Decker

He was shopping with the boy at two separate stores. One of them was Zales. They don't sell toys. Maybe they kept that purchase from that store quiet (which is entirely their right),. Maybe this time on that video he didn't buy a ring, but is it really that hard for you to accept that maybe he, you know, did buy him one later? Or do you buy the official story that the boy was there to help him size a ring for Michael Jackson to give to Shery Crow?
I keep wondering why you think that everybody is lying except Michael Jackson.

Coral

Because he slept with children and admitted to it. Sounds pretty guilty to me.

Sonny Corinthos

My mind cannot comprehend someone thinking that a non related man well into his 30's and 40's, invites little boys for sleepovers, and admits to sharing his bed with them, yet nothing sexual ever happened.

Decker

You guys are totally underestimating dhmac's astonishing ability to deny facts. Taking you back to the ring thing for a second. He doesn't think that Jackson bought Safechuck a wedding ring despite
1) Hearing the account from Safechuck
2) Seeing that Safechuck still has the wedding band with a collection of other small child sized gold jewelry
3) Seeing store surveillance video of Jackson in disguise, with Safechuck, shopping for wedding rings
4) Watching an interview with a Zales store clerk talking about Jackson shopping for wedding rings

So far, he has responded to that by claiming that
1) That scene was poorly edited into the documentary at a later date
2) Those rings look big for a child
3) That story sounds like something that was in a book
4) Jackson's publicist said that they only bought glasses and toys, so no ring was bought (remember, he was shopping at Zales, The Diamond Store)

If he can deny even something that trivial, do you think it's hard for him to deny that he was raping small boys just because he was sleeping in bed with small boys? Of course he doesn't think that way. Every thought he has is predicated on the (unfathomable) belief that Jackson is innocent and was falsely accused. All the other stuff is mental gymnastics that he and other Jackson supporters are doing to desperately keep that position alive despite all evidence to the contrary.

And for the record, I do think there were kids that Jackson slept in bed with that he didn't rape. I think the whole Macaulay Culkin thing was asexual and was essentially MJ trying to appear like he legitimately was just "hanging out" with small boys. As if since he was often appearing with a famous small boy, it would be less suspicious when he often appeared with other far less powerful and independent small boys that he was in fact sexually assaulting. I think it was his first famous "beard", a practice he would soon repeat with Lisa Marie Presley.

Finisher

Said it here before, I think he used Macaulay Culkin and Corey Feldman as like PR agents. To normalize his relationships with young boys. He knew if he showed them a good time, they'd speak well of him. Kind of like Al Jean's comments above, it was all carefully orchestrated to craft the image and set the stage for future grooming.

While searching around on Corey Feldman, found this. Apparently Corey Haim was taped for his A&E show The Two Coreys saying Jackson and Charlie Sheen assaulted him.
https://radaronline.com/videos/corey...ackson-attack/

Coral

Someone who was abused by his father as a child, shares his bed with under-aged boys, spends most of his personal time with them, is never seen dating or hanging around women in public or private, and has had 2 sham marriages - one of which resulted in kids where the mother admitted to never having sex with him, and overall is socially awkward and has several psychological issues - you're telling me this person is a pedophile? I'm totally shocked. Totally.

What are you going to tell me next - the earth is round?

TomOpus

Per TMZ

'LEAVING NEVERLAND' HBO ISN'T PULLING IT ... Celebs Like It Too Much

Sonic

~~ PAL ~~

So after viewing a documentary of Japan's ruthless slaughter, rape, and pillage of various Chinese cities during World War II, and hearing recounts by surviving victims of their ordeal in the hands of Japanese soldiers; am I now allowed to sue these hapless victims for tarnishing the shining image of the great country of Japan in my eyes?

Sonny Corinthos

Sheryl Crow claims that Michael Jackson had a huge network of people allowing his alleged abuse. She was a backup singer during MJ's Bad Tour from 1987 to 1989.

https://www.wonderwall.com/news/sher...020583.article

Decker

^ So that child-sized wedding ring wasn't for her? Who would have thought that?

RichC2

You can, and it'll be thrown out just like this will.

JeffTheAlpaca

MTV removed his name from the VMA Video Vanguard Award




https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...071102509.html

melasnus

This is an interesting revelation concerning MJ and Brando:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/marlo...b0488c0d11cde0

Bill Needle

They should rename it the "Chuck Berry VMA Video Vanguard Award"

JeffTheAlpaca

Chuck Berry never got his videos played on MTV

Maybe TruTV would play the movies he made

Bill Needle

After I posted that I told the wife they were renaming the award and she said "But Chuck Berry didn't do videos" and I said to Google: Chuck Berry videotape. After about a minute I hear her go "Eww...why did you do that to me?"

Sonny Corinthos

HBO Seeks Dismissal of Michael Jackson Estate’s Suit Over ‘Leaving Neverland’

HBO urged an appeals court on Friday to throw out litigation brought by the Michael Jackson estate over the 2019 documentary “Leaving Neverland.”

HBO and the Jackson estate have been locked in a legal war ever since the premium cable network agreed to run the documentary, which chronicles child sexual abuse allegations against Jackson.

The Jackson estate has argued that the two men featured in the documentary — Wade Robson and James Safechuck — fabricated their allegations for financial gain. The estate’s lawyers could not sue for defamation, as Jackson is dead, but they dug up a contract from a 1992 HBO concert special from Jackson’s “Dangerous” tour, which contained a non-disparagement clause.

The estate argued that the documentary constituted a breach of the 1992 agreement, and went to court seeking to compel arbitration. HBO countered that the estate was seeking to squelch free expression by invoking a clause from an irrelevant and long-expired contract.

But in September, U.S. District Judge George Wu sided with Jackson’s estate and granted the motion for arbitration.

In an opening brief to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, HBO’s attorney, Theodore Boutrous, urged the court to reverse Wu’s ruling on the grounds that the contract had expired, and to order the case dismissed. He argued that HBO had aired the concert film — “Live in Bucharest” — exactly once, and that neither side had operated as though the contract were still in effect over the subsequent 27 years.

He noted, for instance, that Jackson’s attorneys had never updated the contact information for his attorneys and management firm, even though the attorneys no longer represent Jackson and the management firm no longer exists.

“In light of the contract as a whole, it would be unreasonable to interpret the non-disparagement sentence, which is collateral to the 1992 Agreement’s principal objective of a one-time-only exhibition of ‘Live in Bucharest,’ to mean that the parties intended for HBO to waive its right to disseminate newsworthy allegations about Mr. Jackson for all time on any topic,” Boutrous wrote.

He also argued that the estate is essentially making a defamation claim, and trying to use the 1992 contract to get around the prohibition on bringing such claims on behalf of dead people.

“The petition in this case is a transparent effort to unlawfully punish ‘would-be critics’ of public figures like Mr. Jackson who ‘may be deterred from voicing their criticism, even though it is believed to be true and even though it is in fact true,'” Boutrous wrote, quoting from the Supreme Court’s decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, which sets a high bar for defamation claims against public figures.

The Jackson estate’s response is due on March 30.

https://variety.com/2020/film/news/h...ef-1203519726/

I don't see how the Jackson estate has a leg to stand on in this case.