Quantcast

“leaving Neverland" Causes Rush To Judgment About Michael Jackson In Court Of Public Opinion

Lady Lai

Starter
Joined
Apr 4, 2019
Messages
375
Reaction score
Reactions
2,593 233 77
2,530
Alleybux
97,921
Press Statement from The Estate of Michael Jackson

Los Angeles (April 12, 2019) –As a global icon, Michael Jackson made history and headlines throughout his life, and he is making history and headlinesonce again -- this time as perhaps the only person to be placed on trial after death. He is not being tried in a court of law, of course, but he is being judged in a court whose repercussions can be just as lasting, if unchecked or unchallenged: The court of public opinion.



However, in the case of Michael Jackson and “Leaving Neverland,” judgment about the King of Pop is being made based on one-sided tales by two men with a track record of inconsistent stories and whose recounting of incidents and information was never fact-checked by the film director’s own admission. Now that the film has aired, the facts and truths about the two accusers are coming to light.



Just as HBO recently decided to pull “Leaving Neverland,” from its programming lineup due to multiple discrepancies in the two accusers’ statements in the documentary, it is time to now share some critical facts that many people may not know.



First, let’s consider some important questions that should concern us all.



When does a person’s right to protect his or her good name and legacy end? Does it end when they die and can no longer defend themselves against allegations? In that case, doesn’t an individual like Michael Jacksonstill have the right for people to judge him or her on the facts and not on a series of one-sided tales when that person cannot stand up and say, “The allegations against me are categorically false! Here are the facts!”Is it fair or just that someone can attempt to rewrite history or tarnish a deceased person’s legacy with uncorroborated statements dressed up as truths?



These are critically important questions that every person around the worldshould be asking in the wake of the controversial HBO documentary “Leaving Neverland,” and here is why.


Some Undeniable Facts



First, an event unprecedented in the documentary film world occurred during the week of April 8, 2019, when the film’s director, Dan Reed, admitted that there are several discrepancies in the accusers’ story. James Safechuck, one of two accusers in the documentary claims that he was assaulted in an upstairs room at the Neverland Ranch train station from 1988 to 1992 but construction on Neverland’s train station did not start until late 1993 when the ranch received permits. The station was not even partially opened until 1994, which can be verified through state of California public records.



Second, and equally disturbing, is that Mr. Reed admits that he did not fact check the stories that Safechuck and Wade Robson tell in the film, despite the fact that he devotes four hours to their tales and took more than two years to do the film.



Mr. Reed uses selective editing and false claims in an attempt to discredit Mr. Jackson’s 2005 acquittal on child molestation charges.



“Leaving Neverland” presents a series of uncorroborated tales and allegations against Michael Jackson by two accusers who are in the midst of appealing a lawsuit for millions of dollars against the late pop star’s estate. They did not mention this in the film, but it is an indisputable fact that both men have a financial stake in participating in the film, particularly if it influences their appeals.



Mr. Robson and Mr. Safechuck had their lawsuits dismissed by the court twice for numerous provable inconsistencies in their sworn statements regarding alleged abuse by Mr. Jackson. The judge wrote in his judgment that “no rational fact-finder could possibly believe Robson’s statements.”



Mr. Robson and Mr. Safechuck swore under oath that Mr. Jackson never abused them or harmed them in any way. For more than two decades, publically and privately, both accusers denied that Mr. Jackson abused them.



Mr. Robson testified to this as an adult and under oath at Mr. Jackson’s 2005 trial -- a trial at which Mr. Jackson was found innocent of all charges by a jury of his peers in a court of law. He was Mr. Jackson’s first witness.



Of significant note is that during the 2005 trial, it was disclosed that Mr. Jackson had been investigated for child molestation by the FBI and other California law enforcement agencies for 10 years, costing millions of dollars, and they found no evidence that he had abused any children.



Another case in point is that Mr. Robson completely changes one of the critical moments of his narrative in the documentary from what he had said in his court papers as well as in a deposition taken just two months before he was filmed in “Leaving Neverland.” In in 2012, as he was attempting to write a book, he recalled so little about his interactions with Mr. Jackson that his mother had to fill in the blanks; her input did not include any references to the alleged abuse. However, in the film, unaided, Mr. Robson appears to have vivid recollections of specific events and alleged xes acts.


Numerous relevant facts are omitted from the documentary that would help viewers better decide the credibility of the accusers, including:



  • Michael Jackson was subjected to a lengthy and extensive investigation by law enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation provided support to those investigations. The FBI website states, “Between 1993 and 1994, and separately between 2004 and 2005, Mr. Jackson was investigated by California law enforcement agencies for possible child molestation. He was acquitted of all such charges.”


  • Mr. Jackson’s home and offices were raided unannounced multiple times and his medical records confiscated, which resulted in no evidence of the allegations.


  • Mr. Robson met with Michael Jackson Estate lawyers in 2011to ask for a producer’s role in the Cirque du Soleil Oneproduction, based on Mr. Jackson’s music. Mr. Robson sued after he was denied the position. Also, he stated that he had no knowledge of the Michael Jackson Estate before March 4, 2013, even though he met with an Estate lawyer in 2011.


  • Mr. Safechuck falsely claims he was pressured to testify at the 2005 trial but had already been eliminated as a witness by the judge who limited witnesses to Mr. Robson, Brett Barnes and Macauley Culkin. In the film, he states that he decided not to testify.


  • Mr. Reed claims that Mr. Robson and Mr. Safechuck had not met until the Sundance Film Festival in January 2019 for legal reasons. However, in Mr. Robson’s deposition in 2016, he specifies that he had met Mr. Safechuck in 2014 while they were pursuing the cases against the Michael Jackson Estate.


  • Mr. Robson is shown burning Michael Jackson memorabilia as the credits roll but Mr. Reed neglects to mention that Mr. Robson, as the press reported, auctioned his most valuable items in 2011 to satisfy a cash flow shortage.


These are but a few of the many facts surrounding the tales presented as unchallenged truths in “Leaving Neverland,” most of which have not been widely or even limitedly released to the public but the public has a right to this information and a right to not have their freedom to decide what to believe circumvented by uncorroborated stories.



Finally, we began with a few questions and we will conclude with two more that we should all ponder: Is it wrong to question why these facts were intentionally omitted from “Leaving Neverland,” and perhaps most of all, is it fair or just for a deceased human being, whose voice has been forever silenced, to have his or herlegacy tarnished, diminished or even erased?



Michael Jackson’s music has been the soundtrack of our lives for 50 years. His untarnished legacy and his music belong to the world, and we should all want to preserve and protect these irreplaceable gifts.



Let your voice be heard at:



#IAM4MJ



#STAND4MJ



The Michael Jackson Estate

“Leaving Neverland" Causes Rush to Judgment about Michael Jackson in Court of Public Opinion One-Sided Allegations and Failure to Fact-Check Leads to Film Built on Sketchy Information and HBO pulling it from its network Press Statement from The Estate of Michael Jackson
 
Last edited:

madibabiko

HotepFeedMeMETH
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
3,009
Reaction score
Reactions
11,505 507 1,601
9,813
Alleybux
350
Press Statement from The Estate of Michael Jackson

Los Angeles (April 12, 2019) –As a global icon, Michael Jackson made history and headlines throughout his life, and he is making history and headlinesonce again -- this time as perhaps the only person to be placed on trial after death. He is not being tried in a court of law, of course, but he is being judged in a court whose repercussions can be just as lasting, if unchecked or unchallenged: The court of public opinion.



However, in the case of Michael Jackson and “Leaving Neverland,” judgment about the King of Pop is being made based on one-sided tales by two men with a track record of inconsistent stories and whose recounting of incidents and information was never fact-checked by the film director’s own admission. Now that the film has aired, the facts and truths about the two accusers are coming to light.



Just as HBO recently decided to pull “Leaving Neverland,” from its programming lineup due to multiple discrepancies in the two accusers’ statements in the documentary, it is time to now share some critical facts that many people may not know.



First, let’s consider some important questions that should concern us all.



When does a person’s right to protect his or her good name and legacy end? Does it end when they die and can no longer defend themselves against allegations? In that case, doesn’t an individual like Michael Jacksonstill have the right for people to judge him or her on the facts and not on a series of one-sided tales when that person cannot stand up and say, “The allegations against me are categorically false! Here are the facts!”Is it fair or just that someone can attempt to rewrite history or tarnish a deceased person’s legacy with uncorroborated statements dressed up as truths?



These are critically important questions that every person around the worldshould be asking in the wake of the controversial HBO documentary “Leaving Neverland,” and here is why.


Some Undeniable Facts



First, an event unprecedented in the documentary film world occurred during the week of April 8, 2019, when the film’s director, Dan Reed, admitted that there are several discrepancies in the accusers’ story. James Safechuck, one of two accusers in the documentary claims that he was assaulted in an upstairs room at the Neverland Ranch train station from 1988 to 1992 but construction on Neverland’s train station did not start until late 1993 when the ranch received permits. The station was not even partially opened until 1994, which can be verified through state of California public records.



Second, and equally disturbing, is that Mr. Reed admits that he did not fact check the stories that Safechuck and Wade Robson tell in the film, despite the fact that he devotes four hours to their tales and took more than two years to do the film.



Mr. Reed uses selective editing and false claims in an attempt to discredit Mr. Jackson’s 2005 acquittal on child molestation charges.



“Leaving Neverland” presents a series of uncorroborated tales and allegations against Michael Jackson by two accusers who are in the midst of appealing a lawsuit for millions of dollars against the late pop star’s estate. They did not mention this in the film, but it is an indisputable fact that both men have a financial stake in participating in the film, particularly if it influences their appeals.



Mr. Robson and Mr. Safechuck had their lawsuits dismissed by the court twice for numerous provable inconsistencies in their sworn statements regarding alleged abuse by Mr. Jackson. The judge wrote in his judgment that “no rational fact-finder could possibly believe Robson’s statements.”



Mr. Robson and Mr. Safechuck swore under oath that Mr. Jackson never abused them or harmed them in any way. For more than two decades, publically and privately, both accusers denied that Mr. Jackson abused them.



Mr. Robson testified to this as an adult and under oath at Mr. Jackson’s 2005 trial -- a trial at which Mr. Jackson was found innocent of all charges by a jury of his peers in a court of law. He was Mr. Jackson’s first witness.



Of significant note is that during the 2005 trial, it was disclosed that Mr. Jackson had been investigated for child molestation by the FBI and other California law enforcement agencies for 10 years, costing millions of dollars, and they found no evidence that he had abused any children.



Another case in point is that Mr. Robson completely changes one of the critical moments of his narrative in the documentary from what he had said in his court papers as well as in a deposition taken just two months before he was filmed in “Leaving Neverland.” In in 2012, as he was attempting to write a book, he recalled so little about his interactions with Mr. Jackson that his mother had to fill in the blanks; her input did not include any references to the alleged abuse. However, in the film, unaided, Mr. Robson appears to have vivid recollections of specific events and alleged xes acts.


Numerous relevant facts are omitted from the documentary that would help viewers better decide the credibility of the accusers, including:



  • Michael Jackson was subjected to a lengthy and extensive investigation by law enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation provided support to those investigations. The FBI website states, “Between 1993 and 1994, and separately between 2004 and 2005, Mr. Jackson was investigated by California law enforcement agencies for possible child molestation. He was acquitted of all such charges.”


  • Mr. Jackson’s home and offices were raided unannounced multiple times and his medical records confiscated, which resulted in no evidence of the allegations.


  • Mr. Robson met with Michael Jackson Estate lawyers in 2011to ask for a producer’s role in the Cirque du Soleil Oneproduction, based on Mr. Jackson’s music. Mr. Robson sued after he was denied the position. Also, he stated that he had no knowledge of the Michael Jackson Estate before March 4, 2013, even though he met with an Estate lawyer in 2011.


  • Mr. Safechuck falsely claims he was pressured to testify at the 2005 trial but had already been eliminated as a witness by the judge who limited witnesses to Mr. Robson, Brett Barnes and Macauley Culkin. In the film, he states that he decided not to testify.


  • Mr. Reed claims that Mr. Robson and Mr. Safechuck had not met until the Sundance Film Festival in January 2019 for legal reasons. However, in Mr. Robson’s deposition in 2016, he specifies that he had met Mr. Safechuck in 2014 while they were pursuing the cases against the Michael Jackson Estate.


  • Mr. Robson is shown burning Michael Jackson memorabilia as the credits roll but Mr. Reed neglects to mention that Mr. Robson, as the press reported, auctioned his most valuable items in 2011 to satisfy a cash flow shortage.


These are but a few of the many facts surrounding the tales presented as unchallenged truths in “Leaving Neverland,” most of which have not been widely or even limitedly released to the public but the public has a right to this information and a right to not have their freedom to decide what to believe circumvented by uncorroborated stories.



Finally, we began with a few questions and we will conclude with two more that we should all ponder: Is it wrong to question why these facts were intentionally omitted from “Leaving Neverland,” and perhaps most of all, is it fair or just for a deceased human being, whose voice has been forever silenced, to have his or herlegacy tarnished, diminished or even erased?



Michael Jackson’s music has been the soundtrack of our lives for 50 years. His untarnished legacy and his music belong to the world, and we should all want to preserve and protect these irreplaceable gifts.



Let your voice be heard at:



#IAM4MJ



#STAND4MJ



The Michael Jackson Estate

“Leaving Neverland" Causes Rush to Judgment about Michael Jackson in Court of Public Opinion One-Sided Allegations and Failure to Fact-Check Leads to Film Built on Sketchy Information and HBO pulling it from its network Press Statement from The Estate of Michael Jackson

F7C00D92-BE24-4F8E-9A97-2859E7615B8E.jpeg
0C2394C2-BB66-4BFF-8B1B-99B21EEB041C.jpeg
ADE04731-8458-4C57-9D44-98450C518467.jpeg
 

LaPriya Prim

Talented Tenth Socialite
OLDHEAD
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
53,447
Reaction score
Reactions
432,923 12,546 2,534
478,619
Alleybux
1,466,964
after reading the true facts and getting all sides of the story I can not see how anyone can give this documentary any credibility.
 

Zeus7

General Manager
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
Reactions
7,838 273 83
7,973
Alleybux
116,567
after reading the true facts and getting all sides of the story I can not see how anyone can give this documentary any credibility.

It's a sham and a disgrace and the media have been equally shambolic and disgraceful
 

batman79

Team Owner
Joined
Oct 6, 2009
Messages
8,014
Reaction score
Reactions
45,467 1,298 205
46,150
Alleybux
1,695,590
A rush to judgment my ass. MJ was accused of being a pedophile for nearly 30 years. Gtfo here.

And? 30 years later and y'all still cannot in anyway show an ounce of proof that shows he is indeed a pedophile, so it's y'all that need to take your asses somewhere and finally leave this man alone.
 

MysteriousMW

Stop being mean to each other ♡
Joined
Jul 25, 2015
Messages
10,622
Reaction score
Reactions
93,448 950 265
107,404
Alleybux
164,824
Why ain't they mention the train station and the clause with HBO after live in Bucharest? Also as someone who is studying PR, these people could have done way better.

Michael's Estate...chile...he/his estate really picked some side eye worthy people to handle his affairs.
 

Kareen1303

"Take my name and just let me be" - MJ
Joined
Jul 13, 2016
Messages
1,521
Reaction score
Reactions
12,810 145 167
13,411
Alleybux
10,257
Why ain't they mention the train station and the clause with HBO after live in Bucharest? Also as someone who is studying PR, these people could have done way better.

Michael's Estate...chile...he/his estate really picked some side eye worthy people to handle his affairs.
they did mention the train station. First paragraph under undeniable facts.
 

Zeus7

General Manager
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
Reactions
7,838 273 83
7,973
Alleybux
116,567
They seem to be biding their time, I cant wait to see their strike back and PR initiatives Alicia mentioned
 

daisydoodle

General Manager
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
2,487
Reaction score
Reactions
19,249 331 415
21,813
Alleybux
1,611
And? 30 years later and y'all still cannot in anyway show an ounce of proof that shows he is indeed a pedophile, so it's y'all that need to take your asses somewhere and finally leave this man alone.

30 years

The idea that some of them have been doing this for that long or are on that path... it's a tragedy :ROFLMAO:

Imagine devoting yourself to a lost cause like that. All that effort for nothing. Like concentrate that energy into something real lmao.
 

zetor

Team Owner
Joined
Jul 23, 2017
Messages
21,501
Reaction score
Reactions
126,701 3,947 4,783
126,751
Alleybux
619,573
A rush to judgment my ass. MJ was accused of being a pedophile for nearly 30 years. Gtfo here.

Come on you know very well that this movie was meant to convince those who were still on the fence and those who previously believed he was innocent.

And yes those who changed their mind based on this
garbage movie without fact checking rushed to judgment.
so did the radio station and companies who banned his music
and items.

Being accused if one thing.

Being accused in a fµck!ng movie without giving any chance for the defense is another.

What they did with this movie is totally unprecedented:
convict a dead person without any proof and a vehement
campaign to suppress the evidence that he did not commit those crimes he is being accused if a fµck!ng movie!

A movie!


You know that I could make a movie portraying you as a monster?
 

zetor

Team Owner
Joined
Jul 23, 2017
Messages
21,501
Reaction score
Reactions
126,701 3,947 4,783
126,751
Alleybux
619,573
They seem to be biding their time, I cant wait to see their strike back and PR initiatives Alicia mentioned


they should produce a 4 hours documentary called
The Leaving Neverland Hoax with all the receipts.

But they are so fµck!ng lame.
 

SellingOutSouls

24KCoughDrop
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
39,063
Solutions
1
Reaction score
Reactions
251,727 6,530 2,165
273,893
Alleybux
667,881
Glad to hear from them but that is all fan found information, I want blood
The only recourse they have is the lawsuit against HBO. As they made it a point to state, there are no laws to protect the de eased from slander thus why a dead man is being falsely accused....the accuser can say what they want unchecked by the person they’re accusing.
 

SellingOutSouls

24KCoughDrop
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
39,063
Solutions
1
Reaction score
Reactions
251,727 6,530 2,165
273,893
Alleybux
667,881
they should produce a 4 hours documentary called
The Leaving Neverland Hoax with all the receipts.

But they are so fµck!ng lame.
You really need to understand the constraints they have. You keep great research on hand but it’s overshadowed way too often by your irrational reactions and unreasonable expectations.
 

Ntsap

Team Owner
Joined
May 2, 2013
Messages
26,519
Reaction score
Reactions
199,963 5,634 2,257
217,967
Alleybux
904,266
The only recourse they have is the lawsuit against HBO. As they made it a point to state, there are no laws to protect the de eased from slander thus why a dead man is being falsely accused....the accuser can say what they want unchecked by the person they’re accusing.
They can’t sue in the US but since those idiots decided to sell this bµllsh!t to 133 countries, I’m sure they can find quite a few countries to get some lawsuits rolling which will take some time. I’m find with them taken their time. They need to stop battling and win the war.
 

SellingOutSouls

24KCoughDrop
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
39,063
Solutions
1
Reaction score
Reactions
251,727 6,530 2,165
273,893
Alleybux
667,881
They can’t sue in the US but since those idiots decided to sell this bµllsh!t to 133 countries, I’m sure they can find quite a few countries to get some lawsuits rolling which will take some time. I’m find with them taken their time. They need to stop battling and win the war.
I’m not sure about all that because I find it hard to believe they wouldn’t file lawsuits where they could.
 

ProfessionalLad

General Manager
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
4,742
Reaction score
Reactions
21,512 3,185 434
21,852
Alleybux
340,872
Why ain't they mention the train station and the clause with HBO after live in Bucharest? Also as someone who is studying PR, these people could have done way better.

Michael's Estate...chile...he/his estate really picked some side eye worthy people to handle his affairs.
I don't believe Michael truly knew what he was going when he wrote his will. I wish he had someone who cared about him advising him.
 

MysteriousMW

Stop being mean to each other ♡
Joined
Jul 25, 2015
Messages
10,622
Reaction score
Reactions
93,448 950 265
107,404
Alleybux
164,824
I don't believe Michael truly knew what he was going when he wrote his will. I wish he had someone who cared about him advising him.

Oh Michael needed some real friends for sure. Not children with these parents...but my goodness someone to really love and care. It's a shame.
 

zetor

Team Owner
Joined
Jul 23, 2017
Messages
21,501
Reaction score
Reactions
126,701 3,947 4,783
126,751
Alleybux
619,573
You really need to understand the constraints they have. You keep great research on hand but it’s overshadowed way too often by your irrational reactions and unreasonable expectations.


It's not irrational that they could and should produce a rebuttal
explaining why those allegations are bogus.

It could be done if they wanted to.

I have witnessed the Estate's lame reaction to these smear campaigns for years. Their reaction to the 2016 child pδrn story was lame so was to the 200m payoff story. all those went viral their response didn't convince anyone.

If Bad 25 and the Off the Wall doc could be made they could
make a rebuttal to this trash too.
 

Tygger

General Manager
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
Reactions
2,416 324 311
2,123
Alleybux
3,940
Why ain't they mention the train station and the clause with HBO after live in Bucharest? Also as someone who is studying PR, these people could have done way better.

Michael's Estate...chile...he/his estate really picked some side eye worthy people to handle his affairs.

This statement is reading similar to a drunken text that reeks of desperation.

It summarize facts fans discovered. It erroneously states HBO pulled the documentary. It ends with a call for online fans to use hashtags to support Michael in the same court of public opinion denounced in the first paragraph.

First, let’s consider some important questions that should concern us all.

When does a person’s right to protect his or her good name and legacy end? Does it end when they die and can no longer defend themselves against allegations? In that case, doesn’t an individual like Michael Jackson still have the right for people to judge him or her on the facts and not on a series of one-sided tales when that person cannot stand up and say, “The allegations against me are categorically false! Here are the facts!”Is it fair or just that someone can attempt to rewrite history or tarnish a deceased person’s legacy with uncorroborated statements dressed up as truths?

These are critically important questions that every person around the worldshould be asking in the wake of the controversial HBO documentary “Leaving Neverland,” and here is why

The worst and most desperate, telling part is the above "questions." Those questions concern the Estate seeking a precedent interpretation of the clause in the HBO contract. Some fans may not believe this but, clearly the Estate knows that is what they are attempting to do. They are showing their hand and it is embarrassing.

Fans cannot use social media hashtags to encourage a judge to say defamation of the dead is illegal. Fans cannot help the Estate in this. The Estate has to win this precedent decision on their own merit. They know how slim this is and I fear someone wrote this in a drunken, desperate state.

This statement needs to be retracted by the Estate NOW.
 

SellingOutSouls

24KCoughDrop
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
39,063
Solutions
1
Reaction score
Reactions
251,727 6,530 2,165
273,893
Alleybux
667,881
It's not irrational that they could and should produce a rebuttal
explaining why those allegations are bogus.

It could be done if they wanted to.

I have witnessed the Estate's lame reaction to these smear campaigns for years. Their reaction to the 2016 child pδrn story was lame so was to the 200m payoff story. all those went viral their response didn't convince anyone.

If Bad 25 and the Off the Wall doc could be made they could
make a rebuttal to this trash too.
Except they have a pending lawsuit that is taking priority. Just because you THINK they could do this or that does not mean they should.

They cannot just slap a rebuttal together without due diligence to assure they have confirmed what the facts are. I mean do you not see how ridiculous it is to suggest they throw a documentary together without knowing what is factual and what is not given that’s EXACTLY what Dan Reed did to present a manipulated and inaccurate documentary?

Nobody is privy to everything the estate has or hasn’t been doing.

It’s absurd to suggest the estate should spend money to address every single shred of misinformation. The money the estate generates is to benefit the beneficiaries, first and foremost.

If they responded with a damn documentary for every “viral” story about Michael, then they’d be tying up money that belongs to Michael’s heirs.

For the child pδrn story, They responded within the legal capacity they’re allowed to respond. That ended up followed up by Ron Zonen verifying no child pδrn was discovered at NL.

They do not have legal grounds to sue over either of the “viral” stories you’ve mentioned. If their responses didn’t convince anyone then why didn’t we end up with the “cancel MJ” BS back then?

Like I said your reactions are often irrational and not based in reality. You tend to let your emotions get the best of you.

The estate is not for the benefit of Michael’s fans...it’s for the benefit of his heirs.
 

SellingOutSouls

24KCoughDrop
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
39,063
Solutions
1
Reaction score
Reactions
251,727 6,530 2,165
273,893
Alleybux
667,881
This statement is reading similar to a drunken text that reeks of desperation.

It summarize facts fans discovered. It erroneously states HBO pulled the documentary. It ends with a call for online fans to use hashtags to support Michael in the same court of public opinion denounced in the first paragraph.



The worst and most desperate, telling part is the above "questions." Those questions concern the Estate seeking a precedent interpretation of the clause in the HBO contract. Some fans may not believe this but, clearly the Estate knows that is what they are attempting to do. They are showing their hand and it is embarrassing.

Fans cannot use social media hashtags to encourage a judge to say defamation of the dead is illegal. Fans cannot help the Estate in this. The Estate has to win this precedent decision on their own merit. They know how slim this is and I fear someone wrote this in a drunken, desperate state.

This statement needs to be retracted by the Estate NOW.
I’m not sure how you interpreted this statement to be a call to change laws to protect the deceased from defamation. It isn’t. It’s a call to make people focus on asking the right questions to understand the fallacies of the accuser’s stories. They mention the defamation issue to reiterate the accusers are getting away with so many salacious lies because they cannot be held accountable for defaming the dead.
 

SellingOutSouls

24KCoughDrop
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
39,063
Solutions
1
Reaction score
Reactions
251,727 6,530 2,165
273,893
Alleybux
667,881
Why ain't they mention the train station and the clause with HBO after live in Bucharest? Also as someone who is studying PR, these people could have done way better.

Michael's Estate...chile...he/his estate really picked some side eye worthy people to handle his affairs.
They did mention the train station.

From what I can see, the focus of this statement was geared towards Wade and James, who are not bound by the same contract as HBO.
 

Zeus7

General Manager
Joined
Sep 23, 2018
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
Reactions
7,838 273 83
7,973
Alleybux
116,567
The only recourse they have is the lawsuit against HBO. As they made it a point to state, there are no laws to protect the de eased from slander thus why a dead man is being falsely accused....the accuser can say what they want unchecked by the person they’re accusing.

But they can also launch a counter PR campaign, leak info and call people out, they need to play dirty if that's the way the enemy want it
 

Ngebuthu

Mj❤️
Joined
Oct 14, 2018
Messages
4,734
Reaction score
Reactions
16,873 2,095 2,440
14,835
Alleybux
17,125
I think Michael Jackson left his estate in the right hands..he was in debt and John branca rebuilt his estate..its now a multi billion estate..

What I have problem with is that they are not defending him enough
 

Ngebuthu

Mj❤️
Joined
Oct 14, 2018
Messages
4,734
Reaction score
Reactions
16,873 2,095 2,440
14,835
Alleybux
17,125
And i do think Michael Jackson had real friends..i just think that they don't want the attention
 

MysteriousMW

Stop being mean to each other ♡
Joined
Jul 25, 2015
Messages
10,622
Reaction score
Reactions
93,448 950 265
107,404
Alleybux
164,824
This statement is reading similar to a drunken text that reeks of desperation.

It summarize facts fans discovered. It erroneously states HBO pulled the documentary. It ends with a call for online fans to use hashtags to support Michael in the same court of public opinion denounced in the first paragraph.



The worst and most desperate, telling part is the above "questions." Those questions concern the Estate seeking a precedent interpretation of the clause in the HBO contract. Some fans may not believe this but, clearly the Estate knows that is what they are attempting to do. They are showing their hand and it is embarrassing.

Fans cannot use social media hashtags to encourage a judge to say defamation of the dead is illegal. Fans cannot help the Estate in this. The Estate has to win this precedent decision on their own merit. They know how slim this is and I fear someone wrote this in a drunken, desperate state.

This statement needs to be retracted by the Estate NOW.

It really does. I mean it's a bad look on their behalf. It just seems rushed because fans wanted a statement from the estate.

Putting hashtags and using information that has been debunked in the release - relying sole on pathos is not going to help the case at all. No matter how many fans or stans side eye the doc and fight on twitter with #MJInnocent, fans and stans won't be in the courtroom.
 

Kareen1303

"Take my name and just let me be" - MJ
Joined
Jul 13, 2016
Messages
1,521
Reaction score
Reactions
12,810 145 167
13,411
Alleybux
10,257
The way I feel is that, no matter what the Estate does (I'm not necessarily pro or anti Estate, I'm neutral) it won't ever satisfy everybody. Like they said, they are doing a lot behind the scenes that we do not know about yet, and I think the lawsuit is their priority. If they can expose the rats behind this shitshow in a lawsuit, then it becomes a legal reference with which to defend MJ in the future.

The media is not on MJ's side, never has been, and it's irrational to think that they would fairly promote any rebuttal that the Estate produces. Just look at how they reacted to the Neverland Firsthand video, they took extra time to dissect it, while they promoted the lies-filled shitshow like it was the gospel. And yes they are releasing statements, are any media outlets printing them and putting them out there for people to see? The media is MJ's biggest enemy. Forget the losers/haters, they will spew their anti-MJ narrative no matter what is proven to them and MJ(Fake)facts will still be making videos putting MJ in the dirtiest light.

I guess what I'm saying is that, no other legacy has been treated like MJ's and it's not normal that an estate has to deal with this sh!t continuously. I do understand that at some point they wanna say fµck this and let's focus on the music and artistry which is what should be remembered. The haters will always be present no matter what they do. The media will always be anti-MJ no matter what they do. So yeah, in the end, I'd rather they take their time and expose the scum in the business the right way, instead of doing a rebuttal rapidly just to say "no thats not true" just for ppl to say WeLl YoU WeReN'T ThEeeEEeere. They need to expose them the right way. What's a few extra months when Michael has been slandered continuously for the past 30 years?
 

ProfessionalLad

General Manager
Joined
Aug 25, 2015
Messages
4,742
Reaction score
Reactions
21,512 3,185 434
21,852
Alleybux
340,872
I think Michael Jackson left his estate in the right hands..he was in debt and John branca rebuilt his estate..its now a multi billion estate..

What I have problem with is that they are not defending him enough
Michael ended up having to sell his prized possession because of John Branca who went on TV bragging about how much money Michael had made postumously. That's when Wade came out, also. A family member, namely Janet, would have been much better at administering his estate. She knows how to make money in this industry just as well as John Branca. She truly cares about Michael, and she would know not to tell the world how much money Michael was worth, because she knows how anybody with an ax to grind would come after the deep pockets.
 

Leogirl817

Team Owner
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
8,663
Reaction score
Reactions
45,277 1,124 404
47,749
Alleybux
400,623
30 years

The idea that some of them have been doing this for that long or are on that path... it's a tragedy :ROFLMAO:

Imagine devoting yourself to a lost cause like that. All that effort for nothing. Like concentrate that energy into something real lmao.
25 years to be exact.
 

Similar Threads

News Alley

General Alley

Top Bottom