Here's why Leaving Neverland is a lie

[Didymus 34,379]

3 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

A collection of **** isn't evidence of guilt. You tried to inaccurately claim they had children fingerprints on them. They didn't. And the only one that did turned out to be tempered with.

This is just not true, sorry Like... amazing how you're so cocky about your own lies and fables. There were multiple magazines with kids' fingerprints on them (like, HELLO, did you ever read one of the police reports? The court papers? That info is just sitting there in plain ****ing sight), the only magazine that was really damning was the one (mentioned in your tv show) that had both Michael and Gavin's prints on them. It was that one that the prosecution could not prove was legit since a lot of time had passed between the discovery of the magazine and when it was tested for fingerprints.

However, this was not the magazine that was published after Gavin left Neverland (there were like tons of p-rn magazines they reviewed in court, why are you pretending there was only one? Again showing off your deliberate ignorance about the subject) and Michael's defense did not claim (as you claimed before you completely backtracked) that this magazine was published after Gaving left Neverland Instead, the defense argued two possibilities: that, as I wrote above, Gavin had touched the magazine during grand jury hearings OR (!) that he had broken into Michael's bedroom, read it there, after which Michael caught him and locked it away (which explains Michael's fingerprint ánd the fact that it was locked in a metal briefcase).

This is literally readable in the defense's own court papers that are spread everywhere online Yet you sit here not even knowing what Michael's defense attorneys were saying

[Ryusei 60,798]

YouGuysAreStillHere?.gif

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

1 hour ago, Didymus said:

 

When did you ever have to fact check me? It's been the other way around, actually. You came with that fake ass story about how Sneddon intentionally contaminated the evidence (which you literally only find on Michael fan blogs) and I was the one who corrected you with information from the legal papers you now claim you're an expert in Hilarious.

 

It's impossible to argue with you.

Literally impossible. You make up your own sources or you use tabloids as sources. I sent you yesterday a video where the jurors themselves confirm that there was an issue with the magazine fingerprints because it was PUBLISHED IN AUGUST 2003 AND GAVIN LEFT NEVERLAND IN MARCH 2003, and that Gavin actually touched it in a hearing in 2004.

Here it is again, they even had a timeline on screen to help you understand if you can't comprehend that: https://360.articulate.com/review/content/376fe218-c017-4644-9697-4f263dea953b/review

And your hypocrisy at best. A documentary that features the jurors WHO SAW EVERYTHING and made the decision cannot be used in this argument, yet uncorroborated claims by admitted perjurers in a TV documentary that defies every journalistic integrity standard is convincing enough to you right? So you cherrypick what you wanna believe.

 And yet, you claim you corrected me lol? Please show me in the "legal papers" where does it show that other magazines also had Gavin's fingerprints and were used in court? There was only one and the claim failed as I explained. You continue to prove to me that you have no idea how trials work. You take a look at the prosecution documents and you take everything they say for granted. They may have claimed that Gavin touched that particular magazine in Neverland, but the claim was unsuccessful in court because the defense successfully pointed out to the contradictions in the timeline.

Maybe try to understand that no, not everything the prosecution claims and says is true. That's why we have something called defense too that makes counter-arguments, and we have triers of fact who make the ultimate decision.

 

 

[Didymus 34,379]

 

17 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

Literally impossible. You make up your own sources or you use tabloids as sources.

When did I ever use tabloids though? You're the one who came with that Huffington Post fan piece. I used 2005 newspaper reports detailing the court in real time and I've referred to official sources for every claim I made

17 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

ILiterally impossible. You make up your own sources or you use tabloids as sources. I sent you yesterday a video where the jurors themselves confirm that there was an issue with the magazine fingerprints because it was PUBLISHED IN AUGUST 2003 AND GAVIN LEFT NEVERLAND IN MARCH 2003, and that Gavin actually touched it in a hearing in 2004.

How many times do I have to repeat they conflated two different magazines?

Look at the court papers. The defense never argued the magazine that had both Michael's and Gavin's fingerprints (not the other ones!!!) was published in August 2003, they argued that the shared fingerprints could be explained either by the fact that Gavin must have broken into Michael's bedroom, after which Michael caught him reading that particular p-rn magazine which is why he ended up touching it too and storing it in a metal briefcase where it was found OR that Gavin must have touched it during grand jury hearings

You're talking about a completely different subject and you're not even realizing it because all you're basing yourself on is a 40 minute documentary that has to summarize the facts really quickly, while I'm referring to the court papers and Michael's defense attorney's own words But you're the one fact checking me, all right.

17 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

You continue to prove to me that you have no idea how trials work. You take a look at the prosecution documents and you take everything they say for granted. They may have claimed that Gavin touched in Neverland, but the claim was unsuccessful in court because the defense successfully pointed out to the contradictions in the timeline.

WHAT

Omg READ the court papers, I swear to God The DEFENSE argued that Gavin might very well have touched them in Neverland but not by Michael's own doing, I'm not even talking about what the prosecution was saying

How ludicrous is it that I'm now having to explain what Michael's defense attorneys were saying because you don't even realize that your precious little documentary contradicts what the DEFENSE was saying You just can't make this stuff up.

Even the fansites of Michael don't deny what I'm saying Here are some quotes from VindicateMJ that back up MY story and not yours (how ridiculous I have to post these omg):

Spoiler

"As you may remember, during the 2003 raid on Neverland Ranch, it was reported that authorities seized “adult material” that included one magazine that reportedly had the fingerprints of both Michael Jackson and his accuser on the same page. Judge Melville ruled this evidence could be submitted. However, there might be a big problem with this evidence. According to “Celebrity Justice” producer and attorney Harvey Levin, the evidence might be contaminated.

“Based on what we’ve seen, this evidence may have been compromised.” Levin reports. “We know when this accuser testified before the grand jury he handled these magazines. At one point, one of the grand jurors asked, ‘Have these magazines been fingerprinted?’ And the sheriff said, ‘No.’ That leaves the door wide open for the defense to argue, ‘How do you know when the boy touched the magazine? At Neverland? Or before the grand jury?'”

--

"Mesereau also made several statements in regards to the behavior of the accuser and his brother. He said the children, at times, seemed “out of control” and would read Jackson’s adult magazines and break into his alchohol without the singer’s permission. He added that Jackson had caught the accuser with an adult magazine and took it away and locked it in a briefcase, explaining why both fingerprints were found on the item"

--

"The detective, Paul Zelis, played a major role in the raid on Neverland Ranch in 2003.  He told the court yesterday that Gavin Arvizo, Michael’s accuser, was allowed to look through the ****ographic magazines that were seized by the police before the items had undergone forensic testing.  That is, before they were dusted for fingerprints.

Gavin and his brother, Star, have already been on the stand, testifying that Michael showed them the ****ography.  The defense counters that the two discovered the magazines when Michael was not present."

--

"The accuser and his brother said they saw this type of magazine when they were in Jackson’s bedroom. In one case, they said, they found the publications on their own while poking through Jackson’s belongings. Now, the prosecution is having a hard time showing that Jackson and the boy handled the magazine together – an important premise of the case.

On Friday, the defense noted that only one magazine submitted in court has a single fingerprint each from Jackson and his accuser. And that magazine was shown to the boy on the witness stand during grand jury hearings and was not tested for prints until after the grand jury returned an indictment."

Source

So that's what Michael fansites have to say about this magazine, 100% in line with what I'm saying about it They don't mention your timeline argument ONCE because it's about a totally different magazine

Go check it yourself. You totally clocked yourelf on this one. Stop looking at 40 minute documentaries made 12 years after the fact for your info, either look at your own fansites (ironically, those biased pages are more correct than you have been) or look at the court papers. I've done both before posting in this thread

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

@Didymus

I'm tired of repeating myself: https://360.articulate.com/review/content/376fe218-c017-4644-9697-4f263dea953b/review

Watch again what the jurors say.

You either didn't watch or being willfully blind and in either case there's no point in arguing with you.

THE JURORS WHO DECIDED THE CASE SAY PLAIN AND SIMPLE THAT THE DATES DID NOT ADD UP SO THAT CLAIM WAS SHUT DOWN. PLEASE JUST QUIT TRYING AND ADMIT WHAT IS A FACT.

[SashaxBzns 498]

On 3/6/2019 at 7:19 AM, nicolasrumet said:

The more I research the topic, the more inconsistencies I find.

So this guy who now claims Michael Jackson abused him testified two times under oath that he didn't, the last time when he was 27 years or so. And after Jackson passed away, he volunteered to participate in the VMAs tribute for him (dancing with Janet Jackson). And he even wore his gloves.

What I don't understand, is how can you "love" your abuser so much at the age of 31? I mean you're mature enough to realize that it was sexual abuse and that it's wrong. I can understand people staying silent and keeping stories secret. But this guy was supposedly idolizing and praising his sexual abuser when he was 31? It just doesn't make sense to me. And the media isn't mentioning any of these facts. How did he make sense of the sexual abuse only after he got into a conflict with MJ's Estate when they wouldn't let him go back to Cirque Du Soleil MJ's show?

Michael is definitely a wierd disturbed guy. But he is not a pedophile/rapist. He believed he was a child and was telling everyone that he was a child and his best friends are children because they're innocent and don't want anything from him unlike the rest. But unfortunately, he became the victim of his own mental instability as the world simply failed to understand his mentality and used that as moneygrab with sexual abuse accusations etc...

On the topic of Michael Jackson, I really encourage you to research before believing ANYTHING you read. Those "facts" you see posted here and there are mostly inaccurate. We unfortunately live in an age where "sexual abuse allegations" are required to be believed on the face of them, even if all the facts say otherwise. That shouldn't be the new standard.

Here's a video that debunks this guy's lies

 

you disgust me

[Didymus 34,379]

3 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

@Didymus

I'm tired of repeating myself: https://360.articulate.com/review/content/376fe218-c017-4644-9697-4f263dea953b/review

Watch again what the jurors say.

You either didn't watch or being willfully blind and in either case there's no point in arguing with you.

THE JURORS WHO DECIDED THE CASE SAY PLAIN AND SIMPLE THAT THE DATES DID NOT ADD UP SO THAT CLAIM WAS SHUT DOWN. PLEASE JUST QUIT TRYING AND ADMIT WHAT IS A FACT.

I just posted you information that MJVindicate spreads to Michael fans who don't believe he's guilty And you're saying they're wrong?

I don't know how many more times I have to repeat myself: it's about a different magazine There were multiple magazines that had Gavin's fingerprints on them (and, indeed, one of these turned out to be published after the fact) but only one had both Michael's and Gavin's fingerprints. This was the most important evidence the prosecution had. THIS ONE WAS NOT PUBLISHED AFTER GAVIN HAD LEFT NEVERLAND, the one that was published after he left did not have Michael's fingerprints on them, only Gavin's 

It's this magazine with both Michael and Gavin's fingerprints (which was NOT published after Gavin left Neverland) about which the defense argued Gavin must have touched it when Michael wasn't there, after which Michael caught him, leaving both fingerprints on the magazine. They also offered the alternative criticism that the fingerprint's date couldn't even be established anyway since Gavin had touched it during grand jury hearings.

This is plain and simple and if you ever bothered to look at the court transcripts you would've known this a long time by now Even every Michael fansite trying to defend his innocence knows about it Yet here you are clumsily combining two different evidence pieces that are improperly explained in a 40 minute documentary of 2017 about the trial, when I've offered you evidence after evidence of 2005 that clearly shows they are mixing up two different court facts.

But go on, keep defending your little documentary and keep denying what's written plain and simple in the court transcripts and what's being written out on the Michael fansites  You're only digging your grave further proving you know absolutely nothing about the details of this case if you're actually going to negate what other Michael fans trying to prove he's innocent are saying

Like, this is the funny thing about this conversation: we're not even talking about Michael's guilt anymore. Our point of disagreement now is about what Michael's defense attorneys have said in court We're not even talking prosecution now. And all because you haven't bothered to read up on the court hearings Yet you're the one trying to paint me as someone who's relying on tabloid gossip and unsubstantiated rumors. Give it up, man. We get it, you think Michael is innocent. No need for this extra theatrics, you're no good at it.

[Didymus 34,379]

Jesus Christ, man. Why would Michael's defense argue that Michael caught Gavin reading some p-rn magazine, explaining Michael's fingerprints on it if the magazine in question was published after Gavin left Neverland Obviously they would just say the magazine was published later. But they didn't, 'cause they said that about a different magazine that did not have Michael's fingerprints on it

Like, it's literally THAT simple and he's not even getting it

[Andy McQueen 4,484]

We live in a society and culture were victims still get blamed and predators defended just because they are famous. Disgusting tbh

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/10/dan-reed-shocked-those-wont-accept-michael-jackson-abuser?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

[Didymus 34,379]

33 minutes ago, Andy McQueen said:

We live in a society and culture were victims still get blamed and predators defended just because they are famous. Disgusting tbh

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/10/dan-reed-shocked-those-wont-accept-michael-jackson-abuser?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Fabulously written piece

Thanks for sharing!

[LUO YI 6,089]

Okay this thread was interesting to read  I really didn’t know anything about the topic. All of this info  

[Guest]

On 3/6/2019 at 12:31 AM, nicolasrumet said:

The facts in R Kelly's case point to guilt. The facts in Michael Jackson's case only point to testimonies from people who previously testified under oath that he did not abuse them, and only changed their mind after he passed away and filed a lawsuit for money.

I'm sorry, but if someone traumatized me, the least I can do while i'm an adult is to keep their distance, not stick up for them, and even participate in their VMA tribute after they pass away.

Give me a break. I'm not going to believe anyone who claims "sexual abuse/trauma" when the facts don't add up. We'll be leaving in a dangerous world if that becomes the standard. And if you think it's okay, you never know when you're next and someone accuses you and you'll lose all of your life as a result.

Kesha has to testify that Luke did nothing to her back in 2011 because he had sh*t to black mail her with but we all know that Luke abused her? You sound like you know nothing about how victims work & what they go through. When you love someone, when someone grooms you to fall in love with them & then start a cycle of abuse it’s one of the toughest things to get out of & even then you still believe it’s love. You need to do your research cause you sound like a republican who uses their own opinions as facts.

[Ack1234 481]

I'm not fully into law and what can and can't be done but could they do a retrial? 

[derpmonster 22,412]

5 hours ago, Ack1234 said:

I'm not fully into law and what can and can't be done but could they do a retrial? 

People can't be tried for the same offense more than once in the US. 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

5 hours ago, lovedillon said:

Kesha has to testify that Luke did nothing to her back in 2011 because he had sh*t to black mail her with but we all know that Luke abused her? You sound like you know nothing about how victims work & what they go through. When you love someone, when someone grooms you to fall in love with them & then start a cycle of abuse it’s one of the toughest things to get out of & even then you still believe it’s love. You need to do your research cause you sound like a republican who uses their own opinions as facts.

Lol what? Kesha testified not because she loved Luke. She testified because her career was controlled by him through a contract and that was established in court. That's understandable.

What about Wade? He even publicly praised and defended MJ two years after his death. And he only changed his story when MJ estate wouldn't let him be the lead choreographer for the Cirque Du Soleil show.

So at that point, he files a lawsuit for 100M$ claiming abuse.

You see the difference? Kesha was under duress because of her contract. Wade had no reason whatsoever to keep defending MJ even after his death.

And no, I'm not buying this "love and grooming" that makes you love your pedophile abuse at the age of 31. I have yet to see scientific proof of that. I can understand when people who are young and maybe brainwashed/groomed into thinking that stuff is okay, but this guy was 31 when he was still defending MJ in 2011. So yeah if you want to claim that, please provide your evidence that people in their 30s can still continue to love their pedophile lovers after their passing away. Because even the documentary didn't include any insight from psychologists, maybe because it wouldn't help their case.