|
Post by MattyJam on Jan 29, 2019 22:13:54 GMT
So, its not just my extreme bias then? ... No he is of questionable character There was something a bit creepy about how intent he was to make the documentary as explicit as possible. A kind interpretation of that would be that he was going for maximum shock value. There is a more sinister way of looking at that though, which I’m sure I don’t need to spell out. Am I the only one who thought it was a bit odd that Reed took publicity shots with Robson and Safechuck? I mean, this could only happen to Michael Jackson, couldn’t it? Because every professional victim needs publicity shots to accompany their movie, right??
|
|
|
Post by Thriller on Jan 29, 2019 22:56:42 GMT
In his declaration he claims that he didn't 'realise' it was abuse. He also says until seeking therapy he didn't 'realise how sick it was' what MJ had done to him. Yet in the middle of these two things James goes on and on constantly about the 'fear' of the 'truth' coming out and how MJ would see to 'his life being over'. So what is his current story? That he didn’t realise it was abuse till therapy and hearing Wade’s allegations or keeping quiet for fear of the truth and his life being over? It appears in the documentary James makes out he was in love with MJ. He reiterates he was sad when MJ died. He does also reiterate threats. At least in relation to MJ threatening him with the best attorneys if he didn't testify in 2005. Which is a ridiculous story. Edit: I don't know if he went down the route of 'MJ threatened that my life would be over' like he did in his declaration. If he didn't include it, maybe he figured the public wouldn't buy that crap. He needed the threats angle for equitable estoppel, however he doesn't need to go down this line in the documentary. Of course, with that said, he may well have mentioned it.
|
|
|
Post by danm on Jan 29, 2019 23:06:49 GMT
No he is of questionable character There was something a bit creepy about how intent he was to make the documentary as explicit as possible. A kind interpretation of that would be that he was going for maximum shock value. There is a more sinister way of looking at that though, which I’m sure I don’t need to spell out. Am I the only one who thought it was a bit odd that Reed took publicity shots with Robson and Safechuck? I mean, this could only happen to Michael Jackson, couldn’t it? Because every professional victim needs publicity shots to accompany their movie, right??Thought exactly the same thing. Very bizarre. Also found the q&a’s very odd. Who does a q&a about the sexual abuse they suffered as a child?!
|
|
|
Post by Thriller on Jan 29, 2019 23:10:26 GMT
There was something a bit creepy about how intent he was to make the documentary as explicit as possible. A kind interpretation of that would be that he was going for maximum shock value. There is a more sinister way of looking at that though, which I’m sure I don’t need to spell out. Am I the only one who thought it was a bit odd that Reed took publicity shots with Robson and Safechuck? I mean, this could only happen to Michael Jackson, couldn’t it? Because every professional victim needs publicity shots to accompany their movie, right??Thought exactly the same thing. Very bizarre. Also found the q&a’s very odd. Who does a q&a about the sexual abuse they suffered as a child?! They didn't even really field questions about the abuse. The second Q&A was mainly used as a platform to blame employees of MJ. @mattyjam - I think all the films had publicity shots as I saw them for others as well.
|
|
|
Post by kaeleah on Jan 30, 2019 2:02:27 GMT
No he is of questionable character There was something a bit creepy about how intent he was to make the documentary as explicit as possible. A kind interpretation of that would be that he was going for maximum shock value. There is a more sinister way of looking at that though, which I’m sure I don’t need to spell out. Am I the only one who thought it was a bit odd that Reed took publicity shots with Robson and Safechuck? I mean, this could only happen to Michael Jackson, couldn’t it? Because every professional victim needs publicity shots to accompany their movie, right?? Yeah, I have an uneasy feeling about Dan Reed. Being obsessed with the lurid details of sexual abuse to a semi-pornographic level is pretty weird, to say the least. There's so much talk nowadays about how rape and abuse is a serious subject that should be handled delicately, but how is his approach doing that exactly...? Also in the news: apparently the Jacksons are gonna defend Michael on some British show this week...
|
|
|
Post by Thriller on Jan 30, 2019 2:28:30 GMT
There was something a bit creepy about how intent he was to make the documentary as explicit as possible. A kind interpretation of that would be that he was going for maximum shock value. There is a more sinister way of looking at that though, which I’m sure I don’t need to spell out. Am I the only one who thought it was a bit odd that Reed took publicity shots with Robson and Safechuck? I mean, this could only happen to Michael Jackson, couldn’t it? Because every professional victim needs publicity shots to accompany their movie, right?? Yeah, I have an uneasy feeling about Dan Reed. Being obsessed with the lurid details of sexual abuse to a semi-pornographic level is pretty weird, to say the least. There's so much talk nowadays about how rape and abuse is a serious subject that should be handled delicately, but how is his approach doing that exactly...? Also in the news: apparently the Jacksons are gonna defend Michael on some British show this week... Good Morning Britain. It's a big morning news show. They've had the Jacksons on before not relating to allegations.
|
|
|
Post by jaywonder on Jan 30, 2019 3:01:22 GMT
Still get really weird vibes from Dan Reed. Some of his comments have thrown up massive red flags
|
|
|
Post by kremlinshadow on Jan 30, 2019 4:08:30 GMT
Also in the news: apparently the Jacksons are gonna defend Michael on some British show this week... Hence the long silence, they were waiting for a payment opportunity ''kerching'' Jacksons. We really don't need Jermaine mumbling on he is not the greatest convincing interviewee, what is needed is Latoya to again explain that her original '93 TV interview being used yet again as tabloid evidence, was a forced Jack Gordon lie. For those who have conveniently forgotten.
|
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,464
|
Post by TonyR on Jan 30, 2019 8:18:56 GMT
Yeah, I have an uneasy feeling about Dan Reed. Being obsessed with the lurid details of sexual abuse to a semi-pornographic level is pretty weird, to say the least. There's so much talk nowadays about how rape and abuse is a serious subject that should be handled delicately, but how is his approach doing that exactly...? Also in the news: apparently the Jacksons are gonna defend Michael on some British show this week... Good Morning Britain. It's a big morning news show. They've had the Jacksons on before not relating to allegations. Jesus, not GMB. Fucking Piers Morgan will say stupid controversial stuff and then this will get more coverage and millions that didn’t even know about this will see it. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Thriller on Jan 30, 2019 8:24:55 GMT
A video will no doubt appear later but this is a quick summary of Jermaine on Good Morning Britain.
Emotional, as expected. Started brilliantly with saying that Wade testified in MJ's favour in 2005. Jermaine even read bits of the the testimony. He then said Wade tried to get a book deal and failed. Jermaine then mentioned the Cirque Du Soleil show and how Wade wanted to get the choreography gig and didn't. Then unfortunately it went down hill from there. I believe Piers Morgan mentioned the settlements at this stage and Jermaine said he'd (meaning Jordan) said it never happened and the Father killed himself out of guilt. *Sigh*
With the mention of the settlements Jermaine had little defence. He said an advisor told MJ to settle. He mentioned Joy helping him with his book he wrote. Jermaine then ended by simply saying they've lost MJ and their Father and to leave them alone. He reiterated let MJ rest.
He never mentioned Safechuck.
The End.
Pleading to let MJ rest will not work. You cannot plead to let the man rest as it simply will not work. Certainly not in the current climate. Overall, it wasn't good enough to me. He needed facts regarding the lawsuits and didn't have any.
|
|
|
Post by kaeleah on Jan 30, 2019 8:26:32 GMT
Oh no! As an American, I'm not very familiar with GMB, like at all . I know who Piers Morgan is, but I had no clue he was on that show.
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Jan 30, 2019 8:40:16 GMT
Did the first class plane tickets and hotels come out of tajs fund? jacksons should be last ppl to defend mj.you need people who counter this crap with facts.they are clueless
|
|
|
Post by Thriller on Jan 30, 2019 8:41:18 GMT
Did the first class plane tickets and hotels come out of tajs fund? jacksons should be last ppl to defend mj.you need people who counter this crap with facts.they are clueless It was done via satellite link...
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Jan 30, 2019 9:02:37 GMT
Did the first class plane tickets and hotels come out of tajs fund? jacksons should be last ppl to defend mj.you need people who counter this crap with facts.they are clueless It was done via satellite link... Let them off then!! Theres always the next time😉 Facebook mess from michael bush I am saddened by the false attacks on my boss and dear friend Michael Jackson only when sadly he is not here to defend himself. As someone who was with Michael Jackson daily and having spent years traveling with him and spending countless hours in his company, I have absolutely no doubt that the recent stories from Wade Robeson and Jimmy Safechuck are completely false and totally fabricated especially given their own support of Michael through his life and for several years after. It’s truly upsetting what someone will do for fame and money and pure greed despite what Michael Jackson did for these two opportunists and their families for many years. At the end of the day truth always prevails and the world will see Robeson and Safechuck for what they are. – Michael Bush
|
|
|
Post by ilovehistory on Jan 30, 2019 10:41:46 GMT
Its a really wrong wrong blog when you check the other posts there, the person/blogger is praising Garry Glitter and co, it is not a good blog!
PLEASE! do not spread any info from that blog and ask the mods/admins to delete the post of a user named - PG13 on page 39 of the LN thread
The user PG13, maybe consciously maybe not, posted a link to a pedo blog, it does not contain any photos (lets hope there are NONE), but only blog posts and they are very disturbing imo, absolutely wrong for any MJ forum as a souce of anything, despite the negative review of Reeds pedo hunter movie, because the blogger found it offensive.
|
|