Here's why Leaving Neverland is a lie

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

6 minutes ago, derpmonster said:

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

Double Jeopardy doesn't mean that MJ couldn't be charged with lewd act upon a minor again. He could, provided that the victim is different from those in the 1993 and 2005 trials. But because of the statute of limitations and the credibility issues of these two men, the prosecution would probably not charge him again if he was alive.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

@Didymus I'm done arguing with you about the magazine.

I don't care about the source if it's not credible. If you'd like post whatever legal documents that shows there was another magazine that had both of their fingerprints and wasn't published after Gavin's departure.

Because the Jurors themselves in the video I sent you, said plain and simple that the prosecution presented this one Magazine that had both of their fingerprints but it turns out the dates did not add up so Gavin possibly touched it during the hearing.

So yeah please don't come back to me with "there were multiple magazines with both fingerprints" nonsense unless you have the legal documents to prove that.

And what's even sad is that even the website you sent confirms there was ONE MAGAZINE that had both fingerprints but turns out it was tempered with (was published after Gavin's departure, and Gavin touched it during the hearing).

So just admit it and move on. Stop playing around.

[Jakkusan 791]

I am so disgusted that this thread is still here. Can someone please end this??

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

6 minutes ago, Jakkusan said:

I am so disgusted that this thread is still here. Can someone please end this??

If you are the type of people who believe we must believe every documentary/allegations there is with no regard whatsoever to the evidence, please feel free to not look at this thread.

But don't blame others for debating it with evidence and facts.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

7 hours 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

 

An article from the director of the documentary who didn't bother including even a rebuttal from the other side concerning these new allegations? Someone who defied every journalistic norm and standard and got away with it because of the #MeToo movement? Corey Feldman was mentioned in the documentary. He's alive, why wasn't he invited to vet what was said about him? Oh because it would undermine the story of the documentary.

Journalists SHOULD investigate MJ, but what disturbed me the most about this whole thing is Dan Reed's blatant manipulation which destroyed the credibility of his documentary in my eyes. Notice that every cable news out there that mentions this documentary ALSO includes the rebuttal from MJ's family. That's journalistic standards.

He talks about powerful attachment between abuser and the victim? Is he an expert on the matter? Why there was no room in his documentary for expert testimony? Why there was no psychologist to explain this "powerful attachment", is it because psychologist would probably not confirm his theory?

[Didymus 34,379]

8 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

I don't care about the source if it's not credible. If you'd like post whatever legal documents that shows there was another magazine that had both of their fingerprints and wasn't published after Gavin's departure.

For the last time, there wasn't another with both Jackson's and Gavin's fingerprints

Check the court transcripts of March 24 and March 25. Robert Spinner, Sheriff of Santa Barbara County testified twice that 19 fingerprints were found on a variety of p-rn magazines, but there was only one copy of "Hustler Barely Legal Hardcore" that showed prints of both Michael and Gavin.

I cannot believe you don't know this. Not only is it just sitting there in the court papers, it was reported by almost every newspaper in March 2005 that followed the trial (examples: (NME, BBC, Digital Spy). This is not the magazine that Mesereau found was published after Gavin and his family left Neverland.

Why do I know that?

Look at the court transcripts of March 7 and especially March 8 (notice that this was weeks before the forensic evidence of fingerprints was shown in court):

Spoiler

4 Q. Okay. Now, referring to Exhibit 86
5 May I approach the witness, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: Yes.
7 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.
8 Q. Star, I’m showing you a photograph that you
9 identified yesterday. The number is 86. Do you see
10 that.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And that’s a briefcase with some girlie
13 magazines, right.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And you told the jury yesterday, they’re the
16 magazines you saw at Neverland, right.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And before you testified about these
19 magazines --
20 May I show the jury this, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Yes.
22 MR. MESEREAU: Thank you.
23 Shall I just hand it to them.
24 THE COURT: If that’s what you would like.
25 MR. SANGER: Tom, do you want to put it up
26 on the screen.
27 MR. MESEREAU: Sure.
28 MR. SANGER: I’ve turned this on.
-
1 THE BAILIFF: It would be “Input 4.”
2 THE COURT: It would be “4”.
3 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Now, do you see that
4 briefcase, Star.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And what you’re looking at is Exhibit 86,
7 right.
8 A. I don’t see the number.
9 Q. Okay. Just -- what you’re looking at is
10 a -- appears to be a black briefcase with some
11 girlie magazines, right.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And the first one says “Barely Legal” on it;
14 do you see that.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And it appears to be a blonde woman lifting
17 up her shirt, correct.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And it appears to be a blonde woman who’s
20 exposing her breasts, right.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And she appears to be wearing a dark pair of
23 shorts, right.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Before you testified yesterday you looked at
26 that photograph with Prosecutor Sneddon, correct.
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. You told Prosecutor Sneddon that those are
-
1 the magazines you had seen at Neverland, right.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You told Prosecutor Sneddon that Michael
4 Jackson had showed you those magazines, right.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Michael Jackson never showed you that
7 magazine, “Barely Legal,” did he.
8 A. What.
9 Q. Michael Jackson never showed you that
10 magazine, “Barely Legal,” did he.
11 A. He did show us.
12 Q. He did.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Well, Star, did you look at the date of the
15 magazine. It’s August of 2003, is it not.
16 A. Well, I never said that was exactly that
17 one.
18 Q. Well, your family had left Neverland many
19 months before, never to return, correct.
20 A. That -- I’m telling you that that wasn’t
21 exactly the one he showed us.
22 Q. That’s not what you said yesterday, and it’s
23 not what you said today, right.

This is the magazine they're talking about in the documentary. It was a minor episode in the trial that you'll find on Michael fan blogs, news sites, etc. only with extreme difficulty as it simply was not that big a deal. The big deal was that weeks later it was confirmed that one particular copy of Barely Legal published before Gavin left Neverland actually did have both Michael's and Gavin's fingerprints on them which corroborated Gavin's story and made irrelevant Mesereau's claim that the magazine he had shown in court on March 8 was published after the facts.

Which is why Mesereau did a 180 (remember you belittled me with that, calling it my own invention?) and then claimed that Gavin did find the magazine at Neverland but not because Michael showed it to him but because he must have broken into Michael's bedroom after which Michael caught him and locked the magazine away, leaving his fingerprints on the metal briefcase He also argued, alternatively, that in any case Gavin might have also touched the magazine (and the others with his fingerprints on them) during grand jury hearings.

It appears in the court papers time and time again, Mesereau making no mention whatsoever about magazines being published after Gavin left Neverland Because that wasn't relevant anymore. Forensic evidence had shown there were fingerprints on magazines that were not published after Gavin had left, so he completely dropped that narrative (and why wouldn't he).

Take a look here, I actually made the effort of quoting the court papers at the end of the trial for you so you'll finally shut up about me referring to friggin' tabloids and other uncredible sources. From these quotations it's clear that Mesereau tried desperately to prove that even if Gavin had seen the magazines at Neverland (again, he mentions nothing of magazines published after the fact or any of that ****), this did not prove Michael's guilt:

Spoiler

June 3:

18 The only people who have come before you to
19 say they were shown adult material by Mr. Jackson
20 are con artists, actors and liars.
21 And the only forensic evidence they had to
22 hang their hat on are fingerprints on some girlie
23 magazines that were owned by Michael Jackson. And
24 you know that everywhere the Arvizo children went,
25 they would rummage through drawers, rummage through
26 the house. They did it at the dentist’s office.
27 They did it in Vernee Watson Johnson’s home. This
28 is the way they behave.
-
12 And by the way, they want you to think these
13 fingerprints on a couple of magazines are bombshell
14 forensic evidence.
15 What are they evidence of? That he looked
16 at Michael’s magazines.
17 Are they evidence of any of these crimes?
18 No.
-
7 “Had you ever seen any girlie magazines in
8 your life before you say Michael Jackson showed
9 them to you?
10 “Um, no.
11 “Never?
12 “Well, I was only like 11 or 12.
13 “Weren’t you caught at Neverland looking in
14 girlie magazines?
15 “I said no.
16 “No one ever caught you and your brother
17 looking at girlie magazines at Neverland?
18 “Never.”
19 He was caught by Julio Avila with a girlie
20 magazine in his backpack and said it was from his
21 own home.
22 “Okay. Okay. And your testimony is, until
23 you got to Neverland, you and your brother had
24 never looked at girlie magazines at any time; is
25 that right?
26 “Yes.”
27 Flat-out lies. Con artists, actors, liars.

The whole "magazine published after the fact" episode occurred only on March 8 when there was no forensic evidence yet that proved that Gavin might have actually looked at p-rn magazines while he was at Neverland, and Mesereau never again brought up the idea that the magazines could not have been touched by Gavin because they were published after the facts. Because they weren't

So goodbye, you have been clocked, you have been caught in your ignorance about the trial and you are still embarrassing trying to claim I'm not the one grounding his arguments in court papers when you're the one clinging for dear life to some factually incorrect 40-minute documentary made 12 years after the trial 

Good luck trying to respond to this without admitting you were wrong.

[Didymus 34,379]

Jesus. Pages of useless discussion. I was friggin' RIGHT ALL ALONG with court paper evidence to back me up and this fool has just been sitting there proud in his own ignorance and mocking me for relying on tabloids and gossip until I actually spent 30 minutes of my day for him looking up the court papers again and quoting the relevant passages

But I'm the one who's biased, not looking at the facts and not fact-checking

The absurdity of this thread just reached staggering new heights. At least I got to prove that the most passionate Michael defenders are often the ones knowing the least about the facts

[SilkSpectre 114]

23 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

 

And having an alarm in the stairs leading to his room isn't incriminating either. This is the most famous person on earth. Who knows whatever security measures there are in place in the mansion. Are you a security expert?

 

It is suspicious as hell though, isn’t it? This isn’t an alarm to alert security. This is a series of alarm points to sound within michaels room (where he is alone with young boys) to alert him someone is coming. what is the purpose of these alarms meant to be seen as they only sound in the bedroom- Michael is meant to defend himself from an intruder? There was security on site to ensure no one was in the house who shouldn’t be and none of your guests or staff would enter your bedroom without knocking and  told by you they could come in why the need to be alerted so long before they’re outside your door? 

[Andy McQueen 4,484]

9 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

Corey Feldman was mentioned in the documentary. He's alive, why wasn't he invited to vet what was said about him? Oh because it would undermine the story of the documentary.

Would it?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/corey-feldman-michael-jackson-leaving-neverland_n_5c82780fe4b0ed0a00128d3e?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000024&utm_source=entertainment_fb&utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&ir=Entertainment&utm_medium=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0fJgDkWOr93w5Co7Q4-_LRiyUOA7bJVhvxKYw7kF80TikYahePLMqUZdM

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8305159/michael-jackson-nude-photos-corey-feldman/

 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

4 minutes ago, Andy McQueen said:

Would it?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/corey-feldman-michael-jackson-leaving-neverland_n_5c82780fe4b0ed0a00128d3e?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000024&utm_source=entertainment_fb&utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&ir=Entertainment&utm_medium=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0fJgDkWOr93w5Co7Q4-_LRiyUOA7bJVhvxKYw7kF80TikYahePLMqUZdM

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8305159/michael-jackson-nude-photos-corey-feldman/

 

He simply said that he can neither defend nor judge him and that he didn't do those things to him.

So where's the problem? He made it clear even in his earlier tweets that he thought the documentary was one-sided and that MJ didn't do anything to him. So what else do you want him to say? He got in a lot of trouble for saying that. And he has his own documentary coming up soon, so he doesn't want more controversies surrounding him.

He literally said "my job is not to be the accuser and my job is not to be the defender, my job to focus on reforming the statute of limitations".

You're acting as if he supported the allegations. He didn't.

[Andy McQueen 4,484]

8 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

He simply said that he can neither defend nor judge him and that he didn't do those things to him.

So where's the problem? He made it clear even in his earlier tweets that he thought the documentary was one-sided and that MJ didn't do anything to him. So what else do you want him to say? He got in a lot of trouble for saying that. And he has his own documentary coming up soon, so he doesn't want more controversies surrounding him.

He literally said "my job is not to be the accuser and my job is not to be the defender, my job to focus on reforming the statute of limitations".

You're acting as if he supported the allegations. He didn't.

Dan Reed made clear several times that this documentary is about Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck Jr., that's why he interviewed their mothers, wives, relatives etc. and not anyone of the Jackson estate. Besides that, he included several footage of Michael Jackson defending himself. Also several footage showing manic fans defending him, screaming "Michael Innocent" as if they were in a bizarre cult. There is no point to interview Corey Feldman because he wasn' abused, nor was Macaulay Culkin. (Which is no surprise, since both were too famous... MJ wouldn't risk that, obviously.) 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

1 minute ago, Andy McQueen said:

Dan Reed made clear several times that this documentary is about Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck Jr., that's why he interviewed their mothers, wives, relatives etc. and not anyone of the Jackson estate. Besides that, he included several footage of Michael Jackson defending himself. Also several footage showing manic fans defending him, screaming "Michael Innocent" as if they were in a bizarre cult. There is no point to interview Corey Feldman because he wasn' abused, nor was Macaulay Culkin. (Which is no surprise, since both were famous... He wouldn't risk that.) 

When you make public allegations about someone, you should have the courtesy of allowing them or their attorney to provide a rebuttal.

No, those rebuttal that he showed on screen aren't rebuttals to these allegations. These are new allegations by new people. He should've simply contacted his family or the estate. He didn't want to. Because he didn't want to include anything that may undermine their credibility. 

[Andy McQueen 4,484]

10 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

When you make public allegations about someone, you should have the courtesy of allowing them or their attorney to provide a rebuttal.

No, those rebuttal that he showed on screen aren't rebuttals to these allegations. These are new allegations by new people. He should've simply contacted his family or the estate. He didn't want to. Because he didn't want to include anything that may undermine their credibility. 

It wouldn't change anything because obviously the estate would claim it is not true, what else should they say? It's the same situation like in the 90's, just with different people. 

Back then, his sister admitted that she did believe the victims:
https://www.complex.com/music/2019/03/latoya-jackson-accuses-michael-crimes-against-innocent-children-1993-footage
 

(Tragic the mother was using homophobic slurs for pedophile acts, though...)

It would be no surprise if Joe Jackson abused him too. (Maybe not sexually, but physically...)

https://slate.com/technology/2019/03/michael-jackson-leaving-neverland-cycle-of-abuse-childhood.html

Also, Feldman admitted that Michael showed him ****ographic material, which doesn't make him appear too innocent or less creepy either... 

 

[Didymus 34,379]

@nicolasrumet

Are you seriously just not gonna reply

[Whispering 18,865]

9 hours ago, Andy McQueen said:

Would it?

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/corey-feldman-michael-jackson-leaving-neverland_n_5c82780fe4b0ed0a00128d3e?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000024&utm_source=entertainment_fb&utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&ir=Entertainment&utm_medium=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0fJgDkWOr93w5Co7Q4-_LRiyUOA7bJVhvxKYw7kF80TikYahePLMqUZdM

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8305159/michael-jackson-nude-photos-corey-feldman/

 

“As I’m watching it, I’m going, ‘This doesn’t make sense to me. This isn’t the guy that I knew,’” Feldman said. “But look, I’m a guy that at 14 years old was molested, did have a pedophile completely lie to me about who he was. I trusted him. I believed in him as a friend, and I thought he was a good person, and then he molested me. It all proves that I’m not the best judge, and that’s why I shouldn’t be the judge in this situation, and especially given the fact that I’m so close to [Jackson].”

After the discussion, Feldman posted on Twitter that the interview was the “hardest” he has done since Haim’s death and reiterated that he stands with all victims.

“ITS A HORRIBLE POSITION 2 B IN, BUT NOTHING IS WORSE THAN BEING A VICTIM W/O A VOICE!” he wrote. “THANK U 2 ALL OF U WHO CONTINUE 2 SUPPORT MY MISSION.”

 

It makes sense that he reconsidered his original position and statement when he realized he was a victim just like the two MJ accusers. Feldman was also abused as a boy, but has no physical evidence. All he has is his story and the story of his friend. He knows that seemingly “good people” aren’t always good to everyone. 

Rapists don’t rape everyone they meet. Bill Cosby had people come out and speak up for him and say what a gentleman he was to work with. That doesn’t mean he didn’t target vulnerable victims and rape fifty plus women.

Child molesters don’t molest every child they come in contact with. They target the vulnerable and groom them to be victims. Once the child molesters are exposed, they often have other parents and children come forward to state they are “good people” and didn’t abuse them.