Resultat:
Tror du MJ är skyldig?
| Ja |
57,59%
|
827 röster |
| Nej |
19,57%
|
281 röster |
| Är osäker |
15,67%
|
225 röster |
| Bryr mig inte |
7,17%
|
103 röster |
Antal röster: 1436
Du får inte rösta i den här omröstningen.
Svara
- Ämnesverktyg
- Visa första olästa
- Hitta inlägg efter datum
The News Media’s Handling of Leaving Neverland Proves Just How Broken the Entire Industry Really Is
by John Ziegler | Mar 12th, 2019, 11:55 am 147
John Ziegler is a senior columnist for Mediaite. He hosts a weekly podcast focusing on news media issues and is documentary filmmaker.
https://www.mediaite.com/columnists/the-news-medias-handling-of-leaving-neverland-proves-just-how-broken-the-entire-industry-really-is/?fbclid=IwAR2JoYlNTLk-OxxJHZBnnlGhYx14FKdny_W8IeCwlXozUQop7vEtNeanBZU
by John Ziegler | Mar 12th, 2019, 11:55 am 147
Citat:
A week ago, when I first watched HBO’s highly controversial film Leaving Neverland, I purposely did so without refreshing my recollection on the facts regarding the allegations of child sex abuse against Michael Jackson from many years ago. I wanted to see the movie in much the same way that the average viewer did.
Like most people who viewed it, I was emotionally impacted by the horrific nature of the alleged abuse, but was eventually turned off by the obvious unfairness of allowing two unverified accusers being allowed four hours, with the support of tremendously manipulative production elements, to make un-scrutinized claims against an un-convicted dead man (who, it should also be noted, paid $20 million to a 13-year-old accuser in the 1990s as part of a settlement out of court). As someone who had long suspected Michael Jackson was likely guilty of child abuse, but whose own coverage of his 2005 trial as a Los Angeles talk show host made me actually start to doubt that presumption, the whole thing was conflicting.
Since I absolutely despise that I have somehow become known as someone who is willing to defend those accused of sex abuse even though we live in an era where such an act, regardless of the facts of the particular situation, makes you automatically a “bad” person, I was extremely hesitant to delve further into the matter. However, even my initial evaluation of the voluminous record involving the movie’s two stars, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, made it very clear that the movie was a journalistic travesty, and that someone should be willing to take a stand against the prevailing narrative on behalf of truth and fairness.
As is always the case, before I eventually dove in headfirst, I engaged in extensive research on these claims, and spoke to several people with direct knowledge of the other side of the story. I did lengthy in-person interviews with two key members of the Jackson family. One of them, Brandi Jackson, had dated Robson throughout their entire teenage years, including during the time when the abuse was allegedly occurring.
One of the many difficulties in telling a version of events which is contradictory to someone the news media — as opposed to the courts — has determined is a “sex abuse victim” (especially those who, like Robson and Safechuck, have been sanctified by Oprah Winfrey on HBO) is that, particularly post #MeToo, no one data point can ever been seen as a “smoking gun” that their allegation is false. However, when viewed in the full context of Robson’s already suspect narrative, I strongly believe that Brandi’s version of events comes as close as possible to being just that (as do many other non-Jackson fans who have spent the time to hear her, and her cousin Taj, out).
In a remotely rational world, where the news media still even plausibly functioned as a source of truth, and where basic fairness still had any real currency, Brandi would have immediately been invited on multiple major television news outlets (heck, her story even involves a normally irresistible tidbit about Robson cheating on her with Britney Spears, thus causing her infamous breakup with Justin Timberlake). However, to the mild surprise of even a grizzled media cynic like me, that did not happen.
Even before our interview, multiple members of the Jackson family told me that they felt like the major news media was purposely censoring Brandi’s explosive story. I told them that it was possible that the media just may not fully understand the significance what she has to say (none of which, it should be noted, has never been contradicted at all by Robson, or anyone else), but I now must conclude that I was being naïve.
To be clear, I am not alleging some sort of anti-Jackson conspiracy, but actually something far more treacherous than that. Based on the news media’s unwillingness to even give Brandi a voice, it is now abundantly obvious that a new media rule has been created that no one, no matter how credible, unless they are huge celebrity, is allowed to directly contradict the veracity of someone the media is invested in as a “victim,” no matter how lacking in credibility that allegation is (and to be clear, books could easily be written on why the current story of Robson, who enthusiastically testified as Jackson’s first witness at his criminal trial, is not to be believed).
Within the news media, there is just far too much fear/risk, and not nearly courage/reward. So, here is what really happened in this situation…
Michael Jackson has always been suspected of being capable of literally anything because of his obvious extreme weirdness and seemingly inappropriate attachments to young boys. A filmmaker with an obvious agenda interviewed two middle-aged men for several days and ignored the many problems with their stories (for the record, a close look at the movie discredits huge chunks of Safechuck’s narrative as well, especially with regard to the real circumstances surrounding him not testifying at Jackson’s criminal trial), using about the first three hours to get his audience emotionally invested in his subjects, which was very easy given the widely-held suspicions about Jackson, who is no longer around to defend himself.
Not being armed with even the basic facts (inexplicably, and quite tellingly, Brandi Jackson is not even mentioned), the audience, including the media, was easily manipulated into being able to disregard even the biggest holes in their stories, and to gladly accept even the most bizarre rationalizations for their nonsensical actions. Once Oprah, an abuse victim herself, effectively validated their stories (even as Safechuck, who barely participated in the post-movie interview, sweated noticeably right in front of her), the preferred narrative was set, and nothing would then be allowed to credibly contradict it.
It needs to at least be mentioned that the most bizarre aspect of the news media embracing this movie is, because of the narrative used to explain why the accusers didn’t realize they were abused much sooner, it actually has elements which are arguably PRO pedophilia. This “we didn’t think sex abuse was bad” explanation could have been simply a result of the accusers having to craft their stories to escape statute of limitations problems in their lawsuit against the Jackson estate.
Regardless, there is no need to give the Jackson family much of a chance to respond — or even see the movie before it came out — because, after all, we now know for sure that they are just part of an evil machine which is knowingly covering up for a dead pedophile, all in a desperate attempt to protect the value of the pop superstar’s estate. Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that sort of thinking, especially since Jackson was never convicted, or even found liable, in a court of law?!
Part of my naïveté here was that I stupidly thought the Jussie Smollett fake hate-crime fiasco would have, at least for a few months, made the news media a little more hesitant to blindly buy into outlandish stories with no proof and a clear financial motive. Obviously, that has not happened, and it is because the modern news media, for many reasons, is now completely, irreparably, and dangerously broken.
Like most people who viewed it, I was emotionally impacted by the horrific nature of the alleged abuse, but was eventually turned off by the obvious unfairness of allowing two unverified accusers being allowed four hours, with the support of tremendously manipulative production elements, to make un-scrutinized claims against an un-convicted dead man (who, it should also be noted, paid $20 million to a 13-year-old accuser in the 1990s as part of a settlement out of court). As someone who had long suspected Michael Jackson was likely guilty of child abuse, but whose own coverage of his 2005 trial as a Los Angeles talk show host made me actually start to doubt that presumption, the whole thing was conflicting.
Since I absolutely despise that I have somehow become known as someone who is willing to defend those accused of sex abuse even though we live in an era where such an act, regardless of the facts of the particular situation, makes you automatically a “bad” person, I was extremely hesitant to delve further into the matter. However, even my initial evaluation of the voluminous record involving the movie’s two stars, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, made it very clear that the movie was a journalistic travesty, and that someone should be willing to take a stand against the prevailing narrative on behalf of truth and fairness.
As is always the case, before I eventually dove in headfirst, I engaged in extensive research on these claims, and spoke to several people with direct knowledge of the other side of the story. I did lengthy in-person interviews with two key members of the Jackson family. One of them, Brandi Jackson, had dated Robson throughout their entire teenage years, including during the time when the abuse was allegedly occurring.
One of the many difficulties in telling a version of events which is contradictory to someone the news media — as opposed to the courts — has determined is a “sex abuse victim” (especially those who, like Robson and Safechuck, have been sanctified by Oprah Winfrey on HBO) is that, particularly post #MeToo, no one data point can ever been seen as a “smoking gun” that their allegation is false. However, when viewed in the full context of Robson’s already suspect narrative, I strongly believe that Brandi’s version of events comes as close as possible to being just that (as do many other non-Jackson fans who have spent the time to hear her, and her cousin Taj, out).
In a remotely rational world, where the news media still even plausibly functioned as a source of truth, and where basic fairness still had any real currency, Brandi would have immediately been invited on multiple major television news outlets (heck, her story even involves a normally irresistible tidbit about Robson cheating on her with Britney Spears, thus causing her infamous breakup with Justin Timberlake). However, to the mild surprise of even a grizzled media cynic like me, that did not happen.
Even before our interview, multiple members of the Jackson family told me that they felt like the major news media was purposely censoring Brandi’s explosive story. I told them that it was possible that the media just may not fully understand the significance what she has to say (none of which, it should be noted, has never been contradicted at all by Robson, or anyone else), but I now must conclude that I was being naïve.
To be clear, I am not alleging some sort of anti-Jackson conspiracy, but actually something far more treacherous than that. Based on the news media’s unwillingness to even give Brandi a voice, it is now abundantly obvious that a new media rule has been created that no one, no matter how credible, unless they are huge celebrity, is allowed to directly contradict the veracity of someone the media is invested in as a “victim,” no matter how lacking in credibility that allegation is (and to be clear, books could easily be written on why the current story of Robson, who enthusiastically testified as Jackson’s first witness at his criminal trial, is not to be believed).
Within the news media, there is just far too much fear/risk, and not nearly courage/reward. So, here is what really happened in this situation…
Michael Jackson has always been suspected of being capable of literally anything because of his obvious extreme weirdness and seemingly inappropriate attachments to young boys. A filmmaker with an obvious agenda interviewed two middle-aged men for several days and ignored the many problems with their stories (for the record, a close look at the movie discredits huge chunks of Safechuck’s narrative as well, especially with regard to the real circumstances surrounding him not testifying at Jackson’s criminal trial), using about the first three hours to get his audience emotionally invested in his subjects, which was very easy given the widely-held suspicions about Jackson, who is no longer around to defend himself.
Not being armed with even the basic facts (inexplicably, and quite tellingly, Brandi Jackson is not even mentioned), the audience, including the media, was easily manipulated into being able to disregard even the biggest holes in their stories, and to gladly accept even the most bizarre rationalizations for their nonsensical actions. Once Oprah, an abuse victim herself, effectively validated their stories (even as Safechuck, who barely participated in the post-movie interview, sweated noticeably right in front of her), the preferred narrative was set, and nothing would then be allowed to credibly contradict it.
It needs to at least be mentioned that the most bizarre aspect of the news media embracing this movie is, because of the narrative used to explain why the accusers didn’t realize they were abused much sooner, it actually has elements which are arguably PRO pedophilia. This “we didn’t think sex abuse was bad” explanation could have been simply a result of the accusers having to craft their stories to escape statute of limitations problems in their lawsuit against the Jackson estate.
Regardless, there is no need to give the Jackson family much of a chance to respond — or even see the movie before it came out — because, after all, we now know for sure that they are just part of an evil machine which is knowingly covering up for a dead pedophile, all in a desperate attempt to protect the value of the pop superstar’s estate. Gee, what could possibly go wrong with that sort of thinking, especially since Jackson was never convicted, or even found liable, in a court of law?!
Part of my naïveté here was that I stupidly thought the Jussie Smollett fake hate-crime fiasco would have, at least for a few months, made the news media a little more hesitant to blindly buy into outlandish stories with no proof and a clear financial motive. Obviously, that has not happened, and it is because the modern news media, for many reasons, is now completely, irreparably, and dangerously broken.
John Ziegler is a senior columnist for Mediaite. He hosts a weekly podcast focusing on news media issues and is documentary filmmaker.
https://www.mediaite.com/columnists/the-news-medias-handling-of-leaving-neverland-proves-just-how-broken-the-entire-industry-really-is/?fbclid=IwAR2JoYlNTLk-OxxJHZBnnlGhYx14FKdny_W8IeCwlXozUQop7vEtNeanBZU
Citat:
Nej du har fel. Försäkringsbolaget betalade för att Jackson var på turné. Det skulle kostat mer att avbryta den.
Ont
Det är intressant att se hur ihärdigt och desperat Robson agerat före den här filmen.
Citat:
Robson’s initial lawsuit is dismissed in 2015 for being filed too late. A year later, Robson files an amended complaint, claiming*MJJ Productions and MJJ Ventures are both “child sexual abuse operations”.*
“The thinly veiled, covert second purpose of these businesses was to operate as a child sexual abuse operation, specifically designed to locate, attract, lure and seduce child sexual abuse victims,” the complaint by Robson’s attorney reads. Safechuck later files an amendment, claiming the two companies enabled sex abuse.
The lawsuits from Robson and Safechuck are both dismissed, on the grounds that neither company could affect Jackson’s behaviour.
“The thinly veiled, covert second purpose of these businesses was to operate as a child sexual abuse operation, specifically designed to locate, attract, lure and seduce child sexual abuse victims,” the complaint by Robson’s attorney reads. Safechuck later files an amendment, claiming the two companies enabled sex abuse.
The lawsuits from Robson and Safechuck are both dismissed, on the grounds that neither company could affect Jackson’s behaviour.
Nu stämmer i sin tur Jackson estate HBO på 100 miljoner för den här filmen. Det ska bli intressant att se hur det går.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/michael-jackson-child-abuse-allegations-leaving-neverland-hbo-channel-4-a8807071.html
__________________
Senast redigerad av Gertrud1 2019-03-13 kl. 05:16.
Senast redigerad av Gertrud1 2019-03-13 kl. 05:16.
Citat:
Jag la nyligen in en länk där han recenserar filmen i en intervju.The News Media’s Handling of Leaving Neverland Proves Just How Broken the Entire Industry Really Is
by John Ziegler | Mar 12th, 2019, 11:55 am 147
John Ziegler is a senior columnist for Mediaite. He hosts a weekly podcast focusing on news media issues and is documentary filmmaker.
https://www.mediaite.com/columnists/the-news-medias-handling-of-leaving-neverland-proves-just-how-broken-the-entire-industry-really-is/?fbclid=IwAR2JoYlNTLk-OxxJHZBnnlGhYx14FKdny_W8IeCwlXozUQop7vEtNeanBZU
by John Ziegler | Mar 12th, 2019, 11:55 am 147
John Ziegler is a senior columnist for Mediaite. He hosts a weekly podcast focusing on news media issues and is documentary filmmaker.
https://www.mediaite.com/columnists/the-news-medias-handling-of-leaving-neverland-proves-just-how-broken-the-entire-industry-really-is/?fbclid=IwAR2JoYlNTLk-OxxJHZBnnlGhYx14FKdny_W8IeCwlXozUQop7vEtNeanBZU
Jag reagerade också hur man normaliserade sex med barn i filmen. Robson säger ideligen " vi hade sex" och det han beskriver låter som samtycke.
Men, vad jag börjar undra är om det finns kopplingar till Weinsten och Hollywoods intresse för småpojkar. För filmen ger ju intryck av att det är helt normalt genom det sätt som de talar om det.
Citat:
Nej du har fel.
Försäkringsbolaget betalade för att Jackson var på turné. Det skulle kostat mer att avbryta den.
Ont
Det är intressant att se hur ihärdigt och desperat Robson agerat före den här filmen.
Nu stämmer i sin tur Jackson estate HBO på 100 miljoner för den här filmen. Det ska bli intressant att se hur det går.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/michael-jackson-child-abuse-allegations-leaving-neverland-hbo-channel-4-a8807071.html
Försäkringsbolaget betalade för att Jackson var på turné. Det skulle kostat mer att avbryta den.
Ont
Det är intressant att se hur ihärdigt och desperat Robson agerat före den här filmen.
Nu stämmer i sin tur Jackson estate HBO på 100 miljoner för den här filmen. Det ska bli intressant att se hur det går.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/michael-jackson-child-abuse-allegations-leaving-neverland-hbo-channel-4-a8807071.html
du greppar efter halmstrån, försöker göra det relevant vem som betala.
Offret fick betalt för att inte anmäla punkt
Förövrigt så beter offrens sig som textbok exempel för hur utnyttjade barn beter sig i andra fall.
om han var oskyldig så var det Jävligt smart och långsiktigt att försvara honom i tidigare rättegångar då deras beteende då blir mer trovärdigt pga hur sexuellt utnyttjade barn beter sig.
Menar du att dem redan då planerade att anmäla honom senare?
Och att dem i 20år tränat på hur dem skall neka för att passa in i mallen över hur människor beter sig när dem blivit utnyttjade
Citat:
Nej du har fel.
Det är intressant att se hur ihärdigt och desperat Robson agerat före den här filmen.
Nu stämmer i sin tur Jackson estate HBO på 100 miljoner för den här filmen. Det ska bli intressant att se hur det går.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/michael-jackson-child-abuse-allegations-leaving-neverland-hbo-channel-4-a8807071.html
Det är intressant att se hur ihärdigt och desperat Robson agerat före den här filmen.
Nu stämmer i sin tur Jackson estate HBO på 100 miljoner för den här filmen. Det ska bli intressant att se hur det går.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/michael-jackson-child-abuse-allegations-leaving-neverland-hbo-channel-4-a8807071.html
Oj då många nekare tror nog att han hoppade på tåget att anklaga pga filmen som hjälp.
Det faktum att han kämpat för rättvisa i flera år utan något som helst hopp styrker såklart hans trovärdighet ytterligare.
Citat:
Från intervjuen:
1:03 ”During the interview LaToya Said she has actully never seen or witness Michael interracting with young boys in a sexual manner, but she said she did see ”behaviour” that SHE CALLS impropriat.
Dessutom är dom ovänner när hon säger detta i intervjuen hon har dessutom haft en helt annan åsikt vid en tidigare intervju, där hon 100% backar MJ, känns som att något inte stämmer här
1:03 ”During the interview LaToya Said she has actully never seen or witness Michael interracting with young boys in a sexual manner, but she said she did see ”behaviour” that SHE CALLS impropriat.
Dessutom är dom ovänner när hon säger detta i intervjuen hon har dessutom haft en helt annan åsikt vid en tidigare intervju, där hon 100% backar MJ, känns som att något inte stämmer här
Har du sett dokumentären? Jackson hade bokstavligen golv med sensorer som gav av ljud när någon steg på dem och han såg till att ha flera dörrar fram till sitt sovrum. Allt för att hindra någon från att närma sig rummet utan Jacksons vetskap, och att han delade säng med dem här barnen är det ingen som nekar.
Relativt enkelt att lägga ihop ett och ett i det här fallet enligt mig i alla fall. särskilt när man beaktar hur många och vilka som anklagat han, samt hur mycket han umgåtts med dem här barnen.
Angående intervjun, så är vitnessmål från Michael's syster övertygande enligt mig. Hon förstår Michael och den relation han haft med dem här barnen på en nivå som ger hennes påstående mycket vikt enligt mig.
Värt att nämna är även att bägge av pojkarna i dokumentärens pappor begick självmord efter att den här relationen inletts, möjligtvis för att dem inte kunde leva med att ha sålt sina barn till en pedofil, men det är självfallet spekulation även om det är ett rejält sammanträffande att det hände i bägge fallen.
__________________
Senast redigerad av D4C 2019-03-13 kl. 06:16.
Senast redigerad av D4C 2019-03-13 kl. 06:16.
Mer oklarheter över filmens tillkomst finansiering och lansering. I artikeln talas också om dokumentären om R Kelly, samt något om en man som försett pedofiler med barn. Även det kopplat till Weinstein.
Det kan vara en miss i editeringen. Vet inte om det är jag eller artikeln. Pilligt i mobilen. Läs artikeln. Det är chockerande hur allt hänger ihop. Killarna måste nästan fått betalt för filmen som verkar vara en rökridå och distraktion.
Man talar också om Oprahs inblandning i lanseringen
Från twitter
Mera twitter
Mer från artikeln
Mera
Mic drop
Det kan vara en miss i editeringen. Vet inte om det är jag eller artikeln. Pilligt i mobilen. Läs artikeln. Det är chockerande hur allt hänger ihop. Killarna måste nästan fått betalt för filmen som verkar vara en rökridå och distraktion.
Citat:
CUT TO: JANUARY 10, 2019,*BBC* with renewed vigor, stirs the pot, updates the Harvey Weinstein saga and the plethora of women who have now accused him include big name Hollywood actresses.
It seemed that even with Harvey Weinstein *money and influence in court he couldn’t *get his charges dismissed –
Weinstein could NOT catch break in the media either.
But then, something quite remarkable occurred –*as if someone had pulled a switch.
The very same day as the Harvey Weinstein BBC article a Fox article appeared –
—*JANUARY 10, 2019*Fox News *reports the Sundance Film Festival announced two*last-minute*entries*for 2019 lineup – one was Leaving Neverland.
Coincidentally, “Untouchable: The Harvey Weinstein Story” was also to be aired on Jan 25th at Sundance. In fact it had several showing but the media was already in full*blitzkrieg*Michael Jackson mode.
It seemed that even with Harvey Weinstein *money and influence in court he couldn’t *get his charges dismissed –
Weinstein could NOT catch break in the media either.
But then, something quite remarkable occurred –*as if someone had pulled a switch.
The very same day as the Harvey Weinstein BBC article a Fox article appeared –
—*JANUARY 10, 2019*Fox News *reports the Sundance Film Festival announced two*last-minute*entries*for 2019 lineup – one was Leaving Neverland.
Coincidentally, “Untouchable: The Harvey Weinstein Story” was also to be aired on Jan 25th at Sundance. In fact it had several showing but the media was already in full*blitzkrieg*Michael Jackson mode.
Man talar också om Oprahs inblandning i lanseringen
Från twitter
Citat:
Yup. Weinstein’s best mate Oprah leaked a story promoting the Jackson doc. From David Geffen’s boat. It was added to Sundance Film Fest at the last minute, despite not being a film, and the press buried the Weinstein doc. Now Oprah’s holding events promoting the Jackson doc.
Citera Tweet
TinaRR
@TinB64271689
Svarar @CEThomson
Isn't there a Weinstein documentary in Sundance (where Leaving Neverland was shown as a last minute entry)? How come no one seems to be talking about that Weinstein docu? Cant help but think that MJ is being used as a PR machine to cover up for the living Hollywood predators.
Citera Tweet
TinaRR
@TinB64271689
Svarar @CEThomson
Isn't there a Weinstein documentary in Sundance (where Leaving Neverland was shown as a last minute entry)? How come no one seems to be talking about that Weinstein docu? Cant help but think that MJ is being used as a PR machine to cover up for the living Hollywood predators.
Mera twitter
Citat:
Tariq Nasheed*
✔@tariqnasheed
1. Doesn’t it seem like Oprah is suddenly going out of her way to trash Michael Jackson? Notice how they made a point to report that Oprah was watching the #LeavingNeverland documentary with David Geffen (who is one of the most powerful men in Hollywood)
✔@tariqnasheed
1. Doesn’t it seem like Oprah is suddenly going out of her way to trash Michael Jackson? Notice how they made a point to report that Oprah was watching the #LeavingNeverland documentary with David Geffen (who is one of the most powerful men in Hollywood)
Mer från artikeln
Citat:
Och
Remember 2 things: One, Oprah and Weinstein are big time besties…
Citat:
(Daily Reminder: 5 people control the entire media including every news outlet, newspaper, movie studio and TV channel).
CUT TO: JANUARY 10, 2019,*BBC* with renewed vigor, stirs the pot, updates the Harvey Weinstein saga and the plethora of women who have now accused him include big name Hollywood actresses.
It seemed that even with Harvey Weinstein *money and influence in court he couldn’t *get his charges dismissed –
Weinstein could NOT catch break in the media either.
But then, something quite remarkable occurred –*as if someone had pulled a switch.
The very same day as the Harvey Weinstein BBC article a Fox article appeared –
—*JANUARY 10, 2019*Fox News *reports the Sundance Film Festival announced two*last-minute*entries*for 2019 lineup – one was Leaving Neverland.
Coincidentally, “Untouchable: The Harvey Weinstein Story” was also to be aired on Jan 25th at Sundance. In fact it had several showing but the media was already in full*blitzkrieg*Michael Jackson mode.
Alright, now to our B story, let’s switch gears for a second, and soon you’ll see how these* seemingly unrelated stories all intertwine.
CUT TO: JANUARY 30TH,*OPRAH’S 65TH ABOARD GEFFEN’S YACHT*
Oprah celebrated her 65th birthday aboard David Geffen’s yacht,*The Rising Sun,*on a private island in the Caribbean*with other uber wealthy famous people, like any normal person (eye roll).
This story caught my attention for 2 reasons. First, I found it bizarre and random that it was so intentionally mentioned that the group, which included David Geffen, Gayle King Oprah and others, viewed LEAVING NEVERLAND, the recent Michael Jackson documentary.
.......
Remember 2 things: One, Oprah and Weinstein are big time besties…
So, what happened next?
Well, Oprah came home from her Rising Sun jaunt (coincidentally, just a few miles from Epstein and Branson’s islands) and not only promptly threw her support behind LEAVING NEVERLAND, she arranged an interview with the two alleged survivors who are featured in the documentary, Wade Robson*and James Safechuck. Just like that! Almost as if this was all planned ahead of time!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/tiffanyfitzhenry.com/2019/03/06/whos-really-behind-leaving-neverland/amp/(Daily Reminder: 5 people control the entire media including every news outlet, newspaper, movie studio and TV channel).
CUT TO: JANUARY 10, 2019,*BBC* with renewed vigor, stirs the pot, updates the Harvey Weinstein saga and the plethora of women who have now accused him include big name Hollywood actresses.
It seemed that even with Harvey Weinstein *money and influence in court he couldn’t *get his charges dismissed –
Weinstein could NOT catch break in the media either.
But then, something quite remarkable occurred –*as if someone had pulled a switch.
The very same day as the Harvey Weinstein BBC article a Fox article appeared –
—*JANUARY 10, 2019*Fox News *reports the Sundance Film Festival announced two*last-minute*entries*for 2019 lineup – one was Leaving Neverland.
Coincidentally, “Untouchable: The Harvey Weinstein Story” was also to be aired on Jan 25th at Sundance. In fact it had several showing but the media was already in full*blitzkrieg*Michael Jackson mode.
Alright, now to our B story, let’s switch gears for a second, and soon you’ll see how these* seemingly unrelated stories all intertwine.
CUT TO: JANUARY 30TH,*OPRAH’S 65TH ABOARD GEFFEN’S YACHT*
Oprah celebrated her 65th birthday aboard David Geffen’s yacht,*The Rising Sun,*on a private island in the Caribbean*with other uber wealthy famous people, like any normal person (eye roll).
This story caught my attention for 2 reasons. First, I found it bizarre and random that it was so intentionally mentioned that the group, which included David Geffen, Gayle King Oprah and others, viewed LEAVING NEVERLAND, the recent Michael Jackson documentary.
.......
Remember 2 things: One, Oprah and Weinstein are big time besties…
So, what happened next?
Well, Oprah came home from her Rising Sun jaunt (coincidentally, just a few miles from Epstein and Branson’s islands) and not only promptly threw her support behind LEAVING NEVERLAND, she arranged an interview with the two alleged survivors who are featured in the documentary, Wade Robson*and James Safechuck. Just like that! Almost as if this was all planned ahead of time!
Mera
Citat:
CUT TO: JANUARY 30TH,*OPRAH’S 65TH ABOARD GEFFEN’S YACHT*
Oprah celebrated her 65th birthday aboard David Geffen’s yacht,*The Rising Sun,*on a private island in the Caribbean*with other uber wealthy famous people, like any normal person (eye roll).
This story caught my attention for 2 reasons. First, I found it bizarre and random that it was so intentionally mentioned that the group, which included David Geffen, Gayle King Oprah and others, viewed LEAVING NEVERLAND, the recent Michael Jackson documentary
.......
Remember 2 things: One, Oprah and Weinstein are big time besties…
..........
So, what happened next?
Well, Oprah came home from her Rising Sun jaunt (coincidentally, just a few miles from Epstein and Branson’s islands) and not only promptly threw her support behind LEAVING NEVERLAND, she arranged an interview with the two alleged survivors who are featured in the documentary, Wade Robson*and James Safechuck. Just like that! Almost as if this was all planned ahead of time!
............
So now, not only do we have Robson and Safechuck doing a complete 180 on the testimony they gave, which resulted in Jackson’s acquittal, we have this well-timed documentary Oprah just happens to be publicly seizing upon to position herself as a champion for sexual abuse victims. Yeah, ok.
Are you still with me? You’d better sit down for this next part folks…
Enty, out favorite undercover entertainment attorney, is claiming that LEAVING NEVERLAND was funded by none other than Oprah, Gayle King, David Geffen, Harvey Weinstein and TMZ founder Harvey Levin…WHAAAAAAT?????
CUT TO: JANUARY 30TH,*OPRAH’S 65TH ABOARD GEFFEN’S YACHT*
Oprah celebrated her 65th birthday aboard David Geffen’s yacht,*The Rising Sun,*on a private island in the Caribbean*with other uber wealthy famous people, like any normal person (eye roll).
This story caught my attention for 2 reasons. First, I found it bizarre and random that it was so intentionally mentioned that the group, which included David Geffen, Gayle King Oprah and others, viewed LEAVING NEVERLAND, the recent Michael Jackson documentary
.......
Remember 2 things: One, Oprah and Weinstein are big time besties…
..........
So, what happened next?
Well, Oprah came home from her Rising Sun jaunt (coincidentally, just a few miles from Epstein and Branson’s islands) and not only promptly threw her support behind LEAVING NEVERLAND, she arranged an interview with the two alleged survivors who are featured in the documentary, Wade Robson*and James Safechuck. Just like that! Almost as if this was all planned ahead of time!
............
So now, not only do we have Robson and Safechuck doing a complete 180 on the testimony they gave, which resulted in Jackson’s acquittal, we have this well-timed documentary Oprah just happens to be publicly seizing upon to position herself as a champion for sexual abuse victims. Yeah, ok.
Are you still with me? You’d better sit down for this next part folks…
Enty, out favorite undercover entertainment attorney, is claiming that LEAVING NEVERLAND was funded by none other than Oprah, Gayle King, David Geffen, Harvey Weinstein and TMZ founder Harvey Levin…WHAAAAAAT?????
Mic drop
__________________
Senast redigerad av Gertrud1 2019-03-13 kl. 07:08.
Senast redigerad av Gertrud1 2019-03-13 kl. 07:08.
Citat:
Har du sett dokumentären? Jackson hade bokstavligen golv med sensorer som gav av ljud när någon steg på dem och han såg till att ha flera dörrar fram till sitt sovrum. Allt för att hindra någon från att närma sig rummet utan Jacksons vetskap, och att han delade säng med dem här barnen är det ingen som nekar.
Relativt enkelt att lägga ihop ett och ett i det här fallet enligt mig i alla fall. särskilt när man beaktar hur många och vilka som anklagat han, samt hur mycket han umgåtts med dem här barnen.
Angående intervjun, så är vitnessmål från Michael's syster övertygande enligt mig. Hon förstår Michael och den relation han haft med dem här barnen på en nivå som ger hennes påstående mycket vikt enligt mig.
Värt att nämna är även att bägge av pojkarna i dokumentärens pappor begick självmord efter att den här relationen inletts, möjligtvis för att dem inte kunde leva med att ha sålt sina barn till en pedofil, men det är självfallet spekulation även om det är ett rejält sammanträffande att det hände i bägge fallen.
Relativt enkelt att lägga ihop ett och ett i det här fallet enligt mig i alla fall. särskilt när man beaktar hur många och vilka som anklagat han, samt hur mycket han umgåtts med dem här barnen.
Angående intervjun, så är vitnessmål från Michael's syster övertygande enligt mig. Hon förstår Michael och den relation han haft med dem här barnen på en nivå som ger hennes påstående mycket vikt enligt mig.
Värt att nämna är även att bägge av pojkarna i dokumentärens pappor begick självmord efter att den här relationen inletts, möjligtvis för att dem inte kunde leva med att ha sålt sina barn till en pedofil, men det är självfallet spekulation även om det är ett rejält sammanträffande att det hände i bägge fallen.
1. MJs hus kryllade av anställda dagarna i ända. Dygnet runt. Vakter, kockar, maids u name it! De befann sig i huset, i närheten av hans sovrumsdel. Utan att vara pedofil hade även jag satt upp en sensor, som finns i tex affärer, som plingar till när någon är på väg till min del. Man behöver en privat sfär även om man inte är pedofil.
2. MJs syster La Toy's anklagelser. för det första tog hon tillbaka dessa något år efter. Hon förklarade att hennes motiv var pengar och att hon även tvingades av sin fd man till att anklaga MJ. För det andra försökte hon sälja bevis till Us ch UK-tidningar för 500k USD. Bägge tidningarna drog sig ur när de insåg att hon inte hade några bevis över huvud taget.
Summa summarum; samtliga av MJs syskon trodde och tror på MJS oskuld.
3. Chandlers far tog sitt liv. Han hade flera psykiatriska diagnoser satta redan innan Chandler föddes. Faderns anhöriga har vittnat om hur Chandler mått psykiskt dåligt hela sitt vuxna liv. Han sa att han skulle krossa MJ för att MJ hade tagit hans son ifrån honom, inte för att de ska ha haft sex. I det smyginspelade samtalet säger Chandlers far att han struntar i om han krossar alla relationer med sin son och övriga familj; det var pengarna som var viktiga.
Chandlers son och övriga familj ville till slut inte ha att göra med honom. Chandler Jr avbröt all kontakt med fadern för att denne hade tvingat honom att ljuga om MJ.
Chandler Sr dog ensam och hatad. Även av sin egna son.
Vad gäller Robsons far som tog livet av sig så var det enligt familjen ett resultat av livslång psykisk ohälsa, i kombination med att familjen lämnade honom kvar ensam i Australien. Chandler Sr länade inget självmordsbrev, men det gjorde Robson Sr. Han skrev att han inte klarade av att vara ensam och utan pengar.
Ju mer man sätter sig in i fallen, desto mer tydligt blir det att Robson far med 100% osanning.
Både domare och jury har i 10 års tid förkastat Robsons karaktär och vittnesmål rakt av. "Han är totalt opålitlig".
Både domare och jury har i 10 års tid förkastat Robsons karaktär och vittnesmål rakt av. "Han är totalt opålitlig".
Citat:
Har du sett dokumentären? Jackson hade bokstavligen golv med sensorer som gav av ljud när någon steg på dem och han såg till att ha flera dörrar fram till sitt sovrum. Allt för att hindra någon från att närma sig rummet utan Jacksons vetskap, och att han delade säng med dem här barnen är det ingen som nekar.
Relativt enkelt att lägga ihop ett och ett i det här fallet enligt mig i alla fall. särskilt när man beaktar hur många och vilka som anklagat han, samt hur mycket han umgåtts med dem här barnen.
Angående intervjun, så är vitnessmål från Michael's syster övertygande enligt mig. Hon förstår Michael och den relation han haft med dem här barnen på en nivå som ger hennes påstående mycket vikt enligt mig.
Värt att nämna är även att bägge av pojkarna i dokumentärens pappor begick självmord efter att den här relationen inletts, möjligtvis för att dem inte kunde leva med att ha sålt sina barn till en pedofil, men det är självfallet spekulation även om det är ett rejält sammanträffande att det hände i bägge fallen.
Relativt enkelt att lägga ihop ett och ett i det här fallet enligt mig i alla fall. särskilt när man beaktar hur många och vilka som anklagat han, samt hur mycket han umgåtts med dem här barnen.
Angående intervjun, så är vitnessmål från Michael's syster övertygande enligt mig. Hon förstår Michael och den relation han haft med dem här barnen på en nivå som ger hennes påstående mycket vikt enligt mig.
Värt att nämna är även att bägge av pojkarna i dokumentärens pappor begick självmord efter att den här relationen inletts, möjligtvis för att dem inte kunde leva med att ha sålt sina barn till en pedofil, men det är självfallet spekulation även om det är ett rejält sammanträffande att det hände i bägge fallen.
Frågan är varför var han så paranoid att bli mördad? Kan det legat någon sanning i det? att folk ville krossa honom och hans karriär?
Att krossa någons karriär kan mycket väl liknas vid att falsk anklaga någon för våldtäkt,
Att barnens pappor tog ”självmord” kan enkelt vara ett beställningsjobb för att vinkla döden till att ha en koppling till MJ i tapp om att förstöra hans karriär,
Vi snackar Hollywood och världens mäktigaste människor, det går ej att utesluta detta, det är vanligare än man tror.
Speciellt när vi talar om världens kändaste pop artist.
Jag tror verkligen inte man är sådär paranoid om man inte är säker på att någon väldigt mäktig vill krossa en.
Att vara världens hetaste artist,
Vara svart, i ett vit-mans dominerat land var inte populärt bland eliten.
När MJ och syrran var vänner var han ABSOLUT inget peddo enligt henne.
När dom blev ovänner var han plötsligt det, humm...
Dom här grabbarna har backat MJ hela tiden och sagt att han är oskyldig,
Tills han är död och inte kan försvara sig då ändrar dom på sig?
Började deras plånböcker sina nu 10år efter MJ’s död? Möjligtvis därför dom gjorde denna dokumentär och ändrade åsikt? Vi snackar hundratals miljoner i intäkter för denna dokumentär,
Folk dödar för 20kr här i världen,
Jag hade tamefan också hittat på dessa saker om jag fick ett chans o medverka i den där dokumentären, inget snack om saken! Cash is king,
Men jag förstår helt klart, att sova med barn får ju givetvis en ringklocka att ringa,
Men samtidigt var MJ som ett barn i huvudet själv, väldigt speciell person,
han älskade allt som hade med leksaker och barn att göra,
Det är möjligt att han såg barnen som sina vänner eller bara tyckte om att se barn lyckliga,
Känns bara onaturligt varför skulle man vilja visa upp inför hela världen att man blivit påsatt som barn i tv om det inte fanns ett ekonomiskt motiv? Speciellt såhär 20? År i efterhand...
Du säger att du förstår MJ’s syrra i intervjuen,
Är du medveten om att när hon berättar detta så är dom ovänner,
Ovänner över vad?
Vad vet vi? Folk snackar skit här i världen det är vanligt när man är ”ovänn” med någon.
Dessutom så hade hans syrra en helt annan åsikt om honom under tiden dom var vänner? Lite märkligt..
Hon säger även att hon aldrig sätt något sexuellt, men bara ”olämpliga” saker,
T.ex? Låta barn sova på hans ”Neverland” kan mycket väl tolkas som ”olämpligt”.?
Hon beskrev aldrig VAD hon sätt, bara att hon aldrig sätt ngt sexuellt,
så att tolka henne är omöjligt, speciellt när dom är ovänner med varandra och ilska finns i luften, (över något?)
En sak som är säkert är att dom här två ”offrena” blivit väääldigt rika efter den här dokumentären, man får bilda sin uppfattning efter det.
__________________
Senast redigerad av Flusen 2019-03-13 kl. 07:00.
Senast redigerad av Flusen 2019-03-13 kl. 07:00.
Citat:
Vad menar du att detta bevisar?
I och med att barn som sovit regelbundet med mj berättat om övergrepp inte är bevisning enligt dig så blir man ju nyfiken på vad texten bevisar enligt dig?
Vad gör dig så säker att du känner att det var en mic drop?
Skapa ett konto eller logga in för att kommentera
Du måste vara medlem för att kunna kommentera