Free Xone
SHOULD MJ's music now be boycotted?
By Selz,
March 1, 2019 in Free Xone
bonsaibutterfly
I too am pretty sure there will soon come out new accusers. It would be a good thing. We need to support the victims instead of blaming them. People say the victims are only after money but so is the other party, it's about money for them too. I don't understand why people are so fanatically defending MJ. Yes, no one can never know what really happened in the rooms but it can't be denied that even if he didn't touch the kids that way, he emotionally abused them and used them for his own purposes in inappropriate ways. Since when is it ok to hold hands and share beds with little boys. Make hours long phone calls with 7-years olds, marry them in a secret ceremony, give them rings, promise them the moon and the sky and then just disappear. People should question his overall behaviour, not just that no evidence was found. I'm pretty sure MJ was smart enough to get rid of any possible evidence in time be it underwear or pictures. I hope every one who was a victim of MJ has the courage to get help and speak out if they want to. But I understand if they want to remain silent looking at the shitstorm all the victims received.
Rock & Roll Hall of Game 33 posts
Bailey 46 posts
jarrylf 34 posts
bonsaibutterfly 13 posts
bu.
The key word is allegations. We can't mute someone based on unprovable and sketchy allegations. If there's irrefutable proof then by all means Let's drop them. But until then i'll keep bopping because
Rihanna hasn't performed for years. She's a make up tutorial YouTuber now
This documentary doesn't really change anything. These allegations have been around for many years and there's no way to prove anything at this point. So if you were ok with MJ before, you should be o
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-47551316
LocationOn Janet's nipple
11 hours ago, janetDAYZ said:
Janet is not gonna speak up on that shit. I guarantee you. Ita a lost cause..Im sure Janet looks at it like beating a dead horse at this point and ppl are gonna believe wtf they wanna believe juss cus the most popular Jackson is gonna say he is innocent isnt gonna change whoever think he's guilty, and she knows that..so whats the point? She's not gonna entertain the bullshit, I wouldnt either
The fact everyone think she's going to interview anyway
Illi
4 hours ago, Dal said:
If you must know what my prediction is—well, here goes:
....there will be more posthumous accusers, unfortunately. His musical legacy will remain largely intact but he will become more and more associated with pedophilia as the years go on, similar to how suicide is mentioned whenever Kurt Cobain is spoken about. And the association will become an automatic connection, like a reflex—moreso than ever while he was living, as his defenders and rebuttal statements will dwindle over time as the LN doc will reach a revolving door-type of audience. And eventually another accuser will come out, whether true or not, any boy who has ever spent time with MJ will have an open invitation to be a headline grabber/fund gainer for all eternity now that MJ is dead—since there's zero chance of a defamation lawsuit against any future accusers.
and this is a bit of a twisted thought I guess... but if Macauly Culkin or (......dramatic pause......) Prince Jackson *gasp* ever come out with allegations it will just be a complete wrap at that point
Well if anyone comes out of the woodwork, they should do it within the next few months. It seems with the other #metoo cases, people were coming out of the woodwork almost immediately after claims. With Michael, it seems to be one or two people every 10 years. If its gonna be like that its gonna be harder to believe anyone that comes out. Fear doesn't even hold that much water at this point as the estate has proven its incompetence to really retaliate.
Rock & Roll Hall of Game
LocationThe Great Forever
2 hours ago, Selz said:
Wackos are weird
"The Survivors Trust said the message could discourage victims of sexual assault from coming forward"
THANK YOUUUU
Im sick of this shit, do people believe if they drag this out somehow the truth will come? Im tired of media outlets expecting, damn near, demanding Janet speak on this
1 hour ago, Bailey said:
Sorry you're sick of people talking about sexual abusers
Shame people can't just sexually abuse children and die in peace
jarrylf
But nobodies talking about sexual abusers, it's about someone who was accused, investigated & exonerated & is deceased.
Shame these guys are taking advantage of real victims believability because they want bank...
6 minutes ago, BlueEyedSpirit34 said:
Just because he was announced innocent in two cases doesn't mean he was innocent with these two men who are now speaking. Just because he didn't molest all boys doesn't mean he didn't do it to some.
Well these 2 men speaking and being proven to have lied multiple times about their stories does mean they likely lied about everything. If nobody credible and who's storie's remained in tact has accused then it's not for us to assume what we can't prove and what nobody credible witnesses are claiming.
I'm not so invested in all of this that I'd know all the details. But weren't they small children when they testified for the first time. They and their families were probably emotionally and financially dependent on MJ. And the second time the same, I'm sure it had to do with both financial and emotional aspects as well. And the other guy didn't even want to testify in the second trial?! I don't think they should be blamed for not being ready to talk until now (that MJ is dead).
I'm talking about their stories have changed since they 1st started accusing, I'm not even talking about the perjury, I'm talking about accusations that they've been making and changing since 2013, they can't stick to their own allegations and all along the way (from the first accusations to the documentary itself) they've named instances that have been proven to not have happened, being places they're proven not to have been. (also the 2nd time they were both grown ass independant men who both say Michael had next to nothing to do with their life, and 1 blatantly lied at claiming to have not testified when he was begged by Michael & his defense for him to, when in reality he was never allowed to at all).......but all their new edits should instantly be believed
BlackCat1989
22 hours ago, Voodoo said:
MJ fans showed their entire ass when they thought that Janet 'slapped' Paris...I've never cared for them since that whole fiasco. Honestly I wouldn't blame Janet if she choose to remain silent about what's going on...didn't MJ estate do her dirty and caused division in the family...let them handle it.
Exactly! I saw on other boards how they were so quick to believe what TMZ put out. Yet they are the first people to say TMZ is full of shit because they've always been bias in a negative way towards MJ. But they instantly believed what they had said about Janet. And yes the estate ain't shit either. Let them clean up this mess.
1 hour ago, BlueEyedSpirit34 said:
You think this is funny? Well, like I said I don't know all the details. But it'd be interesting to see a description of all the stories they have allegedly changed. So far I haven't seen any. In any case, I believe these men and them being victims. Maybe they haven't gotten all the dates/places right (they were kids after all) but to me their stories seem convincing and I wish them all the best.
I do think it's hilarious (yet disturbing) that people who have proven to have lied in their claims are treated as serious (if not more) as people who are actual victims and who's stories and accusations & witnesses & credibility have remained intact and airtight, so yes I'm laughing at these 2 and I'm laughing at you & all who believe them, and I wish them nothing but the worst for trying to take advantage of real victims and real supporters. And it's not surprising you haven't "seen" any descriptions of all that they lied about (despite the fact that it's been posted in multiple threads now), it seems they claimed something you assumed and you made up your mind. And it's not just about "dates/places" it's about entire instances, THATS hilarious, you should wish they just got dates/places wrong. But here's the facts (thanks @bu.), and the sources on most of the testimony listed here...........THIER COURT DOCS Their own transcripts & trial is the biggest fact checkers here, not the media, not some blog post, the actual court docs & transcripts. So yes again, it's funny that people are letting these 2 assholes manipulate them so willingly
On 3/8/2019 at 7:32 AM, bu. said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MichaelJackson/comments/ay42cx/a_condensed_version_of_the_major_credibility/?ref=share&ref_source=embed&utm_content=title&utm_medium=post_embed&utm_name=4bf28035b0cb492797cfae0c0cd2aef6&utm_source=embedly&utm_term=ay42cx
A condensed version of the major credibility issues of Robson and Safechuck.
From Charles Thomson:
FACT-BOMB: The evidence the media refuses to show you about Michael Jackson's accusers
I've felt total and utter shame at my industry as the coverage of tonight's Michael Jackson TV show has grown increasingly dishonest and dangerous. I've worked in the media since I was a teenager. The whole media knows these two men are liars. But that's not good for clicks or ratings.
For five years, these men have been suing Michael Jackson's estate for hundreds of millions of dollars. This lawsuit has generated thousands of pages of court records: witness statements, motions, depositions and disclosure. These public documents PROVE beyond any reasonable doubt that the men are lying. The whole media knows about these documents, but is refusing to report on their contents. I've tried not to fill my Facebook feed with posts about this, but you are all being lied to from every direction. So this is my contribution to the debate on Facebook – a list of just some of the public record information the media is refusing to tell you.
Both men strenuously defended Jackson, including under oath, for decades, and only decided they'd been molested years after his death, when they were both in financial trouble and filed a lawsuit seeking hundreds of millions of dollars. That lawsuit was thrown out of court – twice – but the men are in the middle of an appeal, giving them a gigantic financial motive to lie.
Since filing their lawsuit, both men have repeatedly changed their stories, frequently telling directly contradictory versions of the same supposed events. For example, Wade Robson has told at least four directly contradictory stories about the first time Jackson supposedly abused him.
In the lawsuit, Robson was caught lying under oath so brazenly that the judge threw out his entire witness statement and said no rational juror could ever believe his account.
Between 2012 and 2014, Robson wrote two drafts of an abuse memoir and tried unsuccessfully to sell them to publishers. Meanwhile, he lied under oath and said he'd never discussed his allegations with anyone except his lawyers. When the Jackson estate discovered he'd actually been shopping books, the court ordered him to produce the drafts as evidence. They revealed the story of his abuse had changed significantly from one draft to the next.
Safechuck claims in the TV show that Jackson spent Thanksgiving Day 1987 at his home. Jackson was not only at Safechuck's home on Thanksgiving Day 1987, he was not even in the country. He was in Australia on tour. Footage of the Australian tour is even included elsewhere in the TV show, unwittingly airing evidence which disproves its own 'star witness's testimony.
Safechuck's mother claims in the TV show that she woke up to the news of Jackson's death and danced around because he 'couldn't hurt anymore children'. The Safechuck family lives in California, where Jackson also lived. His death was pronounced at 3pm on June 25, 2009, and became a news story within minutes. Does Safechuck's mother typically wake up after 3pm?
Safechuck claims in the TV show that he and Jackson had a mock wedding in 1989 and then went on 'honeymoon' to Euro Disney. Euro Disney did not open until 1992. By 1992, Safechuck claims in the film he was already being phased out and 'replaced' with another boy.
Despite such glaring issues with the witness's testimony, director Dan Reed claims he 'forensically' researched their allegations before including them in his TV show.
Robson was also ordered to release his emails as evidence. He breached the order repeatedly, first by claiming they didn't exist, then by simply refusing to hand them over. Then he redacted all the emails between himself and his family members and cited 'attorney-client' privilege, even though none of his family are attorneys.
When he eventually complied with the court order and released the emails, they revealed that at the time he was constructing his lawsuit and abuse memoir, he was researching and emailing himself links to old tabloid newspaper stories about abuse allegations against Michael Jackson.
The emails showed Robson found one particular story from the early 1990s which specifically named he and his mother. He emailed it to his mother and asked whether it was true. She replied, 'Wow, none of that is true'. He then included it in his story anyway.
Emails also revealed that throughout 2011/12, Robson was lobbying Jackson's estate for a job directing and choreographing an official Michael Jackson tribute show in Las Vegas. His campaign to secure this role had included sending emails explaining that his amazing friendship with Jackson meant nobody was better qualified for the role than he was, and he was devoted to doing the best job he possibly could 'for Michael'. After being told someone else had got the job, he suddenly claimed he'd been abused and filed a creditor's claim against the estate for millions of dollars.
Months later, according to Jimmy Safechuck, he flipped on the TV and saw Wade Robson being interviewed about his lawsuit. In that moment, Safechuck suddenly remembered that he had been abused by Jackson as well, so decided to join the lawsuit. He didn't mention that this epiphany coincided exactly with his inheritance circling the drain after a relative died and the surviving siblings started suing each other – including him – for control of the family business.
Robson was also ordered to produce his diaries as evidence. In them, he'd written about how these allegations might rescue his failing career by making him 'relatable and relevant'. He also wrote, 'It's time for me to get mine.' When questioned under oath about what he'd meant when he wrote that, he refused to answer.
Both men tell stories in the TV show which directly contradict stories told under oath in their lawsuit. In fact, they have continued to change their stories as recently as within the last week.
For example, Jimmy Safechuck claims under oath in the lawsuit that he only remembered Jackson had abused him in 2013 when he turned on the TV and saw Robson. Yet in tonight's TV show and interviews promoting it, he claims he knew he'd been abused in 2005 and thus, when asked to testify for Jackson's defence 'towards the end of the trial', he refused to do so.
But that's a provable lie. Safechuck was never asked to testify for Jackson's defence. The judge ruled long before the trial began that testimony could only be heard about certain children, and Safechuck was not one of them. All testimony about Safechuck was literally banned from the courtroom. So Jackson's defence cannot have asked him to testify – and certainly not after the trial was already underway.
Robson claimed in a BBC interview last week that Jackson had abused him 'hundreds of times'. Yet his mother's sworn testimony is that they went to Neverland roughly 14 times but Jackson was almost never there. She estimates the number of times they visited the ranch and he was actually there was four.
Questioned about their financial motive, the men now say they don't care about money and are only suing to embolden other abuse victims by holding the Jackson estate accountable. This is a provable lie. The lawsuit was originally filed under seal and Robson tried to extract a settlement from the estate with zero publicity. Only when the estate refused to pay a bean did he go public.
I could continue, but if you're still on board with the TV show and its accusers at this point, you are irrational to the point of mania.
Tonight's TV show covers up all of this information, instead presenting two professional actors' heavily edited and completely unchallenged testimony without ever examining their credibility, their proven lies and perjury, their constantly changing stories or their financial motives.
It is a stain on the journalistic profession, as has been the rest of the media's coverage.
I need bass Voodoo
And IF Janet decides to speak about this, I hope she does it in defence of the victims. I don't see it working out well for her and her future projects if she would publicly defend her brother again. She could say she is sorry for her brother's actions and sorry for MJ hurting the victims. She doesn't need to say whether she believes the accusations or not. But she should acknowledge the fact that many kids were hurt regardless. And she should do it asap in my opinion.
2 hours ago, BlueEyedSpirit34 said:
Thanks for the list. Well I don't know what to say. I won't start debating about this since I don't know enough about it. Whatever their motives are to talk now, I hope them speaking out helps other victims and their families of similar crimes to seek help.
But what I'm absolutely sure about is that MJ was a pedophile. There is enough evidence in pictures, videos, interviews, love letters and faxes and phone calls and in his overall actions and behaviour. People need to see him for what he really was and stop defending a man who clearly was dangerous for children.
You're welcome, and really there's no reason to debate since most of the source there is from their own trials when they tried to sue the estate. And that last part is dangerous because what's going on right now and people so blindly believing them is this can inspire others to make up similar stories of similar situations and have a full example that their lies will go unchecked by the masses
Thing is, that's your opinion & what you imagine based off of what you think, facts are and as far as we have available right now, he was not dangerous for children only 4 ever said he was out of 1,000's. Your imagination doesn't hold up to witness character testimony.
But she should acknowledge the fact that many kids were hurt regardless. And she should do it asap in my opinion.
That's crazy, since nobody credible is saying he did, only 4 people who got caught in lies, she should not "apologize" to them
It's not only my imagination. There's lots of disturbing images, videos, paintings, phone calls etc. We as adults shouldn't normalize it. We should protect the kids. Anyways, I've stated my opinion and I hope the victims get help and that child abuse wouldn't happen. #peace
And literally none of that equals "molestation", "rape", or "danger" unless you imagine any of it does, and if you do for this you have to imagine it does for all instances.
EphraimAdamz
16 hours ago, BlueEyedSpirit34 said:
He said she said. Back at square one.
It's not only my imagination. There's lots of disturbing images, videos, paintings, phone calls etc. We as adults shouldn't normalize it. We should protect the kids. Anyways, I've stated my opinion and I hope the *victims get help and that *child abuse wouldn't happen. #peace
*Accusers
*Alleged child abuse
Planet Janet Rules
Default_2 (Default)