Leaving Neverland

1235

Comments

  • fortyshadesfortyshades Posts: 1,747
    njnancy said:
    I'm fine ending the debate, I respect that. And yes, intense is a generous term for the fans. lol

    This is just for the thread, not in response to you @fortyshades

    He came out angrily after the documentary aired but.....





    I'm fine ending the debate, I respect that. And yes, intense is a generous term for the fans. lol.

    Yeah, they are even worse than PJ fans. And that is stated from someone (me) who collects Pearl Jam T-shirts since 2000. My girlfriend, who isn't a PJ fan; I think she kind of likes them on my behalf, cleaned up my closet a few weeks back and threw some T-shirts away for some were "too small for me". Besides that little emotional stab towards my self worth (in all honesty; since I reached middle aged and got my son, I did grow a bit in size and saw my T-shirts grow from medium to XL) she threw some T-shirts away and I actually got upset and had to go through a process of mourning. Three T-shirts. The Anal (small space) log T-shirt, which I thought was hilarious and my favorite T-shirts: the white one where the person wears a gas masker. This is already pathetic as a fan, but MJ fans are worse. This is no joke: when my mailbox exploded after I stated - I believe in an article - that MJ was addicted, someone send me an email, with a threat including a photo. Always a smart thing to do, especially if I wanted to go to the police (which I didn't in this case, for the threats were hilarious at times, in the same way the threats of the MJ-haters - whom also can be fanatic and very racist, I must add - gave me a laugh here and there; the only time I did go to the police was when I was threatened due to my book. Two individuals knew my address, even though I made myself anonymous in the public records. That *was* scary.)  On the photo was a middle aged woman who almost looked fragile (which you wouldn't have guessed after her descriptive mail) and she was standing in her living room I think (for there was a TV and a seat etc.,) but every inch of her wall was covered with MJ posters. Can you imagine that? You drink a cup of coffee and feel forty eyes looking at you? And she seemed like a very nice lady. Someone you just wanted to hug and drink a cup of coffee with. She seemed so lonely (and small) standing there with all these enormous posters.

    Yeah, I didn't watch any footage, but saw the twitter hail storm develop on the internet and read some articles how he backtracked (but did not change his personal experiences he had with MJ). I guess in a way he had to, for he has this foundation that wants to stop the statue of limitations on sex crimes (which would be a good thing) and even though you may not agree with someone and the documentary (and in the answers I saw, he still doesn't for he omitted that carefully), I always interpreted this as damage control for his foundation. What I gathered, but could be wrong (for contrary to with something someone above stated: I only watch youtube for music. The last few weeks I watched Glen Hansard quite a bit and his upcoming album, which sounds - of the two songs I heard - different and darker than his previous albums) he stated he could no longer defend MJ, for he believes you should listen to all victims. And in fact I agree. You should listen to all victims and if it becomes a case where you have to judge someone, you should also listen to all the witnesses including the ones that state nothing happened: you should get the whole rounded picture. And since this has become a public trail now, I think it is unfortunate that Dan Reed didn't got in more voices, that could have made his documentary more balanced - for he is the one who made this a public case.  (And is receiving huge pay checks in doing so.) Furthermore, he is actually protected by the US law. If MJ was alive he could have sued for slander and defamation. When a person is dead however no one, not even the family, can sue you. You have in fact complete impunity. (And I know the Estate sues HBO now, but it is not for slander, but a clause that was signed in 1992.) And this is also where it starts to rub for me: if you ask me to be the judge and jury, give me the complete picture - also the dissident voices - before I send anyone to the gallows. Dan Reed didn't do this. He made a documentary, served it first off as investigating journalism (but did not abide to the principles of investigating journalism - cross referenced verification, seek for falsifications and give a multi perspective views) and gave two people, who aren't completely without controversy, if you include what they stated in their individual cases and what they said in the documentary, the floor. With the side note: this isn't about MJ, but about victims of abuse. a) don't serve it off as investigating journalism  then if that was your intent and b) don't make me the judge and jury if you only represent two voices against 48 and 100 other voices. This not being about MJ doesn't make any sense. If this wasn't about MJ, it would never have garnished so much attention and his bank account would not have become bigger. And ok, if you want to garnish that attention, and make me the judge and jury, give me the full picture. I hear people say "I believe the accusers" and that is fine. You are entitled to your beliefs and opinion. You cannot entitle facts however. And in this department his documentary is lacking for he left a few things (all I stated above) out. Things that could have changed my opinion as being the judge and jury. And I think here the danger lies. If you give a one sided picture, without the dissident voices included, it is easy to make a verdict "because you believed the stories and narrations".  But you haven't heard the other side. You basically have a court case without the defense. And here the mass media could have been more critical, give us more information instead of only repeating the documentary (that is what I meant by parroting). Now judgments are made, where a lot of people are not aware that there was an FBI investigation, that Wade withheld facts and was even reprimanded by the judge for doing so in his individual court case and that this was part of the reason, not only the stature of limitations, why the case was thrown out. Making society the court room is a dangerous thing to do, for it would not be the first time we nailed someone on a cross, without knowing the complete story. And that is the pinnacle of my criticism.

    As stated I am neutral. I don't know if he has done it or not. The documentary sounds convincing. But before I get my rope or hammer and nails, I want to be 100% certain and hear the defense - that is after all the rule of law in any criminal case. (And that was the only point I was trying to make.)          

    For the rest: I have T-shirts to mourn about.

  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,346
    ...... I wonder how PJ fans would react to some sordid, terrible scandal with EV or Mike or whoever? :pensive: I have seen the reaction of Ryan Adams fans recently with his whole scandal that's happening... A shocking number of them stand by Adams no matter what, and won't believe any of the accusers. And they are not nearly as rabid as a lot of PJ superfans.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Ledbetterman10Ledbetterman10 Posts: 10,752
    PJ_Soul said:
    ...... I wonder how PJ fans would react to some sordid, terrible scandal with EV or Mike or whoever? :pensive: I have seen the reaction of Ryan Adams fans recently with his whole scandal that's happening... A shocking number of them stand by Adams no matter what, and won't believe any of the accusers. And they are not nearly as rabid as a lot of PJ superfans.
    This is a good question. Depends on the scandal I guess. If it was something like child molestation, I think I'd be able to turn my brain off and listen to the music the same....but my days of visiting this forum and attending PJ concerts would probably be over.
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • njnancynjnancy Northern New JerseyPosts: 4,258
    PJ_Soul said:
    ...... I wonder how PJ fans would react to some sordid, terrible scandal with EV or Mike or whoever? :pensive: I have seen the reaction of Ryan Adams fans recently with his whole scandal that's happening... A shocking number of them stand by Adams no matter what, and won't believe any of the accusers. And they are not nearly as rabid as a lot of PJ superfans.
    This is a good question. Depends on the scandal I guess. If it was something like child molestation, I think I'd be able to turn my brain off and listen to the music the same....but my days of visiting this forum and attending PJ concerts would probably be over.
    I wonder what Ryan Adams and MJ superfans would say about a member of PJ sleeping with minor children in their bed with the door closed on a consistent basis or cheating and having inproper relationships with underage girls. Would they say that particular person 'had no childhood' and demand 'real' proof or would they be able to suspend reality for another artist that they didn't voraciously follow?
  • fortyshadesfortyshades Posts: 1,747
    I would say never suspend reality when a verdict is placed in my hands. Seek facts. So seek reality. That said I would say digustinging the same way I say what happened in Neverland (not the doc) is abnormal. But I think no one in PJ is suffering (thank God) from a messiah complex. (That is what I see when I watch the ineterogation tapes. The guy is accussed and he defends himself with the scripture???) Either way, in the case of Ryan Adams there is some hard evidence, no? There are the messenger transcripts and footage where he undresses himself. Or am I mixing up cases?

    And no, I am not a crazed MJ rabid fan. I am a however bit sceptical and seek some objectivity before I publicly hang someone near the nearest tree.

    That said, I think I said, I will not have a public discussion Nancy, and I will abide to that after this. Sorry that I did it now. I know I am in the minority - but Dickens wrote something about that. (And not because he is innocent, but if we talk about a financial gain of 1 billion - which is a hell of a motive - I need some more proof than conflicting statements.) 

    I wrote a personal message to you. I hope you received it.

  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 11,732
    Video released of the one boy going out buying rings with Michael.
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 11,732
    PJ_Soul said:
    ...... I wonder how PJ fans would react to some sordid, terrible scandal with EV or Mike or whoever? :pensive: I have seen the reaction of Ryan Adams fans recently with his whole scandal that's happening... A shocking number of them stand by Adams no matter what, and won't believe any of the accusers. And they are not nearly as rabid as a lot of PJ superfans.
    There are people on here who can't take anyone criticizing the bands actions or love whatever the tenclub do... so...


    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 11,732

    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • njnancynjnancy Northern New JerseyPosts: 4,258
    edited March 14
    I would say never suspend reality when a verdict is placed in my hands. Seek facts. So seek reality. That said I would say digustinging the same way I say what happened in Neverland (not the doc) is abnormal. But I think no one in PJ is suffering (thank God) from a messiah complex. (That is what I see when I watch the ineterogation tapes. The guy is accussed and he defends himself with the scripture???) Either way, in the case of Ryan Adams there is some hard evidence, no? There are the messenger transcripts and footage where he undresses himself. Or am I mixing up cases?

    And no, I am not a crazed MJ rabid fan. I am a however bit sceptical and seek some objectivity before I publicly hang someone near the nearest tree.

    That said, I think I said, I will not have a public discussion Nancy, and I will abide to that after this. Sorry that I did it now. I know I am in the minority - but Dickens wrote something about that. (And not because he is innocent, but if we talk about a financial gain of 1 billion - which is a hell of a motive - I need some more proof than conflicting statements.) 

    I wrote a personal message to you. I hope you received it.

    Yes I received it.  I don't feel like we were having a spat or unusual debate, but I had said I was fine with not debating the counter argument you had introduced. I thought it was good to have someone bring in a different view and I enjoyed reading and responding to your post.  But you asked and I  said fine - I don't need to respond to it and I don't harbor any negative feelings. It's cool.  

    You have responded to me twice since I said that we didn't have to debate, I even specifically said that I wasn't aiming my post at you. 

    I don't want to feel like each time I post you feel as if we are having a personal dialogue. I am just posting in the thread in a general way. 

    Everything's fine on my end. But if you don't want to debate, then please don't respond to what I post with caveats that you don't want to debate. It's confusing. I'm interested in this topic and will continue to post so I hope we can both move forward comfortably. :peace:


    Edit to add - I'm sorry about your T-shirts. I have a couple from various artists and festivals (Amnesty International - Giants Stadium) that I keep in my cedar chest. The rest are in circulation, but I have parted with rock T-shirts in the past - gave one away unintentionally. That can suck. 

    Post edited by njnancy on
  • njnancynjnancy Northern New JerseyPosts: 4,258
    PJ_Soul said:
    ...... I wonder how PJ fans would react to some sordid, terrible scandal with EV or Mike or whoever? :pensive: I have seen the reaction of Ryan Adams fans recently with his whole scandal that's happening... A shocking number of them stand by Adams no matter what, and won't believe any of the accusers. And they are not nearly as rabid as a lot of PJ superfans.
    There are people on here who can't take anyone criticizing the bands actions or love whatever the tenclub do... so...



  • njnancynjnancy Northern New JerseyPosts: 4,258

    Simi Valley, 12 years old - 1989 - Jimmy.
  • fortyshadesfortyshades Posts: 1,747
    edited March 14
    njnancy said:
    I would say never suspend reality when a verdict is placed in my hands. Seek facts. So seek reality. That said I would say digustinging the same way I say what happened in Neverland (not the doc) is abnormal. But I think no one in PJ is suffering (thank God) from a messiah complex. (That is what I see when I watch the ineterogation tapes. The guy is accussed and he defends himself with the scripture???) Either way, in the case of Ryan Adams there is some hard evidence, no? There are the messenger transcripts and footage where he undresses himself. Or am I mixing up cases?

    And no, I am not a crazed MJ rabid fan. I am a however bit sceptical and seek some objectivity before I publicly hang someone near the nearest tree.

    That said, I think I said, I will not have a public discussion Nancy, and I will abide to that after this. Sorry that I did it now. I know I am in the minority - but Dickens wrote something about that. (And not because he is innocent, but if we talk about a financial gain of 1 billion - which is a hell of a motive - I need some more proof than conflicting statements.) 

    I wrote a personal message to you. I hope you received it.

    Yes I received it.  I don't feel like we were having a spat or unusual debate, but I had said I was fine with not debating the counter argument you had introduced. I thought it was good to have someone bring in a different view and I enjoyed reading and responding to your post.  But you asked and I  said fine - I don't need to respond to it and I don't harbor any negative feelings. It's cool.  

    You have responded to me twice since I said that we didn't have to debate, I even specifically said that I wasn't aiming my post at you. 

    I don't want to feel like each time I post you feel as if we are having a personal dialogue. I am just posting in the thread in a general way. 

    Everything's fine on my end. But if you don't want to debate, then please don't respond to what I post with caveats that you don't want to debate. It's confusing. I'm interested in this topic and will continue to post so I hope we can both move forward comfortably. :peace:


    Edit to add - I'm sorry about your T-shirts. I have a couple from various artists and festivals (Amnesty International - Giants Stadium) that I keep in my cedar chest. The rest are in circulation, but I have parted with rock T-shirts in the past - gave one away unintentionally. That can suck. 

    Dear Nancy, no confusing needed. I was responding in general too. (I was saying in general: "I said I would not debate but..." - this was not aimed at you, even though I realized later I was commenting on your message. It was unintentional. The thing is Dan Reed is very good at calling everyone who disagrees or critiques "a crazed MJ rabid fan" (he said this a few times in the last few weeks and is by such framing things) which I am clearly not. I am just carefull in lynching someone before we have *all* the facts. I studied narratives and group dynamics, as I stated before, it is my field of expertise. And if you have read 500+ eyewitness accounts as I have, with gruesome stories, you become carefull. I know I am the minority here. And it almost feels I am defending pedophelia, which I incidently know also something about, but am no expert. Which I of course do not defend. We have the rule of law and a reasonable doubt for a reason. How convincing narratives may be, unfortunately, they not always hold up to scrutiny or the rule of law. I feel like we are pressed in a corner as being judge and jury at the same time with no defense - and I have seen to many times how this can escelate. That is all. I found out also that I wrote on your wall - which I though was a private message. Didnt even knew that we had walls and what the point of it is. But if you could remove it, for it was primarily for your eyes only, I will be gratefull. I asked TenC but it is not on my wall, so I cant remove it. Interesting find on the video. How does it fit in the timeline?

    And thanks for the T-shirt. The one I miss the most is the gasmask, sniff. I found the link to the FBI report , btw. Took some digging in my data. Won't link it here, but if anybody is interested how extensive the investigation was PM me.

    Enjoying Glen Hansard now. Can truly recommend it.
    Post edited by fortyshades on
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,346
    I support this kind of caution too, in general. I dunno - it's a bit of a balancing act, isn't it? And one shoe does not fit all with things like this either. Sometimes it is easier to pick a side than at other times. The fact that the accused is dead in this case for sure changes things IMO.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • njnancynjnancy Northern New JerseyPosts: 4,258
    I find this type of debate to be healthy and if nothing else, the documentary opens up the subject of child abuse and may help some people who truly are struggling to find help. And if it can help prevent the cycle from happening to just one child then it has done its job. 

    The accused is indeed dead and so there is no real way to ever have a full hearing of these allegations. Opening the eyes of people who are in that situation is the hope I see from this documentary. And I hope that whomever needs to heal or get help does so. Including MJ's children, I have a lot of concern for them. 

    @fortyshades I will erase it from my wall - I didn't want to offend you so I'm glad you want it gone. I think that people use the wall mostly for arrangements for merch  or ticket trade/sales. Also to welcome new people to the board.  
  • njnancynjnancy Northern New JerseyPosts: 4,258
    njnancy said:

    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. 
  • DewieCoxDewieCox Posts: 9,718
    njnancy said:
    njnancy said:

    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. 
    I didn’t even question it. I thought for sure it was him. LOL
  • njnancynjnancy Northern New JerseyPosts: 4,258
    DewieCox said:
    njnancy said:
    njnancy said:

    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. 
    I didn’t even question it. I thought for sure it was him. LOL

    I'm stuck in your quote and I've tried twice and the backspace quote glitch keeps plopping me in here.

    I need to find the truth now that it's just not me. :glasses:
  • DewieCoxDewieCox Posts: 9,718
    njnancy said:
    DewieCox said:
    njnancy said:
    njnancy said:

    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. 
    I didn’t even question it. I thought for sure it was him. LOL

    I'm stuck in your quote and I've tried twice and the backspace quote glitch keeps plopping me in here.

    I need to find the truth now that it's just not me. :glasses:
    Yeah, what a pain in the ass. OCD usually makes me start all over, even if I have to go into drafts and delete. I checked his wiki and didn’t see anything that would indicate it’s him. Now I’m gonna have all kinds of creepy ads from searching for him.
  • njnancynjnancy Northern New JerseyPosts: 4,258
    DewieCox said:
    njnancy said:
    DewieCox said:
    njnancy said:
    njnancy said:

    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. 
    I didn’t even question it. I thought for sure it was him. LOL

    I'm stuck in your quote and I've tried twice and the backspace quote glitch keeps plopping me in here.

    I need to find the truth now that it's just not me. :glasses:
    Yeah, what a pain in the ass. OCD usually makes me start all over, even if I have to go into drafts and delete. I checked his wiki and didn’t see anything that would indicate it’s him. Now I’m gonna have all kinds of creepy ads from searching for him.
    I was on my third try and I just had it - it sucks when it's one of those rabbit holes on AMT and it takes 5 minutes to delete the whole thing. LOL

    So he's just a look alike O'Reilly? Poor guy. I don't want creepy ads aimed for O'Reilly fans popping up, I wish he would just say his name in the beginning!!!
  • fortyshadesfortyshades Posts: 1,747
    PJ_Soul said:
    I support this kind of caution too, in general. I dunno - it's a bit of a balancing act, isn't it? And one shoe does not fit all with things like this either. Sometimes it is easier to pick a side than at other times. The fact that the accused is dead in this case for sure changes things IMO.
    Yeah, because at the same time you dont want to offend on this board either, people whom have gone through such an experience. And I dont want to hurt their feelings
     It is a balancing  act from all sides, and with this in mind I try to weigh each word I etite. But I have to stay by the rule of law. Quilty without a doubt. My biggest issue is that a) Dan Reed gave no counter arguments and manipulated the footage in such a way that it confirms the story, he didnt tell or even question the other side or the discrepansies of the two seperate trials of the acussers. And with manipulation I mean for example not showing how many girls went to Neverland (literally thousands) and also had sleepovers. It has been verified by s 100+ staff. Documentaries can be edited  be shown in a specific order that strenghtens the narrative, but doesnt show how it was really like. He also ommitted some important issues, for example, that Wade was caught lying and withholding information to the judge in his own court case in 2013. He was even officially reprimanded for it and that is the reason the case was thrown out - it is all in the court transcriptions. And this brings me to point b) even though the story of James is more consistent and creditable, his narrative in his court case is at some moments fastly different from his narrative in Neverland. Even factual. He mentioned sexual acts that doesnt fit the time frame; he used dates where MJ wasnt in Neverland, not even in LA and one case not even in the US. There ate literary thousands of witnesses that can confirm this. It is also suspicious that Wade sought James when he was in desolute and his case was thrown out. They are even represented by the same lawyer in the Appeal case. And here it comes tricky: did the dates not match because memory can be a funny thing, or did he lie to create a scheme together with Wade? Since Dan Reed didnt ask these critical questions we are left to guess or to "believe". And this is also tricky: believing can create tunnelvision, where you start to ommit facts. As stated you're entitled to an opinion or believe. But not entitled to facts. (A quote from Obama in the Letterman show.)

    And I know, I know that Reed said that this is not about MJ, but the victims. This is a real weak argument. If this doc was about Joe Schmuck it would not have garnished so much attention. And believe me, his bank account is not hurting by this. He is selling rights left and right. In the end he should have used the principles that every investigating journalist does: verify statements through triangulation to seek validity, look for falsifications and show us a greater contextual perspective to show other people that could colloborate the stories told. He failed on all three accounts. And that every critique he is receiving (like from other journalists, Blane, I think his name was - the boy after Wade which Wade claims was also abused, which Blane denies and is even willing to take legal actions, for he feels like his name is slurred into this and that he is named a victim while ademantly states he is not - and a written statement by 48 former children (male and female) who state that nothing inappropiate happened) are according to Dan rabid crazed or "thick headed MJ fans" (literal quatation), including the 48 who signed the letter and Blane etc. He is hereby framing anyone who has questions as enablers - a narrow road to walk on. And by stating this, he is not answering any questions, but blurs them. What a lot of people dont know either is that Wade first went to Blane before he went to James. (He was victim hunting.) Blane said it was a scheme and he wanted nothing to do with it. So there is this whole other side, that is not told.

    The law in this matter actually  protects Dan Reed, which makes it even more stickier; you cannot slander or defame a dead person. You cannot be sued. So you can claim anything with complete impunity. 

    And this is my beef; why didn't Dan Reed abide to the principles of investigating journalism? He knows that. And he knows how to frame things. And now this thing start a life on its own. The Daily Star (not the most trudtworthy newspaper btw) came with an article that when the police raided MJ house in 2003 they found an enormous amount of porn: from child pornagraph to bestiality and snuff movies. There was even medication found for people who are sex addicted (dont think that exists but who am I?) You would say that is pretty an incriminating find and evidence. Yet nothing of this is found in the official papers of this raid in the Santa Barbara police nor in the FBI files nor is it mentioned in the court case of 2005. What has been found is a stack of Hustler (hetero sexual) magazines. That he supposedly used for the grooming. But why not homosexual magazines, which makes a lot more sense if you are an homosexual pedophile, for you normalize the act. In fact most homosexual pedophile use homosexual material, they are serial offenders with a victim count sometimes of 40+ and all, without exception, own child pornagraphy which has not been found (FBI files).

    I am not stating he is innocent, for all clarity. I am stating that we do not really know and that these things should not be built on "believe" how horrid the stories are (psychological tests have shown btw that people are more prone to believe horrid stories, the more detail the better  than happy stories), but built on verifications and evidence.

    Reed made us jury and judge, but did not do his job as normal investigating journalism do.

  • bbiggsbbiggs Posts: 3,102
    njnancy said:
    njnancy said:

    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. 
  • fortyshadesfortyshades Posts: 1,747
    bbiggs said:
    njnancy said:
    njnancy said:

    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!!!
  • bbiggsbbiggs Posts: 3,102
    bbiggs said:
    njnancy said:
    njnancy said:

    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 
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 5,288
    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...


  • DewieCoxDewieCox Posts: 9,718
    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.
  • fortyshadesfortyshades Posts: 1,747
    bbiggs said:
    bbiggs said:
    njnancy said:
    njnancy said:

    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 
    bbiggs said:
    bbiggs said:
    njnancy said:
    njnancy said:

    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 
    That explains my hairstyle then.
  • fortyshadesfortyshades Posts: 1,747
    edited March 18
    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.
    Post edited by fortyshades on
  • Ledbetterman10Ledbetterman10 Posts: 10,752
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • fortyshadesfortyshades Posts: 1,747
    I agree: wow, indeed - no sarcasm. (And I am the critical one on this board.) Maybe we should start a thread on Streisand.
  • MayDay10MayDay10 Posts: 9,757
    Walls of text
Sign In or Register to comment.