"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">MJFam New York .....It’s Time to Protest HBO’s plan to air “Leaving Neverland” <br>Date: Wednesday, March 6 <br>2pm -6pm<br>Outside HBO offices in Manhattan <br>MJ Fam in London planning a protest… <a href="https://t.co/UTlkKUcNSr">https://t.co/UTlkKUcNSr</a></p>&mdash; MJJJusticeProject (@MJJJusticePrjct) <a href="https://twitter.com/MJJJusticePrjct/status/1093562599415922688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">7. Februar 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="de"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Hollywood, Sundance and Makers of Leaving Neverland Blowing Smoke for Harvey Weinstein or Someone Else? <a href="https://t.co/3x1kE3Vmp1">https://t.co/3x1kE3Vmp1</a> <a href="https://t.co/CYYEcqP4V2">pic.twitter.com/CYYEcqP4V2</a></p>&mdash; MJJJusticeProject (@MJJJusticePrjct) <a href="https://twitter.com/MJJJusticePrjct/status/1093572699144765440?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">7. Februar 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

This whole settlement thing...

Everyone keeps asking "Why would Michael Jackson settle?" That doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't he settle?

The public should ask instead: "Why would the Chandlers settle?" Why would they agree to never ever talk about this issue ever again? Why did they sell themselves to stay quiet about an alleged child abuser?
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="de"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Have them get a hold of me. &#128077;&#127997; <a href="https://t.co/0v3P8HWo4C">https://t.co/0v3P8HWo4C</a></p>&mdash; Taj Jackson (@tajjackson3) <a href="https://twitter.com/tajjackson3/status/1093212775315197952?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">6. Februar 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="de"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">On February 7, 1989, Michael Jackson visited Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, CA to help offer solace to the survivors of the first mass shooting at a school in the United States. The visit “meant a lot” to the children affected by the shooting. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MJHumanitarian?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MJHumanitarian</a> <a href="https://t.co/SZFBDpB9Oh">pic.twitter.com/SZFBDpB9Oh</a></p>&mdash; Michael Jackson (@michaeljackson) <a href="https://twitter.com/michaeljackson/status/1093562596064747520?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">7. Februar 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="de"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">On a positive note.<br>BBC News - Michael Jackson and George Harrison: Rare radio interview restored <a href="https://t.co/RClNC0gZe8">https://t.co/RClNC0gZe8</a></p>&mdash; Justice for The Falsely Accused (@JuliaBerkowitz1) <a href="https://twitter.com/JuliaBerkowitz1/status/1093553832414625800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">7. Februar 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

((And michael wasnt interested in going to civil trial (because in a civil trial it is easier to blame someone for something because the evidence is accepted more easily than in criminal trials that are harder pass more filters for everything, ie a civil trial based on few evidences can make someone guilty).

This correct. That is why some people settle as well even if they are innocent. Do u know this kind of accusation can get people locked up or whatever just on the claims alone even if the person is innocent; but that will be the risk you take if going to a civil trial. I wish MJ would have not settled but I understand it. It was a money thing as he said (look, when he gave the money, they ran). And lets be real, I am sure Johnnie Cochran told MJ how is it going to just look for a black man to be accused of abusing a white kid even if you are innocent. Sorry but we are in America (when something happens, blacks get accused and blame because some people are bias to blacks and rush to judge). That alone I would understand MJ settling because he had these people in his home. That is also why people should not invite everyone into their home.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Lightbringer said:
NO NO AND NO.

The settlement was done BEFORE the two grand juries in two different citys REFUSED to INDICT Jackson.

The negotiations between Jacksons camp and the Chandler camp was about ending the CIVIL TRIAL ONLY.

The settlement did NOT hamper or have any legal effect on the criminal case. Jordan Chandler and his family was still allowed to take part in a criminal trial etc. Obviously they choose to take the money and run with it! Why? Probably because they had no case - and did not want to get embarrased in court.

Tom Sneddon went on with his business and amazingly summoned TWO SEPARATE grand jurys to get Michael indicted - and both jurys turned him down because of lack of evidence.

And again, the grand-jurys were summoned several months AFTER the settlement happened!
---
I suggest you read the following page below - ALL OF IT :)

It has the perfect timeline of when and how everything happened.

https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/the-1993-allegations/

I also recomend you listen to this pod, it covers all the aspect in detail:

Click to expand...

Thanks for this video. What a fantastic illuminating conversation they have! Listening to them I wanted to join them, because I've had such similar experiences as they had.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

wednesday said:
This whole settlement thing...

Everyone keeps asking "Why would Michael Jackson settle?" That doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't he settle?

The public should ask instead: "Why would the Chandlers settle?" Why would they agree to never ever talk about this issue ever again? Why did they sell themselves to stay quiet about an alleged child abuser?
Click to expand...
The MOTHER of Jordan was supeona to come to the trial and she NEVER said MJ abused my son. Now, this woman who got some of the settlement could have degraded MJ ON THE STAND but she did not; in fact, some said her testimony helped MJ (one commentary on CNN said this made him rethink his mind about the 1993 case). June knows she benefited from "dirty lying money.
 
Lovepeace1;4240093 said:
Excuse me if I bothered you, it was not my intention. I think I've only asked for information here because this is where the chandler case was discussed and I wanted to know where to find the documents they were talking about. Once I have read some documents, I have simply commented on what I have read.it is also good to clarify the points that are spoken, then many people do not seem to know exactly how the trials work or how they actually did in the documents.
that doesnt mean that you doubt or stop doubting the innocence of anyone, if you read what I have written is enough objective, I simply speak of what he puts in the documents, I do not make any personal assessment of them.
Even so, excuse me if I have bothered you
Click to expand...

Don't worry, it's not your fault. You don't have to be sorry for asking simple questions. The admin just don't allow discussion and contradiction on this thread. They only want people who don't question MJ's innocence and who want to fight for him. I think there should be a specific topic for that, but I guess they estimate this is the normal behaviour to have when you are a "real fan".

StaceyMJ;4238981 said:
JCO8 - I have to agree with the others, I don&#8217;t think this is the place for you. Nows certainly not the time or place to be playing devils advocate. I would join the others that say if I had any doubt about this at all I would not be here, certainly not an admin for a site dedicated to him.
Click to expand...

Lovepeace, if you want to have a more healthy discussion, try here :

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/142416-Doubts
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

terrell said:
The MOTHER of Jordan was supeona to come to the trial and she NEVER said MJ abused my son. Now, this woman who got some of the settlement could have degraded MJ ON THE STAND but she did not; in fact, some said her testimony helped MJ (one commentary on CNN said this made him rethink his mind about the 1993 case). June knows she benefited from "dirty lying money.
Click to expand...

End of story right there!
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

The thing about that this documentary that bothers me is that Michael is dead.
IF he were guilty of the crimes accused off, Wade Robson should have testified and sent him to jail in 2005 when he had the chance too, and he didn't.

This is what aggravates me the most about these abuse claims. These alleged crimes took place in the late 80s and early 90s and only during this decade did he decide to come forward with these accusations.

At this point, this documentary will do nothing but destroy Michael's legacy. I'm sorry guys, but that's the truth of the matter. When people watch this documentary, they will most likely be horrified and disgusted by Michael, and tune him out. I'm sorry, but that's the damage I believe the documentary will do.

That's the goal of these allegations by Wade and Jimmy. Not to raise awareness of sexual abuse, but to destroy a dead man's legacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top