Michael Jackson - New allegations in documentary: Leaving Neverland

I have not seen the "documentary" yet and I have no opinion about the truth behind it. However, Michael Jackson, a black man, was tried in a court of Justice and acqitted by a majorly white jury. We really have to accept this ruling. What will happen to our rule of law if anyone can come out and re-try a case in the court of public opinion? We are a civilised society and not a lynch mob. There can always be mistrials and if there is new evidence, there can be a re-trial. What should not be is a public lynching of a suspect after he was found not guilty in a court. Surely, you cannot charge a dead person but he was charged when he was alive and one of the current accusers was witness for the defense. He had his chance, now he must shut up even if he lied under oath and did not tell the truth when he had his chance.

[QUOTE] [b]YourValentine wrote:[/b] I have not seen the "documentary" yet and I have no opinion about the truth behind it. However, Michael Jackson, a black man, was tried in a court of Justice and acqitted by a majorly white jury. We really have to accept this ruling. What will happen to our rule of law if anyone can come out and re-try a case in the court of public opinion? We are a civilised society and not a lynch mob. There can always be mistrials and if there is new evidence, there can be a re-trial. What should not be is a public lynching of a suspect after he was found not guilty in a court. Surely, you cannot charge a dead person but he was charged when he was alive and one of the current accusers was witness for the defense. He had his chance, now he must shut up even if he lied under oath and did not tell the truth when he had his chance. [/QUOTE] "White" man... ;) This defense has been used by a lot of his fans, but i don't think it flies tbh. You haven't seen the documentary, but have you seen their interview with Oprah? I think if you watch that back to back you might change your mind. The main story i keep hearing is that Corey Feldman and Macauley Culkin say they haven't been touched. The thing is that we don't know how much affiliation they still have with the family. Are they receiving hush money? Every thing can be disputed i'm afraid. Corey Feldman even changed his mind after watching the documentary by saying they should be taken seriously. Not saying he got molested. MJ would be really stupid if he had touched famous kids. What really doesn't help his case is the interview LaToya did in the early 90's calling him out, calling him a pedo and told the world how his mom talks about MJ (calling him a faggot and how she is sick of him). Later she, of course (after divorcing her abusive husband) took back the story and blamed her husband for the endeavor. She wasn't financially independent from the family anymore so there's a good chance she had to change her story to get back in. Watch this:

Quite obviously you did not read my post. It's well possible that the two men tell the truth. In this case they should go to the justice system. That is why we have courts, police and all that. I have doubts about the statue of limitation for such crimes in the USA but as long as that is the law you have to file your claims within that period of limitation. It is wrong to retry Jackson in a TV programme, he has a right to due process like anyone else. If we allow such public allegations with no further proof we are not better than any lynch mob. It's a matter of principle.

If the alleged offender were not a famous person, no TV station would air such accusations and rightfully so. One of the accusers filed for 1,5 billion USD (!!), that is a lot of money and you would go quite a distance to get so much money. Also, it's not okay to allege that other people were abused and just do not want to tell the public. You even allege crimes that the presumed victims say was never committed. Imagine that would happen to you.

^ true.

But also, that's a reasoning behind his company's civil settlement.

The presiding judge was to allow civil precedings before criminal (*which in legal terms means whatever presented in civil is presentable in criminal: and a person could be found liable even for omissions. ... when the charges presented really cried for a CRIMINAL case. ....

these exposures of legal proceedings would reveal elements and potentially allow someone an upper hand in proceedings of a criminal legal nature as whatever was uncovered or spoken about in civil was presentable in criminal.


BUT the likelihood of a judge to allow civil charges to be presented when there was allegedly a z CRIMINAL CASE truly compromised the legal rights and evidence of a defendant presenting a defense.

No lawyer worth their shit would EVER settle for such a thing. ....but the MJJ enterprise settled with some monetary payment.


It really is a grey matter.

I wouldn't fucking know. All it presents is that a criminal proceeding trial would've had much more legal "discovery" and a preceding trial to rely upon for potentialwaying evidence in a matter that had LESSER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVICTION
( A CIVIL case need only require "preponderance of evidence" - criminal requires evidence of wrong doing BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. ..


THESE ARE FOUNDATIONS OF THE 21st century legal system (*and didn't apply to coloreds and Indians nor immigrants prior)

I don't really know if he did all that for what they accuse him but
I like his music and listen to it.
Now anyone can say anything, but Michael Jackson can't say anything to defend himself. Already ten years.

Everything can be be disputed, but without proof, you're only speculating. What the facts are, however, is that he was found not guilty and the people making accusations now defended him back then.

I'm not convinced he did it, but I'm not going to say either way he's innocent or guilty. Like all commentators, I have no proof. Speculate all you want - where does it get you? He's dead.

Not sure how many of you know the youtuber Rageaholic, but he has just posted a 3rd part of his Michael Jackson rebuttal, where he debunks several key points from this documentary
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pnoQqlygQs
Part 2 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yTTEwBLfUQ
Part 3 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYx0vLfpRYY

http://www.rhymeswithsnitch.com/2019/03/wade-robson-burned-every-bridge-in.html?m=1

Thanks I'll check that out at work (unless watching its necessary i can listen)

This other site compiled a few points by insiders thought it was share worthy as well.

Much as i try, the events of this last week aren't sitting well with me. Also. ...as one forum poster noted, the timing of Robesons New claim was 3 days AFTER the statute of limitations was in effect on him being tried for perjury.

Nonce

Still. If you take them in context with the premise of that smear film. .... mj could've been a horrendous person.

I knew he had some personality problems and being the most famous person in the world had social problems but Jesus... if any of that is factual.... him doing that crotch grab takes on a whole different thing.

Rageaholic repeatedly gets stuff wrong and misses details. It's a poor and sloppy attempt at a rebuttal by him, that's for sure.

As just one example, in part three he rants about James and his mum. However, what he doesn't grasp or he purposefully overlooks is that James didn't tell his mum he was abused in 2004/05. He said that Jackson wasn't a good person, and he didn't want them (him and his mum) involved in the court case. James also said he didn't talk to her about it, that he couldn't talk about it, that he just said enough to not get them involved. And his mother never pushed. That doesn't mean she didn't figure anything out. That doesn't make them "time travelers" because he saw Wade on TV in 2013 and felt like he'd "been caught". If anything that backs up what James says all the more when you stop and think about it: James was blaming himself, so he told his mother as little as possible in at the time of the court case.

Jackson on CCTV out with James Safechuck, buying rings in the late 80s...

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/michael-jackson-caught-cctv-using-14124162

.

So Rageaholics next video, this time featuring 2 of the Jacksons : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsuxaa3qIzE

So in the end I watched all of Leaving Neverland, the Oprah interview, and the Corey Feldman interview that Fairy King mentioned. I found Wade and James believable, and at a minimum agree with Corey Feldman that they deserve to be heard. Their film isn’t a trial and can’t replace a trial that can no longer happen. But I’m glad they made the film.

To me MJ will always be a unique talent. That and likely a pedophile too. I’m sure there are people here who will disagree with me on this. And that’s OK.