Leaving Neverland

njnancy said:

njnancy said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3DyN8Jvnz4

Simi Valley, 12 years old - 1989 - Jimmy.

The reporter looks like a younger Bill O'Reilly. I don't think it's him, I'm not sure. But there is an uncanny resemblance. He is not as caustic as O'Reilly also. 

That’s definitely O’Reilly. 

fortyshades said:

bbiggs said:

njnancy said:

njnancy said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3DyN8Jvnz4

Simi Valley, 12 years old - 1989 - Jimmy.

The reporter looks like a younger Bill O'Reilly. I don't think it's him, I'm not sure. But there is an uncanny resemblance. He is not as caustic as O'Reilly also. 

That’s definitely O’Reilly. 

He used have hair!!!

30 years will do that to a person. Lol 

Meltdown99 said:

Just like people believe, OJ is innocent, we still have people who think this sick fuck is innocent...What does it take for people to see it is NOT NORMAL for a grown man to ever share a bed with a kid...

YouTube comments sections on MJ videos would be hilarious if they weren’t so sad.

Meltdown99 said:

Just like people believe, OJ is innocent, we still have people who think this sick fuck is innocent...What does it take for people to see it is NOT NORMAL for a grown man to ever share a bed with a kid...

No it is not normal, I think everyone agrees, but the discussion is a bit more nuanced than that + OJ dont fall under the impunity laws. Since Michael died, he does. Anything can be stated. You can make can any kind of documentary , fill it with lies and falsehoods, and you are protected by US law - no shred of proof is necessary. With this I am not stating nothing happened, what I am stating is there is no defense, not another side of the story and this is needed before we pass verdict and start taking songs out of rotation (like in Canada,  New Zealand , one radio station in the Netherlands and one in Manchester I believe) which is some kind of verdict after the fact. Michael is not paying for this btw; his children are.

What makes it troublesome for me is a) Dan Reed didnt abide to the principles of investigating journalism - verification (validity), falsefication and contextualization. As a matter of fact he ommitted certain things and in the editing process framed (framing in the sense of being selective in the footage you show, that feeds the narrative of the documentary and create associative thinking), instead of showing a counter argument - which can be easily  as damaging b) that Wade was caught lying. And I dont mean 2005 (where he commitred perjury) but 2013; in his own trail (verifyable in transcriptions of his trail) and caught in withholding information/ evidence. He has been officially reprimanded for that and his case was thrown out for these reasons, c) we know now, through statements of Blane or Blake (god, I am bad with names, but he is mentioned in the documentary as the :"next victim after Wade") that he wants his name removed, for he denies that he was a victim and doesnt want to be dragged into this. We also know that Wade approached Blane (or whatever his name is; mindemelt from my side) that Wade contacted him for he "wanted to start a court case together". Blane didnt want to do this, so Wade went to James. Blane feels so strongly about this that he warned Dan and Wade to sue them and create a civil cass against them for using his name in this light, d) we also know that Wade was desolute, close to bankrupcy (2013 court case) and started with the allegations after he was rejected as director and cheographer from Cirque de Soleil. Now Reed (for unknown reasons) has tried to spin and debunk this as false, but the email of Wade has since then been released. Reed actually made false statements about this in interviews e) James story shows more credibility and his case was thrown out due to the statue of limitations. There are discrapencies however with his narrative in his personal court case in 2014 - which he started after Wade approached him - differs from his narrative in Neverland.  Also the timeline doesnt seem to fit. He has mentioned dates where Michael verifyable wasnt present when the supposed abused happened and f) even though Wade and James didnt get paid for the documentary, their cases are in the court of appeal for 1,2 billion dollars. Which incidently the childeren would have to cough up. Both Wade and James are represented by the same law firm.

With this I am not stating a) that sleeping with children is normal (even though sometimes other adults were present in the room; the room had several beds, so the children didnt always slept next to him, which is often implied or thought of when it is stated "he/she (yes also girls; ommitted in documentary) slept with Michael Jackson",and  b) or that he was innocent. I am just stating that without a defense or counter-narrative this became a public court room, with no rule of law. (Which is that each suspect deserves a defense and is quilty and proven quilty with facts and not just narratives. This is where the phrase  like "innocent until proven quilty, without a question of a doubt" comes in.) Rule of law is suspended when the public has to find someone quilty - based on two narratives, while other evidence (like an FBI investigation of *10 years* where many children were interrogated) has been ommitted. Or when the rule of law is suspended by the laws of impunity. You can state anything without evidence as an English newspaper did a few days back, stating that the police found "mounts of pornography" in a raid of 2003. Yet none of it appears in the police files, the FBI files of 2005 and the courtcase of 2005. If they had found something from child pornography to bestiality, as the articles states, it would have shown in court. But there is no evidence. And with the impunity laws you can state everything.

Once again, I am not stating that he is innocent but that caution and some critical thinking is wise.

Ledbetterman10 said:

Wow........

https://twitter.com/NYDailyNews/status/1109269351927111680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

I agree: wow, indeed - no sarcasm. (And I am the critical one on this board.) Maybe we should start a thread on Streisand.

fortyshades said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Wow........

https://twitter.com/NYDailyNews/status/1109269351927111680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

I agree: wow, indeed - no sarcasm. (And I am the critical one on this board.) Maybe we should start a thread on Streisand.

She's issued an apology.