Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

[Soundmind]

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

No one has seen both the description and the photographs but Sneddon. Even the doctor who took the photographs did not see the description. He said the prosecutors told him they matched, but the only thing that Sneddon relied on to prove that there was a match is a spot the location of which he claimed Jordan identified accurately. However, from the doctor description mj was severally discolored there. Saying a leopard has a spot on his back proves absolutely nothing. Especially when the color of that particular spot ( among many spots as per the doctor) did not even match what Jordan claimed not to mention the fact that mj was uncircumcised which a Jewish boy would have definitely been able to recognise as such, but Jordan got it all wrong although he claimed he saw mj naked countless times. That's alone should refute the lie that the description matched.

 

[Amaya]

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

We know that there are no sources available that clearly says Chandlers description of MJs genitals did not match. We have the autopsy report, but we have no court records or statements from lawyers/policen, prosecution or the doctor present. The doctor present at the strip says he could not determine himself it was a match, but was told by some else later that it was a match. We also have Tom Sneddon doing TV interviews in like 1995 where he also claims Jordys description were a match. I think this will be a huge problem.

Are there no court documents about the conclusion on the body search?

Isn't there an article from USA Today that says it didn't match? I believe it's behind a paywall, however...

 

[Soundmind]

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

There was a poster with the name the paedophile Hunter and he was very active on YouTube on mj's videos in the summer. He himself said that he is very aware of all the arguments mj fans have used to discredit wade and safe chuck, and that's how he build his movie in response to their arguments. That's how he came up with the love story lie which is the ultimate theory to explain the contradictory stories at mjfacts.

 

[Lightbringer]

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

Isn't there an article from USA Today that says it didn't match? I believe it's behind a paywall, however...

The article link has expired, and cites an un-named or anonymous source. It carries no weight when the lead DA Tom Sneddon made TV interviews later on in 1995 saying Jordy nailed the description.

Its extremely odd that such an important piece of evidence is not documented anywhere. And if there is no proof to show Michaels innonence - then people will believe the worst because it fits in with the rest of the prejudice of Michael.

 

[La74]

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

No one have seen both the description and the photographs but Sneddon. Even the doctor who took the photographs did not see the description. He said the prosecutors told him they matched, but the only thing that Sneddon relied on to prove that there was a match is a spot the location of which he claimed Jordan identified accurately. However, from the doctor description mj was severally discolored there. Saying a leopard has a spot on his back proves absolutely nothing. Especially when the color of that particular spot ( among many spots as per the doctor) did not even match what Jordan claimed not to mention the fact that mj was uncircumcised which a Jewish boy would have definitely been able to recognise as such, but Jordan got it all wrong although he claimed he saw mj naked countless times. That's alone should refute the lie that the description matched.

Yes, he said he was circumcised.

 

[dmehta]

The bottom line is if there was ever a match of the description of MJ’s genitals it would have been used during the grand jury proceedings in 1994 and in the 2005 trial as evidence. There was no match and no such evidence was used.

Dan Reed is a pathetic liar.

 

[Lightbringer]

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

No one has seen both the description and the photographs but Sneddon. Even the doctor who took the photographs did not see the description. He said the prosecutors told him they matched, but the only thing that Sneddon relied on to prove that there was a match is a spot the location of which he claimed Jordan identified accurately. However, from the doctor description mj was severally discolored there. Saying a leopard has a spot on his back proves absolutely nothing. Especially when the color of that particular spot ( among many spots as per the doctor) did not even match what Jordan claimed not to mention the fact that mj was uncircumcised which a Jewish boy would have definitely been able to recognise as such, but Jordan got it all wrong although he claimed he saw mj naked countless times. That's alone should refute the lie that the description matched.

This is all good and I am aware of it, you did an excellent summary. The problem is that non-MJ fans wont give a darn about what you and me say. They want proof. They will believe Dan Reeds word in the documentary unless we can show solid proof. To the general viewer than Dan Reed or Tom Sneddon is more trustworthy than any "crazy MJ fan".

Michael tried to get back the photos from the prosection btw, but he was denied.

This rumour should have been properly DISPROVEN back in 1993, by now it has been circulating in the press for 25 years and became the truth!

Obviously Michael thought it was embarrasing, but still, it should have been dealt with swiftly. To be able to reufte this now we probably need actual documents, and probably statements from police/doctors saying it was not a match! Otherwise the myth will stay the truth.

 

[Soundmind]

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

Sneddon did try to introduce it as evidence in 2005, but the ****ing rat knew very well there was no chance in hell it would have been introduced as evidence given that chandler was not testifying. He used it to flame the media with stories about how it matched knowing very well that no one will be able to refute his claims because it would not even be admissible in court. But from his idiotic motion we knew that he was relying on one spot the color of which did not even match with why Jordan claimed but he conveniently left that out of his motion. May he root in hell.

 

[Amaya]

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

The article link has expired, and cites an un-named or anonymous source. It carries no weight when the lead DA Tom Sneddon made TV interviews later on in 1995 saying Jordy nailed the description.

Its extremely odd that such an important piece of evidence is not documented anywhere. And if there is no proof to show Michaels innonence - then people will believe the worst because it fits in with the rest of the prejudice of Michael.

Well that's... unfortunate. Thanks for the response though.

It is odd that it's not documented well enough. I know at one point there were different reports claiming that JC's description said Michael was circumcised, but then after Michael's autopsy report came out and said he was uncircumcised, they began to quickly and quietly change the narrative. I think at this point the only way to find it would be to dig through the original police files, assuming they even still exist anywhere and can be retrieved.

 

[Zeus7]

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

Sneddon did try to introduce it as evidence in 2005, but the ****ing rat knew very well there was no chance in hell it would have been introduced as evidence given that chandler was not testifying. He used it to flame the media with stories about how it matched knowing very well that no one will be able to refute his claims because it would not even be admissible in court. But from his idiotic motion we knew that he was relying on one spot the color of which did not even match with why Jordan claimed but he conveniently left that out of his motion. May he root in hell.

I get the sentiment and agree but change root to rot lol

 

[terrell]

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

This is all good and I am aware of it, you did an excellent summary. The problem is that non-MJ fans wont give a darn about what you and me say. They want proof. They will believe Dan Reeds word in the documentary unless we can show solid proof. To the general viewer than Dan Reed or Tom Sneddon is more trustworthy than any "crazy MJ fan".

Michael tried to get back the photos from the prosection btw, but he was denied.

This rumour should have been properly DISPROVEN back in 1993, by now it has been circulating in the press for 25 years and became the truth!

Obviously Michael thought it was embarrasing, but still, it should have been dealt with swiftly. To be able to reufte this now we probably need actual documents, and probably statements from police/doctors saying it was not a match! Otherwise the myth will stay the truth.

That is the thing. Fans have proof. Also, Geraldo Rivera said in 2004 that he saw the pictures of MJ (Geraldo use to think MJ was guilty in 1993 but changed his mind once he got into the case and MJ wanted him to be fair, later that year, Michael did an interview with Geraldo. I hope Geraldo get involved with this as well and even he said his daughter loved MJ when they met him. he is a big kid. This was on Gerarldo at Large back in 2004.

 

[La74]

Sneddon did try to introduce it as evidence in 2005, but the ****ing rat knew very well there was no chance in hell it would have been introduced as evidence given that chandler was not testifying. He used it to flame the media with stories about how it matched knowing very well that no one will be able to refute his claims because it would not even be admissible in court. But from his idiotic motion we knew that he was relying on one spot the color of which did not even match with why Jordan claimed but he conveniently left that out of his motion. May he root in hell.

Elusive moonwalker said there are several old interwievs with Gary Dunlap from mjjf, I guess that must be from around 2005-06 but now the archive just goes back to 2007 as far as I can see. Otherwise we could show Sneddons ”prior acts” of malisious prosecution. I know Charles Thomson thinks he really thought Michael was guilty but I personally don’t think that myself. The 2005 case was just crazy.

 

[dmehta]

Here is a detailed overview of all things MJ genitalia/Jordy’s description: https://themichaeljacksonallegation...s-taken-of-the-stars-genitalia-by-the-police/

It’s pretty clear the Chandler’s took an educated guess knowing MJ had vitiligo, so discolourations, blotches, markings would be on his penis.

 

[terrell]

Here is a detailed overview of all things MJ genitalia/Jordy’s description: https://themichaeljacksonallegation...s-taken-of-the-stars-genitalia-by-the-police/

It’s pretty clear the Chandler’s took an educated guess knowing MJ had vitiligo, so discolourations, blotches, markings would be on his penis.

for a 13 year old to be talking about someone being circumcised is proof he was coached (this was the same with Garvin talking about he wanted to be a priest YET he was a "bad @$$" in school with bad actions. when kids think that "advance", they make all A's and are very studious. Garvin was not none of this by a long shark. They were a conartists family even his own father admitted they lie and the mother put them up to do it). MOST men are circumcised but MJ was not (Thank God).

 

[Soundmind]

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

Sneddon lied so much in his motions no way did he believe mj was guilty when he himself created the most of the evidence he claimed it incriminate mj. Starting with Blanca, her books, her son, the fab 5 which are all proven liars who he tried to help, Diane diamond who he also saved from losing a civil lawsuit by mj for her infamous claims of a sec tape. And the Advisor lol he was the one who helped them change the timeline to fit the days mj was at neverland. F@k him

 

[ManBehindTheMirrOr - Dona]

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

There was a poster with the name the paedophile Hunter and he was very active on YouTube on mj's videos in the summer. He himself said that he is very aware of all the arguments mj fans have used to discredit wade and safe chuck, and that's how he build his movie in response to their arguments. That's how he came up with the love story lie which is the ultimate theory to explain the contradictory stories at mjfacts.

I know about this user. I have already started a thread about him in the Trails and Tribulations Forum cause I also think that he can be Dan Reed. Please search the thread and whrite everthing down you know about this user.
I know he was active til Dezember.
Maybe Dan Reed was also on this board.

 

[myosotis]

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

I know about this user. I have already started a thread about him in the Trails and Tribulations Forum cause I also think that he can be Dan Reed. Please search the thread and whrite everthing down you know about this user.
Maybe Dan Reed was also on this board.

Stinson Hunter (Not his real name) is the 'Paedophile hunter' that Dan Reed made an 'award winning' documentary about, a few years ago (appx 2014?).

I don't think we want any discussion of him here He is an exceedingly unpleasant man who has been 'trolling' Paris on twitter.

I've also been reading that HBO will be holding a special pre-screening for 'influencers'. I can't find the original post about this, but a few people have mentioned it online.

It looks as though the plan is to have press coverage already at maximum before the film is screened to the public. (Not sure it is possible to give this thing more press coverage, but I guess they are going to try.)

 

[StaceyMJ]

Soundmind - I have removed a post of yours about Katz (channel 4 guy) that is against forum rules. PM me for more info if you would like.

A note to everyone - when posting links can you please post a brief but thorough explanation of what it is you’re posting a link for? It’s quite frustrating to click on a link and then wish you hadn’t because it’s giving traffic to sources we really would rather not. If linking to an article please copy and paste the article here if it is a tabloid or questionable source - if they must be posted here at all. Let’s all think about what we are posting here and why, we do not need to fan the flames so to speak.

Thank you all.

 

[dmehta]

I've also been reading that HBO will be holding a special pre-screening for 'influencers'. I can't find the original post about this, but a few people have mentioned it online.

It looks as though the plan is to have press coverage already at maximum before the film is screened to the public.

Not good, but it’s already been reviewed by most of the big publications after it aired at Sundance.

 

[myosotis]

Not good, but it’s already been reviewed by most of the big publications after it aired at Sundance.

I think the idea is to get people who will engage with the public on social media as well, like an extension of the HBO team. Maybe people like Tarana from the 'Me Too' movement, who has already been supportive of this film. My guess is they will flood social media with 'discussion points' (and probably many more lies) in the few days before the public screening.


(We have to remember that we've already seen ample proof that court papers, testimonies, evidence and truth means absolutely nothing to the HBO/ Channel 4 people involved in this film, and also R and S. The whole thing is quite extraordinary. I hope that academics will write papers about the emergence of this public lynch mob, in the not too distant future. When you are fighting 'fake news', we are dependent on careful people looking beyond the noise. I'm sure there are plenty of them out there. This is heading to be one of the greatest media / journalistic scandals of all time.)

 

[Danja]

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

No. The story has already faded. The fans, for the most, are the ones keeping this none story going. :lies:

Do you know how many people watch Sundance (most aren't even aware of it...I wasn't until a month ago) and how many are subscribed to HBO? Game of Thrones new season is coming out in a couple of months. Now, you do the math.

Not to mention that Kew Media Group has bought the rights to distribute it internationally.

 

[La74]

Stinson Hunter (Not his real name) is the 'Paedophile hunter' that Dan Reed made an 'award winning' documentary about, a few years ago (appx 2014?).

I don't think we want any discussion of him here He is an exceedingly unpleasant man who has been 'trolling' Paris on twitter.

I've also been reading that HBO will be holding a special pre-screening for 'influencers'. I can't find the original post about this, but a few people have mentioned it online.

It looks as though the plan is to have press coverage already at maximum before the film is screened to the public. (Not sure it is possible to give this thing more press coverage, but I guess they are going to try.)

That may backfire and destroy the reputation of the influencers who shows really bad judgment just like not many people wants to work with Wade Robson who can accuse them of who knows what and I don’t think Evan Chandler ever worked as screen writer for another movie after Robin Hood men in thights.

 

[dmehta]

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

Do you know how many people watch Sundance (most aren't even aware of it...I wasn't until a month ago) and how many are subscribed to HBO? Game of Thrones new season is coming out in a couple of months. Now, you do the math.

Not to mention that Kew Media Group has bought the rights to distribute it internationally.

Yup. We are in a bit of a lull and this will blow up again after it airs on tv. Said this numerous times now, but the Estate need to go on the offensive the closer we get to the broadcast date.

 

[Dudex]

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

i hope Estate is aware that is not about robson, safechuck or reed, hbo or any other tv station. someone powerful is standing behind all this circus

 

[Soundmind]

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

StaceyMJ does not agree with your assessment Dudex. Everything is allowed but God forbids we name things by their real name. It is beyond obvious now who started it in 1993, who continued to flame it through it the years and who has just revived it.

 

[Soundmind]

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

Even mj himself said it and when schaffel the scammer leaked the tape to the media mj did not even bother to deny it. He knew very well who was behind it all, but people called him paranoid.

 

[La74]

StaceyMJ does not agree with your assessment Dudex. Everything is allowed but God forbids we name things by their real name. It is beyond obvious now who started it in 1993, who continued to flame it through it the years and who has just revived it.

No proof for anything like that in my opinion and Evan Chandler who happen to be jewish said that he personally paid people in certain positions. Probably people in the media to spread it as much as possible because there was never any substance behind it to push Michael to settle because he wanted money and a script writing deal..Unlucky for him I don’t think he ever worked with another movie and no EVANstory album either poor thing..

 

[somewhereinthedark]

Here is a detailed overview of all things MJ genitalia/Jordy’s description: https://themichaeljacksonallegation...s-taken-of-the-stars-genitalia-by-the-police/

It’s pretty clear the Chandler’s took an educated guess knowing MJ had vitiligo, so discolourations, blotches, markings would be on his penis.

Why is this allowed in this forum? It seems anything can be posted about Michael, but we have to tip-toe around the conspirators and their identities? Btw, why are we calling Chandler “Jordy”. He is a grown *** man. His name is JORDAN.

 

[Smooth72]

I don’t know guys. I just did a little test. The only way I could find anything about this story was to google Michael Jackson’s name. I cruised most of the reputable and popular websites and found nothing. Keep fighting it must be helping. I just don’t think people with a brain would waste 4hrs on this.

 

[Staffordshire Bullterrier]

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

Ah ok. Ian Katz is Programmes Director at Channel 4 and has been tweeting about how this will change what people will think about MJ forever etc etc. Sounds like a horrible little man.

Oh I bet! Anyone that knows very very little about Robson and Safechuck and what they have been up to (it's not like they are similar to R Kelly accusers, can't even be compared) but people that watch this don't know that. So they get this incredibly one-sided view with again not know anything what these two assholes really are about, they get to hear disgusting stories like the one from the Victor book about a marriage between MJ and Safechuck.

Anyone NOT in the know about anything will look at this in disbelief and feel disgusted. They will think to themselves "what sick person would do all this." and of course they get to see the "master of deception" probably with crocodile tears, likely coming off very genuine too. It's absolutely unbelievable how easily HBO just shrugs off what the estate wrote in that letter. I honestly start to doubt if they even read the letter. And I agree with some here, it's not just HBO, AT&T here, there's something bigger at play here.

As for the description of MJ's private parts by Chandler. I'm surprised to read that this isn't a fact, that's very unfortunate. Of course the prosecution was gonna claim years ago that it matched. I don't know all that much about law, but really, if that description had matched MJ would have been in trouble and i REALLY doubt two grand juries would have dismissed it as well then. I wasn't aware that Dan Reed claims in his doc that it matched, sigh. I'm not surprised though, he didn't do any research on R&S, says enough. It's bad though yeah, there are gonna be viewers that eat this up for damn sure.

All we can do is keep posting damning facts about these two assholes on social media and hope that the estate is preparing something. And if the estate doesn't do much else anymore.... I just hope after all this has aired on all the networks..it will all ease down again. MJ's music stays on music services, because I really don't see them pulling it. If there's even a slight risk of that, the estate will absolutely step in.

Best case/dream scenario would be that these two ****s, three ****s will get exposed so that they can never pull this kind of shit again. I for one say throw these people behind bars, they don't deserve to be out walking. But if not I hope the worst that is realistically possible for them.