Leaving Neverland Review

[FATCAT 55,828]

On 3/18/2019 at 6:21 PM, Adakam said:

hE sLePt iN tHe SaMe BeD wItH tHe BoYs!! ThAtS aBsOlUte EvIdEnCE! LmFaO!!!

 

On 3/18/2019 at 6:25 PM, nicolasrumet said:

Okay and?

Does that prove guilt?

It's pretty strong circumstantial evidence.

[Ayria 463]

13 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/mj-arbitration-doc-1.pdf

"The trial judge found one of Robson’s lies so incredible that the trial judge disregarded Robson’s sworn declaration and found that no rational trier of fact could possibly believe Robson’s sworn statements. Specifically, Robson falsely swore under oath that he did not know about the Jackson Estate until March 2013, despite having met with John Branca, the CoExecutor of the Jackson Estate in 2011 trying unsuccessfully to pitch himself to direct a Jacksonthemed Cirque du Soleil show. When Robson learned about the existence of the Jackson Estate was the key issue on his attempt to get around the statute of limitations. Yet in his efforts to try to sue the Estate for hundreds of millions of dollars, Robson had no problem lying under oath about the key issue, as the trial judge found. HBO and Reed interviewed no other witnesses, despite the fact that several witnesses have contradicted Robson’s and Safechuck’s claims."

Again from what I gather the judge did not comment on the validity of the allegations but about Robson knowing of the Jackson estate. Obviously he made some rash legal decisions but I don’t think we need victims to be perfect. 

[Ayria 463]

4 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

 

It's pretty strong circumstantial evidence.

Omg the Jackson stans literally think every piece of evidence needs to on its own prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or there is no evidence whatsoever. 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

8 minutes ago, Ayria said:

Okay but why did this couple report this then? Why did Terry George claim Jackson masturbated while on the phone with him at age 13? Don’t you think the picture becomes clearer when we look at everyone who has ever accused him and seeing a pattern of behavior starting in the late 70s? 

One key word again: hearsay: not actionable evidence.

Does that make it clear to you? When someone as famous and vulnerable as Michael Jackson it's totally plausible that people may try to make up allegations for ulterior motives whether it's monetary motives or simply revenge etc...

We've seen that first hand with his maid and bodyguard for example. 

Give me actionable evidence, and I'll change my mind. But hearsay from few people who have credibility issues ain't going to do it for me.

[Ayria 463]

Just now, nicolasrumet said:

One key word again: hearsay: not actionable evidence.

Does that make it clear to you? When someone as famous and vulnerable as Michael Jackson it's totally plausible that people may try to make up allegations for ulterior motives whether it's monetary or revenge etc...

We've seen that first hand with his maid and bodyguard for example. 

Give me actionable evidence, and I'll change my mind. But hearsay from few people who have credibility issues ain't going to do it for me.

Define actionable evidence

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

5 minutes ago, Ayria said:

Define actionable evidence

Credible evidence that can be used in court, not hearsay.

All the actionable "evidence" the FBI and the prosecution managed to get failed in court in 2005 because it was extremely weak and subject to speculation. All the rest is just hearsay.

I wish James and Wade filed their lawsuits in 2010 or so, when they would've been still eligible for a ruling based on factual determination. You would've seen how quickly their claims would be thrown out of court, because of how unsubstantiated they are.

[Ayria 463]

2 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

Credible evidence that can be used in court, not hearsay.

All the actionable "evidence" the FBI and the prosecution managed to get failed in court in 2005 because it was extremely weak and subject to speculation. All the rest is just hearsay.

I wish James and Wade filed their lawsuits in 2010 or so, when they would've been still eligible for a ruling based on factual determination. You would've seen how quickly their claims would be thrown out of court, because of how unsubstantiated they are.

Jordan Chandler was sent to Dr. Richard Gardner, the Nation’s leading authority on false allegations and he found Jordan Chandlers claims credible. 

Chandler’s drawings also matched photographs taken of Jackson’s genitalia: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

3 minutes ago, Ayria said:

Jordan Chandler was sent to Dr. Richard Gardner, the Nation’s leading authority on false allegations and he found Jordan Chandlers claims credible. 

Chandler’s drawings also matched photographs taken of Jackson’s genitalia: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/052505pltmotchandler.pdf?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app

Okay, so you're giving me this self-made sworn statement that Tom Sneddon entered as a last resort in his crumbling case against MJ in 2005, after all the other attempts failed, and still he didn't succeed even with this self-made sworn statement.

This was already tested in court and failed so it's a moot argument really. And the person making this statement is Tom Sneddon himself lol, the lead prosecutor in the case, who's been pursuing MJ for 10 years even traveling abroad to try to find victims. And there are many contradictions on whether his drawing matched or not. For example, in his drawing (which you can find on the internet), he indicated that MJ was circumcised. When MJ passed away in 2010, it turned out that he actually wasn't.

Also on a side note, Tom Sneddon himself was asking Jordan Chandler and Evan Chandler to testify but they refused to cooperate with him. I wonder why? Maybe because they didn't want to risk perjury. 

[Ayria 463]

1 minute ago, nicolasrumet said:

Okay, so you're giving me this self-made sworn statement that Tom Sneddon entered as a last resort in his crumbling case against MJ in 2005, after all the other attempts failed, and still he didn't succeed even with this self-made sworn statement.

This was already tested in court and failed so it's a moot argument really. And the person making this statement is Tom Sneddon himself lol, the lead prosecutor in the case, who's been pursuing MJ for 10 years even traveling abroad to try to find victims. And there are many contradictions on whether his drawing matched or not. For example, in his drawing (which you can find on the internet), he indicated that MJ was circumcised. When MJ passed away in 2010, it turned out that he actually wasn't.

Also on a side note, Tom Sneddon himself was asking Jordan Chandler and Evan Chandler to testify but they refused to cooperate with him. I wonder why? Maybe because they didn't want to risk perjury. 

The circumcision thing gets brought up a lot but do you realize that some kids don’t even know what circumcision is? If Jordie only saw MJ’s penis erect he could’ve thought it was circumcized and I don’t see that claim in any official document. The 1993 case was settled out of court, and a not guilty verdict only means reasonable doubt, or the prosecution didn’t do its job at times, it doesn’t automatically make someone “innocent” OJ Simpson who shared an attorney with Mj was also found not guilty. 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

4 minutes ago, Ayria said:

The circumcision thing gets brought up a lot but do you realize that some kids don’t even know what circumcision is? If Jordie only saw MJ’s penis erect he could’ve thought it was circumcized and I don’t see that claim in any official document. The 1993 case was settled out of court, and a not guilty verdict only means reasonable doubt, or the prosecution didn’t do its job at times, it doesn’t automatically make someone “innocent” OJ Simpson who shared an attorney with Mj was also found not guilty. 

1. OJ Simpson was not found "not guilty". It was a mistrial. In case you don't know what it means, when a jury fails to reach a unanimous verdict, it declares a "mistrial". It doesn't acquit the defendant, it simply restarts the trial with a new jury. 

2. So what the case was settled? Why not cooperate with law enforcement if you were indeed a victim? Settlements don't affect criminal investigation and in fact the D.A wanted to continue the criminal investigation, but Jordan and Evan Chandlers refused to cooperate after they got the money. So D.A was forced to close the case since the main witnesses were not cooperating anymore. 

3. Tom Sneddon's self-made sworn statement in itself is questionable. He didn't provide the drawing or anything other than his own words. Also how did he exactly see MJ's "erect penis"? I don't imagine MJ had an erect penis when they were searching him. The fact that he entered such statement at the last minute when all else failed, just shows his desperation.

[Ayria 463]

2 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

1. OJ Simpson was not found "not guilty". It was a mistrial. In case you don't know what it means, when a jury fails to reach a unanimous verdict, it declares a "mistrial". It doesn't acquit the defendant, it simply restarts the trial with a new jury. 

2. So what the case was settled? Why not cooperate with law enforcement if you were indeed a victim? Settlements don't affect criminal investigation and in fact the D.A wanted to continue the criminal investigation, but Jordan and Evan Chandlers refused to cooperate after they got the money. So D.A was forced to close the case since the main witnesses were not cooperating anymore. 

3. Tom Sneddon's self-made sworn statement in itself is questionable. He didn't provide the drawing or anything other than his own words. Also how did he exactly see MJ's "erect penis"? I don't imagine he had an erect penis when they were searching him.

1. Okay, he wasn’t found guilty. My point stands that the criminal justice system is not the end all be all for someone’s guilt.

2. I  can only speculate but why would MJ agree to settle if he was innocent? Why not fight for your innocence on principal? Especially when money is not an obstacle.

3. I was talking about Jordie seeing MJ’s penis only in an erect state (God how did I end up talking about this detail ). Tom Sneddon is not the only one who confirmed that the drawings matched. Bill Dworin a lead investigator also confirmed that the drawing matched.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

11 minutes ago, Ayria said:

1. Okay, he wasn’t found guilty. My point stands that the criminal justice system is not the end all be all for someone’s guilt.

2. I  can only speculate but why would MJ agree to settle if he was innocent? Why not fight for your innocence on principal? Especially when money is not an obstacle.

3. I was talking about Jordie seeing MJ’s penis only in an erect state (God how did I end up talking about this detail ). Tom Sneddon is not the only one who confirmed that the drawings matched. Bill Dworin a lead investigator also confirmed that the drawing matched.

1. No, No and No. We have mistrial for a reason! Mistrials make sure that no one is let off the hook so easily and no one is convicted so easily either. Mistrials happening don't mean there's a flaw in our judicial system. If anything, it shows that our system is working as intended,and  that, even if the first case wasn't strong, he wasn't let off the hook. He was tried again and found guilty. Please don't conflate mistrial with acquittal. They couldn't be more different. Acquittal means you go home and you can never be tried again for the same charges.

2. MJ most likely settled the case, because civil lawsuits don't fall under the 6th amendment. You don't have the right to speedy trial. They can drag the lawsuit for years and years and keep giving him constant bad headlines. He didn't want the next 7 years to be all about this court case especially when he was planning a tour and such. He was making around 100-200M a year. So the amount of money he would've lost with the constant negative publicity from that court case would've been far more than the 20M he settled for. It wasn't a good decision anyway. It opened the door for people to exploit that vulnerability and accuse him for money.

3. The prosecution confirmed many things that ended up failing in court. That's why we have a court and we have a jury, to be a check on what the prosecution brings fourth. It is speculative and subjective to say "it matched the description" without providing such photographs to the jury. I think that's why it didn't convince the jury either. Also I was just curious how he could say it matched the erect state of MJ's penis. It's a bit odd, since you'd expect that during the search, the state would be unerect. But anyway, Sneddon was very sloppy in his handling of MJ case. So it doesn't surprise me.

 

[PunkTheFunk 121,511]

7 minutes ago, Ayria said:

1. Okay, he wasn’t found guilty. My point stands that the criminal justice system is not the end all be all for someone’s guilt.

2. I  can only speculate but why would MJ agree to settle if he was innocent? Why not fight for your innocence on principal? Especially when money is not an obstacle.

3. I was talking about Jordie seeing MJ’s penis only in an erect state (God how did I end up talking about this detail ). Tom Sneddon is not the only one who confirmed that the drawings matched. Bill Dworin a lead investigator also confirmed that the drawing matched.

Girl don't waste your time on him, it's not worth it. Let him enjoy his Thriller in peace.

[Ayria 463]

1 minute ago, PunkTheFunk said:

Girl don't waste your time on him, it's not worth it. Let him enjoy his Thriller in peace.

I just don’t know what will convince these stans though? I mean the evidence is pretty clear if you do your research like MJ stans claim they do.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

1 minute ago, PunkTheFunk said:

Girl don't waste your time on him, it's not worth it. Let him enjoy his Thriller in peace.

You can try to run, but you can't escape the facts and the truth