4 ms·

Looks like a no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaving_Neverland#Criticisms_of_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaving_Neverland#Criticisms_o... > "[

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]

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]