5 ms·

Not to veer too far off topic here but Michael Jackson died innocent because he was innocent. He was greatly misunderstood and a fire of experienced racism that

by warent 7y ago

Not to veer too far off topic here but Michael Jackson died innocent because he was innocent. He was greatly misunderstood and a fire of experienced racism that was fed by the media. Here's an article you might find interesting: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_610258 https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_610258

tboyd47 7y ago
Thanks for sharing! Great article.
quacked 7y ago
Isn't this out-of-date after the new documentary "Leaving Neverland"?
- nicolashahn 7y ago
  Looks like a no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaving_Neverland#Criticisms_of_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaving_Neverland#Criticisms_o... > "[Robson and Safechuck] have previously testified under oath, under intense cross-examination, [have] maintained for twenty years a consistent story about Michael Jackson being innocent, and they come forward and completely change their story. That in itself is discrediting." Looks more like they realized they could make a bunch of money on a controversial "documentary" without getting hit with a defamation lawsuit, since MJ is dead.
  - lowdose 7y ago
    They were kids and changed their mind when they became adults. This is a very common pattern in the behavior of abused people. > American singer Barbra Streisand spoke in Jackson's defense, saying "his sexual needs were his sexual needs" and that the accusers had been "thrilled" to be with him. She added that the accusers were "both married and they both have children, so it didn't kill them".[73]Streisand later apologized and expressed sympathy for the accusers.[74] What a comment coming from a woman that didn't even want to have a nude picture in the press. Which blew up in her face and is called that the Streisand effect.
    - qohen 7y ago
      Hopefully not too much of a derail, but: the "Streisand effect" had nothing to do with nude photos [0]: It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose 2003 attempt to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu, California inadvertently drew further public attention to it. But, today I learned, the name seems to have been coined to describe something else a couple of years later [1]: Mike Masnick of Techdirt coined the term in 2005 in relation to a holiday resort issuing a takedown notice to urinal.net (a site dedicated to photographs of urinals) over use of the resort's name. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect#Origin_of_the_term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect#Origin_of_the...
      - lowdose 7y ago
        You are completely right, but this sounds to me like this puts Streisand in an even worse position.
  - dondawest 7y ago
    Watch the documentary dude. Safechuck and Robson are legit. In addition to the other accusers. MJ was guilty as hell. They only testified on Michael’s defense team under pressure and duress and witness tampering. Safechuck and Robson are definitely legit.
    - jjeaff 7y ago
      I'd say MJ has a pretty good case for not guilty by reason of insanity. And I don't mean that as a jab. I really think he was so messed up by his abusive upbringing and subsequent life that he may not have been fully accountable. "Affluenza" on steroids.
      - dondawest 7y ago
        No dude. He was fully accountable. MJ was a ruthless business negotiatior. He bought the Beatles catalog out from under Paul McCartney’s nose after Paul had given him the idea. He negotiated the most lucrative contract of all time with Thriller. Michael Jackson was absolutely 100% mentally “all there” and fully accountable for his actions. Just because he was a terrible drug addict who molested kids while high as hell does not mean he was innocent, or “not guilty by reason of insanity.” Unless you think drunk drivers should be able to plead “temporary insanity from substance abuse,” there is no insanity defense for Michael Jackson. Zero insane people have the ability to negotiate contracts like MJ did. Michael was a ruthless and canny businessman and anyone who thinks he was “insane” is not familiar with the absolutely fiendish and dark level of planning he put into his rape career. The dude had silent alarms outside his bedroom. That shows a level of foresight and planning that would get an insanity defense thrown out of court instantly. in short Michael was guilty as hell and if you watch the documentary I bet you a million dollars you will renounce your “MJ truthing. “
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- mixmastamyk 7y ago
  It's not out of date. It merely references a specific case. But, it has little bearing on other cases, those detailed in the documentary.
dlbucci 7y ago
I believed he was innocent too, until I saw Leaving Neverland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaving_Neverland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaving_Neverland
- mixmastamyk 7y ago
  Have you read the huffpost link above and the wiki link of rebuttal below?
  - mixmastamyk 7y ago
    So, I've read more and watched the doc. My take, those rebuttals may be accurate but they represent only a slice of what went on. The two stories in the doc may not be 100% credible either, but are quite detailed. One thing I didn't realize, and which changed my thinking about the subject, was that the kids were alone with him one at a time in a serialized manner. From the descriptions I always thought it was more like a sleepover party atmosphere at Neverland and why I was not inclined to believe the allegations.
    - dondawest 7y ago
      Yes. I believed MJ’s innocence too... I so desperately wanted to believe in his innocence because he was such an incredible artist... until I saw the documentary and did more research. He had “child companions” one at a time, alone in his room, with a silent alarm to let him know if anyone approached. That moment of Jimmy Safechuck describing how he cried on the bed as he realized he was no longer Michael’s favorite “companion” was absolutely heart-wrenching to me. It wasn’t a “slumber party atmosphere.” It was a one-on-one predation atmosphere. To me, Diane Dimond said it best: “Is Michael Jackson the incredible victim of multiple extortion attempts? Or is he simply a man that is a pedophile?” I can’t believe the amount of MJ truthing in this thread and Im glad you’ve seen the light. I agree that the stories in the doc may not be 100% credible, but Jimmy Safechuck is simply not a Machiavellian personality type, IMO. I strongly believe Safechuck and Robson, strongly believe that MJ was guilty as hell, and thanks for circling back to discuss your findings.

by warent 7y ago

tboyd47 7y ago

Thanks for sharing! Great article.

quacked 7y ago

Isn't this out-of-date after the new documentary "Leaving Neverland"?

nicolashahn 7y ago
Looks like a no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaving_Neverland#Criticisms_of_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaving_Neverland#Criticisms_o... > "[Robson and Safechuck] have previously testified under oath, under intense cross-examination, [have] maintained for twenty years a consistent story about Michael Jackson being innocent, and they come forward and completely change their story. That in itself is discrediting." Looks more like they realized they could make a bunch of money on a controversial "documentary" without getting hit with a defamation lawsuit, since MJ is dead.
- lowdose 7y ago
  They were kids and changed their mind when they became adults. This is a very common pattern in the behavior of abused people. > American singer Barbra Streisand spoke in Jackson's defense, saying "his sexual needs were his sexual needs" and that the accusers had been "thrilled" to be with him. She added that the accusers were "both married and they both have children, so it didn't kill them".[73]Streisand later apologized and expressed sympathy for the accusers.[74] What a comment coming from a woman that didn't even want to have a nude picture in the press. Which blew up in her face and is called that the Streisand effect.
  - qohen 7y ago
    Hopefully not too much of a derail, but: the "Streisand effect" had nothing to do with nude photos [0]: It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose 2003 attempt to suppress photographs of her residence in Malibu, California inadvertently drew further public attention to it. But, today I learned, the name seems to have been coined to describe something else a couple of years later [1]: Mike Masnick of Techdirt coined the term in 2005 in relation to a holiday resort issuing a takedown notice to urinal.net (a site dedicated to photographs of urinals) over use of the resort's name. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect#Origin_of_the_term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect#Origin_of_the...
    - lowdose 7y ago
      You are completely right, but this sounds to me like this puts Streisand in an even worse position.
- dondawest 7y ago
  Watch the documentary dude. Safechuck and Robson are legit. In addition to the other accusers. MJ was guilty as hell. They only testified on Michael’s defense team under pressure and duress and witness tampering. Safechuck and Robson are definitely legit.
  - jjeaff 7y ago
    I'd say MJ has a pretty good case for not guilty by reason of insanity. And I don't mean that as a jab. I really think he was so messed up by his abusive upbringing and subsequent life that he may not have been fully accountable. "Affluenza" on steroids.
    - dondawest 7y ago
      No dude. He was fully accountable. MJ was a ruthless business negotiatior. He bought the Beatles catalog out from under Paul McCartney’s nose after Paul had given him the idea. He negotiated the most lucrative contract of all time with Thriller. Michael Jackson was absolutely 100% mentally “all there” and fully accountable for his actions. Just because he was a terrible drug addict who molested kids while high as hell does not mean he was innocent, or “not guilty by reason of insanity.” Unless you think drunk drivers should be able to plead “temporary insanity from substance abuse,” there is no insanity defense for Michael Jackson. Zero insane people have the ability to negotiate contracts like MJ did. Michael was a ruthless and canny businessman and anyone who thinks he was “insane” is not familiar with the absolutely fiendish and dark level of planning he put into his rape career. The dude had silent alarms outside his bedroom. That shows a level of foresight and planning that would get an insanity defense thrown out of court instantly. in short Michael was guilty as hell and if you watch the documentary I bet you a million dollars you will renounce your “MJ truthing. “
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
mixmastamyk 7y ago
It's not out of date. It merely references a specific case. But, it has little bearing on other cases, those detailed in the documentary.

dlbucci 7y ago

I believed he was innocent too, until I saw Leaving Neverland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaving_Neverland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaving_Neverland

mixmastamyk 7y ago
Have you read the huffpost link above and the wiki link of rebuttal below?
- mixmastamyk 7y ago
  So, I've read more and watched the doc. My take, those rebuttals may be accurate but they represent only a slice of what went on. The two stories in the doc may not be 100% credible either, but are quite detailed. One thing I didn't realize, and which changed my thinking about the subject, was that the kids were alone with him one at a time in a serialized manner. From the descriptions I always thought it was more like a sleepover party atmosphere at Neverland and why I was not inclined to believe the allegations.
  - dondawest 7y ago
    Yes. I believed MJ’s innocence too... I so desperately wanted to believe in his innocence because he was such an incredible artist... until I saw the documentary and did more research. He had “child companions” one at a time, alone in his room, with a silent alarm to let him know if anyone approached. That moment of Jimmy Safechuck describing how he cried on the bed as he realized he was no longer Michael’s favorite “companion” was absolutely heart-wrenching to me. It wasn’t a “slumber party atmosphere.” It was a one-on-one predation atmosphere. To me, Diane Dimond said it best: “Is Michael Jackson the incredible victim of multiple extortion attempts? Or is he simply a man that is a pedophile?” I can’t believe the amount of MJ truthing in this thread and Im glad you’ve seen the light. I agree that the stories in the doc may not be 100% credible, but Jimmy Safechuck is simply not a Machiavellian personality type, IMO. I strongly believe Safechuck and Robson, strongly believe that MJ was guilty as hell, and thanks for circling back to discuss your findings.