https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXOfz1YkWeA

I guess those of yall who insist on believing the lies will have to skip this one in order to continue doing so, but I wanted to share this for those interested in the facts.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/michael-jackson-accuser-wade-robsons-224957776.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw

now... don't go looking for COON_grapes and the rest of them eggheads who got tight around the balls when this was pointed out before to about face now that the lies are laid out there for everyone to see.

shit was a scam from the get go. Jussie Smollett 2.0, only it worked (mostly) as planned.

and with all the associated fuckery, one has to wonder why no one has looked into the possibility that this whole charade was funded by ...someone not related to the movie maker or its subjects.

I find it highly dubious that those two dudes have the $$$ to keep the lawsuits alive, to keep the PR machine rolling, to fund the movie and get it shoved into Sundance ahead of the Weinstein doc (Untouchable), so on and so forth.

HBO is currently out here claiming a First Amendment violation when no one, government entity or otherwise, kept them from publishing this bullshit in the first place. All to avoid public arbitration over an agreement which had very clear language as to what to do or not do.

https://deadline.com/2019/08/michael-jackson-finding-neverland-lawsuit-dismissal-hbo-sex-abuse-documentary-emmys-1202670029/

motherfuckers out here like the goddamn Lib Dems in the UK, willing to let Brexit happen just so as long as "socialist" Corbyn doesn't have PM, temporarily.

As a survivor of molestation, dude is really passionate about defending his uncle. He and his cousin Brandy did a great interview about the lies in the mockumentary if you haven't seen it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ8PUNP8FkA
Edit: youtube recommended this other interview with Brandy and Taj after I found the one with Nicole: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-yUqqYjsJc

did so with the implied purpose of it getting shared (given the download link).

of course if corporate media did its fucking job, no one would have to resort to using viral videos to be the whistleblower.

Heavy.com had a piece that was published sometime yesterday that did its best to explain away the bullshit ("they explained this in the movie"). a movie that was curiously bereft of the kind of expertise that usually accompanies such stories. using Surviving R. Kelly as an example, they had experts on the topic at hand contributing. this was actually part of Stereo Williams' critique.


I hate sounding like a petty right winger, but "political correctness" in this particular regard shouldn't be part of journalism. to that, I don't mean you go print stories that call people names, or are defamatory.

but you can't be afraid to investigate something that looks suspicious because you'll look a certain way.

This is Jussie Smollett 2.0, only the media gatekeepers are looking the other way when the evidence is presented. alt-centrist coonery.

heavy.com REEL JOURNALIZM

aka anything y'all will click on in google

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

what I said isn't even disputable.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

i haven't seen leaving neverland either

if they tell you you're a really special snowflake.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

.
.

“It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.” — Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ

The Case for Christ Lecture: https://youtu.be/67uj2qvQi_k

Looking for Good News: https://www.goo

and then you had to waste dozens of hours "proving" why you don't need to feel bad.


that was a lot of wasted time for you.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I like the man's music.
I don't like aspects of his personal life.

but I despise the way the media has handled this topic regarding him. There is a bias, and it is not based in fact. the fact that they have gone full court press in the face of provable lies is a problem.

and the man has been dead for 10 years.
so whatever "public interest" they pretended to have with this film is nil.

I'm deeply interested in your history of investigating claims of sexual assault that give you the expertise to know what makes one person a confirmed liar about it.

because surely this isn't the only case you've investigated so thoroughly, right?

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

the niggas are on tape telling a vastly different story than they tell in the film.

court documents and photos that were obtained and verified prove or at least greatly suggest the timeline of events claimed by the accusers to be impossible.

this isn't some work of someone manipulating footage to match a narrative. these are the accusers' own words, unmodified.

if the fact that documents leaked, or that you're waiting on "a real journalistic outlet" to put this information out is a problem...

then why is the absence of those same entities of authority in the original film, or any sort of corroboration of the claims also being absent not also a problem?

we're told a story and compelled to believe it because... reasons.

no proof, just reasons.

meanwhile, one side consistently has proof of what they claim.

it doesn't matter who puts it out as long as it's substantiated.

you want to make yourself the sexual assault investigator, show how you became qualified to do it.

you say you're not just a fan searching for an excuse, then do the fuckin work.

or maybe admit what the fuck you fucking are.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

then you need to establish how you came to that and what puts you on the side of motherfucking truth.

because you *claim* that part of the reason you're going hard on this is so that real victims get believed.

you owe them more than this.

unless you're a lying little boy who is afraid of what he'll find out if he looks more closely.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

"if the fact that documents leaked, or that you're waiting on "a real journalistic outlet" to put this information out is a problem..."


I have no fuckin clue what you're even talking about.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

cuz this is basically a list of reasons to support r kelly, bill cosby, george pell and a hundred other motherfuckers you've never heard of because you think you're an expert based on...some scammer youtubers telling you that you are.



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

"but I despise the way the media has handled this topic regarding him. There is a bias, and it is not based in fact. the fact that they have gone full court press in the face of provable lies is a problem."

so c'mon.

let's run down the stories of other adults who've accused someone of abusing them while they're children and find out if they have inconsistencies too.


because that's what's important to you, right?

the truth.

and if anything is wrong, then they're lying. This means you should be defending the legend of Joe Paterno btw


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

fuck you.

there's nothing about your opinion of me that I care about, on any level.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

your fake fuck opinion doesn't mean shit to anyone with any intelligence. go fuck off bitch.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

for years.

Thats why he sought them out, kept them sleeping in his bed, showed them porn and kept them young, replacing one after the other.

If you REFUSE to see the obvious, that's on you.

Exhibit A

you also vote for trump. you're a fucking fool. also, nobody believes fake fucks like you.

Are the one who has to live with the most laughable orange clown ever to live on this earth. We just shake our heads from afar.

I was a HUGE MJ fan. His music? The very fucking best, no contest.

But he molested children.

but dude has to maintain his delusion, so

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>Thats why he sought them out,

this is patently false.
it is easily proven that the only contact Michael ever had with these children was through the persistent contact of their parents. rare was it that he voluntarily chose their company.


>kept them sleeping in his bed,

as is this. there is no doubt that he slept in the same bed as children and that's reasonable room for suspicion. but this has been litigated numerous times already.

he absolutely did not invite children into his bedroom or his bed.

>showed them porn

false. this was disproven in the 2005 case. no children were ever shown pornographic material. it was alleged, but it was found that the porn entered into evidence was printed AFTER a report was made. Sneddon also allowed the accuser to handle the material in question during grand jury proceedings BEFORE entering it into evidence.

>and kept them young, replacing one after the other.

absolutely false.
this allegation falls apart when you look at the allegations of Leaving Neverland in detail.

Wade suggests he was "replaced" by Macaulay Culkin, who has for decades denied abuse, in and out of court, including under penalty of perjury. Culkin's father (who was abusive to Macaulay and his brother) even corroborates these claims.

Culkin is older than Wade Robson by a couple of years.

the other principal accuser alleges the end of abuse at age 14. he also alleges abuse in a location that did not exist until he was at least age 16.

he also alleges being "discarded" at the same age. there are multiple photos showing him in the vicinity of Jackson 2 years after that point. and much later in the 2000s, on a job shooting his last video prior to the allegations of that period. his mother is also seen in some of those same photos.


>If you REFUSE to see the obvious, that's on you.

what's obvious is that you've been regurgitating tabloid falsehoods that were disproven when brought up under a microscope.

and you refuse to see the tangible proof otherwise.

that is, on you.

anyone who thought otherwise should be ashamed of themselves. They are fucking fools, and that's being nice.

Feel completely free to keep the same energy under reply 14.
Reply 3 as well if you don't mind replying to trolls.

I don’t know what MJ did or didn’t do, but calling someone an idiot for believing he might have done those things is a bit extreme in my opinion.

about your character.

>I don’t know what MJ did or didn’t do, but calling
>someone an idiot for believing he might have done those things
>is a bit extreme in my opinion.


Notice you said "believing he MIGHT HAVE done those things" while reply 14 says he absolutely did those things... even added a proven lie in there on the cool.
Your issue isn't the slander or the lie tho... just with someone calling the liar names.

Beyond that, some of the stuff MJ "did or didn't do" is provable, but you say you don't know, which makes it clear that you don't care to know... which means you're in here to police others' language? What is your motivation?

I’m glad we had this conversation.

Character tends to show when we interact w/ people.

>I’m glad we had this conversation.

So am I.

>“So back we go to these questions — friendship, character… ethics.”

is definitely a thing rational people do.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

on day 1. and that whoever didn't is unintelligent and should be ashamed

his reply wasn't even anything extreme. he claimed its a bit much.

and you wanna make this about HIS character? lol

> which means you're in here to
>police others' language? What is your motivation?
>

to this post, despite a proven lie being told before that point.
So are we just recounting what happened now? lol


>and you wanna make this about HIS character? lol

Yes, because of the aforementioned point.
Now the lie is still there and this conversation is what compels you, so your character comes under question for defending him instead of pointing it out. *shrugs*

>>and you wanna make this about HIS character? lol
>
>Yes, because of the aforementioned point.
>Now the lie is still there and this conversation is what
>compels you, so your character comes under question for
>defending him instead of pointing it out. *shrugs*
>
>

If that's true then it's abuse and he cannot be defended in any way, shape or form.

Folks can put any kind of spin on that they want but that is a fact.

it is also wrong, and incredibly stupid. indefensible.

However, that act is not what these allegations (nor this film) is about. it's about the serial rape of children.

and when tangible proof that the accusers are likely lying about this matter and that the director of the film was being purposely deceptive to drive home the point has been not only been made available but compiled, acting as if that's a relevant point with regards to a film that has been presented as unimpeachable proof is coon shit.

this a Jussie Smollett situation.

for some odd reason, he (very likely) preyed on the heightened public sensitivity and outrage toward homophobic violence and the fanaticism of Trump supporters... for reasons unknown.

when the proof came out that he may have staged his assault, the dude was raked over the coals and looked to be facing a serious penalty until the cops dropped the charges.

this is the same thing, only the Trump machine isn't there to actually force the issue of fact finding in the mainstream. also, the alleged perpetrator is dead, so there will be no law enforcement investigation. when this was the case, we saw what happened.

there's a thing here. you have to change the subject.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

it's def inappropriate and weird for a 40 something man and someone else's kids, and even if it was something completely innocuous on mj's part, it just makes it that much harder to climb out when accusations arise.

and used that to do inappropriate things.

It's irrelevant that the boys may have enjoyed sharing a bed with him. He should not have put them in that situation.

Abuse can manifest itself in many ways, some subtle and others not.

but I have a weird thing where if a grown man tells me he slept in a bed with young boys, I'm unwilling to be the person who says I know for one hundred percent certainty that he didn't do anything to them

maybe it's just me.


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>but I have a weird thing where if a grown man tells me he
>slept in a bed with young boys, I'm unwilling to be the person
>who says I know for one hundred percent certainty that he
>didn't do anything to them
>
>maybe it's just me.

what happened between him and those kids?

I don't feel qualified to say, and despite some looking, I haven't found anyone among his defenders who is.


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

but given the information that has been available for the past 25 years, you are correct.


after the 1994 GQ article that told the story behind Reuters reports of the 1993 allegations, this should have been the end of discussion.

even further more, the ridiculousness of the 2005 trial should have been the END end.

this is the fault of media not cleaning up their mess after it was over.

niggas that know the truth is contrary to their belief will push the "sleeping in beds" point when that's already been litigated.

but thank you for admitting that it is impossible for you to believe any accusations about michael jackson, so there's really no reason to interact with you


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

How long would you be able to stay out of jail (c) Charlie Murphy

who werent caught for decades, I don't buy this excuse anymore. Wealthy people buy their way out of jail all the time.

Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
http://www.Tupreme.com