|
Post by Snow White on Feb 16, 2019 23:46:57 GMT
A news article telling it like it is? It blew me away! 😱
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2019 23:53:05 GMT
Remember how the media didn't really take Robson and Safechuck seriously from 2013 on? At least, not until LN was suddenly announced. Not many people are talking about the influence of social media in this case. This paragraph touches on it: Read more at thespinoff.co.nz/music/17-02-2019/what-happens-to-the-music-of-r-kelly-and-michael-jackson/So, you begin to see precisely how crucial social media is to Robson and Safechuck. Social media IS the battleground and not the bloody streets of London! Hell, even national security experts agree that the real battleground in future will be online. Not offline. This is exactly why I keep saying it's going to take a world war to reset this horseshit back to reality, and away from the current "virtue signalling" climate.
|
|
|
Post by SmoothGangsta on Feb 17, 2019 1:41:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Feb 17, 2019 3:56:56 GMT
Finaldi is victim fishing with this. I didn't click on it, but I have seen it published elsewhere and they pretended this was a new accuser who came out at the news of Leaving Neverland. Then they had Finaldi talk about how there must be dozens of victims out there. They are trying to kick start a flood of people jumping on the bandwagon.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Feb 17, 2019 4:04:49 GMT
Remember how the media didn't really take Robson and Safechuck seriously from 2013 on? At least, not until LN was suddenly announced. Not many people are talking about the influence of social media in this case. This paragraph touches on it: Read more at thespinoff.co.nz/music/17-02-2019/what-happens-to-the-music-of-r-kelly-and-michael-jackson/So, you begin to see precisely how crucial social media is to Robson and Safechuck. Social media IS the battleground and not the bloody streets of London! Hell, even national security experts agree that the real battleground in future will be online. Not offline.
Actually, social media is our only outlet at this moment. I don't see social media as the main problem here. The mainstream media is a the problem. Look at this new New York Times op-ed that was quoted. No facts, no concern expressed about the one-sidedness of the documentary, quoting Reed excessively as if he is the Bible. Not even considering that there is another side to this story and it is extremely problematic to present only one side.
Then you look her up a little bit and you will find she has ties to HBO, Reed and Bernie Weinraub - the guy who accused MJ of anti-semitism for TDCAU.
You can nicely observe through this LN debacle how there is hardly any independent journalism any more. Journalists are being paid or getting other favors for represent certain agendas. They are not independent journalists, they are propaganda mouthpieces for powerful and influential people.
Social media is actually our only only outlet to counter this. This woman who wrote the NY Times article has been torn to pieces on social media.
|
|
|
Post by kremlinshadow on Feb 17, 2019 4:25:38 GMT
Remember how the media didn't really take Robson and Safechuck seriously from 2013 on? At least, not until LN was suddenly announced. Not many people are talking about the influence of social media in this case. This paragraph touches on it: Read more at thespinoff.co.nz/music/17-02-2019/what-happens-to-the-music-of-r-kelly-and-michael-jackson/So, you begin to see precisely how crucial social media is to Robson and Safechuck. Social media IS the battleground and not the bloody streets of London! Hell, even national security experts agree that the real battleground in future will be online. Not offline.
Actually, social media is our only outlet at this moment. I don't see social media as the main problem here. The mainstream media is a the problem. Look at this new New York Times op-ed that was quoted. No facts, no concern expressed about the one-sidedness of the documentary, quoting Reed excessively as if he is the Bible. Not even considering that there is another side to this story and it is extremely problematic to present only one side.
Then you look her up a little bit and you will find she has ties to HBO, Reed and Bernie Weinraub - the guy who accused MJ of anti-semitism for TDCAU.
You can nicely observe through this LN debacle how there is hardly any independent journalism any more. Journalists are being paid or getting other favors for represent certain agendas. They are not independent journalists, they are propaganda mouthpieces for powerful and influential people.
Social media is actually our only only outlet to counter this. This woman who wrote the NY Times article has been thrown to pieces on social media.
Bernie Weinraub was also on the directors board of cedars-Sinai along with Jeffrey Katzenberg, Spielberg and others all previously mentioned either as friends or associates of MJ that eventually turned against him (Dreamworks). Talk about incestuous and suspicious, all have been linked (Inc. Weinstein) to donations to the Clinton's. Again another case of throwing rocks at MJ to hide their hands. This is lots bigger and wider than Wade & Jimmy, but this time around we are woke.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2019 6:05:15 GMT
Finaldi is victim fishing with this. I didn't click on it, but I have seen it published elsewhere and they pretended this was a new accuser who came out at the news of Leaving Neverland. Then they had Finaldi talk about how there must be dozens of victims out there. They are trying to kick start a flood of people jumping on the bandwagon.
That Jane Doe girl, what was her deal? I remember her story being ridiculous
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Feb 17, 2019 6:24:47 GMT
Finaldi is victim fishing with this. I didn't click on it, but I have seen it published elsewhere and they pretended this was a new accuser who came out at the news of Leaving Neverland. Then they had Finaldi talk about how there must be dozens of victims out there. They are trying to kick start a flood of people jumping on the bandwagon.
That Jane Doe girl, what was her deal? I remember her story being ridiculous
Yeah. Already in her complaint she had two versions of her story about how she and MJ met.
Version 1
Version 2
In the second security guards are inserted into the story where there haven't been any in the first version. That is to try to make MJ's companies responsible for her alleged abuse.
The sexual acts she alleges are conveniently very similar to Robson and Safechuck: down to partial penetration (with the difference that in her case it is not anal, but vaginal penetration).
Mary Coller's deposition tells a totally different story about how she and MJ met than what is in her complaint:
She is a result of Finaldi's victim fishing. She had some checks that she and her boyfriend/husband got from MJ and of course they claim it was "hush money". Funny how she would have hush money but not Wade or James or any of the males. Probably it was for something else and it would have come out had she not retracted her claims before they could get under scrutiny. I think she is probably easily refuted and that's why they hid her identity and that is why she suddenly retracted her claim when it would have got under scrutiny. I think they tried to use her to bolster their number of "victims" to try to force the Estate into a settlement. And now they try to use her again to suggest this is a new accuser who came out because of LN. Not telling the public she retracted her complaint.
Oh and it is funny how they are not sure how to use her because she does disturb their optics for being female. As James is going on in his lawsuit about how MJ hated females and taught him to hate females. Haters hardly ever mention her, because she disturbs the "boylover" angle. In fact, MJ(non)Facts expressed skepticism about her. If she was a boy, she would be their star "victim" with her checks. But she doesn't fit the narrative they are trying to sell so they suddenly practice skepticism. LOL.
Reed brought up a third accuser, but deliberately omitted the fact it was a female. And Finaldi is going on about her being a tomboy, as if MJ would have mistaken her for being a boy or something. Ridiculous. Even with her face blocked out it is a girl in a girly looking body. LOL.
She had two brothers, but MJ befriended her. Why, if he was "into boys"?
But they are so desperate that they are now throwing her in again just to victim fish. I am pretty sure they have done a great deal of victim fishing already and the only person they could make jump on the bandwagon was this girl. It is clear to me that the film serves the purpose of victim fishing as well.
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Feb 17, 2019 8:23:57 GMT
From mjjc From producer Jeff Wald to CEO HBO. 14th Feb 2019 Richard, I have thought long and hard about getting into the discussion of the so called documentary you are doing about my late friend Michael Jackson. Since the matter of his behavior has been judged in a court of law including the SWORN testimony of Wade Robson as to Michael’s innocence it amazes me you would slander the memory of a deceased person with no ability to fight back. This has led to the fact that his friends, family, and business associates have taken on the public discussion as to his innocence. I realize that the new owners of the former Time Warner/ HBO under AT&T Senior Executive Vice President J.Stankey have a mandate to increase Subscriptions to HBO with total disregard as to either the legacy of HBO as a destination for quality programming or your personal legacy as CEO. I had what has turned out be a false hope that you would have drawn a line in the sand regarding what is pure trash under the banner that has meant so much. I guess the following considering the politics of AT&T would be to rehash the Obama birther discussion: Hilary Clinton’s pedophile ring run from a Pizzeria; or the defense of “good people on both sides” in the white nationalist protests. There is a never ending supply of product along the same lines as this piece of shit you insist on running. I may be the up front voice on this but you should know there are dozens of people in the creative community who feel like I do as well as literally thousands of his fans who are equally disappointed and angry at HBO. You have zero legitimate reason to air this shit. Jeff Wald SOMMERS ENTERPRISES INC. Jeff Wald (President & CEO) docs.google.com/document/d/e...KFaMOBW2LP/pub
|
|
|
Post by Russg on Feb 17, 2019 9:03:45 GMT
The Jane Doe case is strange and troublesome to me. There are pictures online of two cheques written in 1993, one for $10k, another for $130k. All in all, she claims to have cheques adding up to the value of $900k. Why on earth would MJ have written cheques to a minor for this amount? And then you have this: I know MJ wrote affectionately to a lot of people in his life, but "I'm crazy about you" does sound a lot like something you would say to a lover.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Feb 17, 2019 9:12:39 GMT
Remember how the media didn't really take Robson and Safechuck seriously from 2013 on? At least, not until LN was suddenly announced. Not many people are talking about the influence of social media in this case. This paragraph touches on it: Read more at thespinoff.co.nz/music/17-02-2019/what-happens-to-the-music-of-r-kelly-and-michael-jackson/So, you begin to see precisely how crucial social media is to Robson and Safechuck. Social media IS the battleground and not the bloody streets of London! Hell, even national security experts agree that the real battleground in future will be online. Not offline.
Actually, social media is our only outlet at this moment. I don't see social media as the main problem here. The mainstream media is a the problem. Look at this new New York Times op-ed that was quoted. No facts, no concern expressed about the one-sidedness of the documentary, quoting Reed excessively as if he is the Bible. Not even considering that there is another side to this story and it is extremely problematic to present only one side.
Then you look her up a little bit and you will find she has ties to HBO, Reed and Bernie Weinraub - the guy who accused MJ of anti-semitism for TDCAU.
You can nicely observe through this LN debacle how there is hardly any independent journalism any more. Journalists are being paid or getting other favors for represent certain agendas. They are not independent journalists, they are propaganda mouthpieces for powerful and influential people.
Social media is actually our only only outlet to counter this. This woman who wrote the NY Times article has been torn to pieces on social media.
Exactly. As I said, social media is the battleground. That's where I've argued we can effect most change. The streets of London or any major city with a bus ride are distractions which won't change a thing. Not a good use of resources. Where traditional media refuse to run a story on x, social media will and can pressure traditional media to run said story on x. Social media has the potential to be used for good and bad intentions. Takes us right back to what I said about social media being the real battleground.
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Feb 17, 2019 9:31:39 GMT
I agree. Never thought id say it but thank god for social media.its the only way you can fight the one sided agenda ridden mainstream.remember the days where are only outlet was writing letters to the papers to critize them. my only issuse though and im prob wrong here as i dont do twitter etc is to me theres still a big problem because ppl see newspaper front headlines and articles come up on the net. You have to phsyically search on social media to find an alternative view to the B.S.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Feb 17, 2019 9:49:40 GMT
The Jane Doe case is strange and troublesome to me. There are pictures online of two cheques written in 1993, one for $10k, another for $130k. All in all, she claims to have cheques adding up to the value of $900k. Why on earth would MJ have written cheques to a minor for this amount? And then you have this: I know MJ wrote affectionately to a lot of people in his life, but "I'm crazy about you" does sound a lot like something you would say to a lover.
To you even every tabloid article is "troublesome".
I am not going to pass judgement on MJ based on a case where the accuser was not even willing to get under scrutiny. Again, this case is built on conjecture. You are suspecting the worst of why MJ would pay money to someone, while there could be a million other explanations for those checks and I am sure that reason would have easily come out under scrutiny. Possibly why she stepped down before that could happen.
Eg. there are other letters to her like this, which could mean she was doing some sort of work or charity for MJ, who knows?
She does not even fit into the narrative of the other accusers. Which is why she is only used for statistics, but she isn't in the film and she withdrew her complaint as soon as we could get a little insight into her claims. Tells me a lot.
And you can view that note from another angle as well: you can say it "proves" something about MJ and this girl. I personally disagree with that, because we would have to know more about this case to jump to any conclusions like that. Like I said, I believe there is a good reason why they are keeping this woman hidden and why she would not get her case under scrutiny. Probably would fall apart in no time.
On the other hand, we can also say that MJ never wrote anything remotely like this to any of his supposed male "victims". Yet, he is being portrayed as this "boylover". Safechuck even portrays him as someone who hated females. This flies in the face of that.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Feb 17, 2019 10:44:31 GMT
Remember how the media didn't really take Robson and Safechuck seriously from 2013 on? At least, not until LN was suddenly announced. Not many people are talking about the influence of social media in this case. This paragraph touches on it: Read more at thespinoff.co.nz/music/17-02-2019/what-happens-to-the-music-of-r-kelly-and-michael-jackson/So, you begin to see precisely how crucial social media is to Robson and Safechuck. Social media IS the battleground and not the bloody streets of London! Hell, even national security experts agree that the real battleground in future will be online. Not offline. This is exactly why I keep saying it's going to take a world war to reset this horseshit back to reality, and away from the current "virtue signalling" climate. An online world war, at that! Agree that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction. From not believing people in the past to believing everyone no questions asked! Actually, a passage in a book I was reading yesterday jumped out at me. It's a bit unrelated to this entire issue but I'm going to change one word in it before I reveal the original word plus the source. The word I took out to put in 'paedophilia' is actually the word 'collusion'. The setting and context is Northern Ireland's Troubles. Or more specifically, how Sinn Fein/IRA use the word 'collusion' to try to discredit the authorities conducting covert operations against them. The source is "Secret Victory: The Intelligence War That Beat The IRA". Scream 'collusion' and you're automatically believed despite the fact there's ZERO evidence for this. This phenomenon has other corresponding ones with the paedophilia phenomenon being the most famous example. And that is what we're dealing with here in relation to Michael Jackson. As the paragraph states, HEALTHY scepticism is missing which is completely clear in the case of Robson and Safechuck's allegations. It appears that the only place we find this healthy scepticism is amongst MJ fans. And it's a problem that the general public don't seem to have ANY kind of healthy scepticism. Whether it pertains to allegations of paedophilia levelled at Michael Jackson or allegations of collusion levelled at the Security Forces in Northern Ireland. When the general public hear of paedophilia, rape, collusion, abuse by soldiers, etc, they generally never notice the crucial word alleged. And never take the time to look for a single shred of counter argument. Or, to put it another way: "You say it's not a sword But with your pen you torture men You'd crucify the Lord And you don't have to read it And you don't have to eat it To buy it is to feed it So why do we keep foolin' ourselves?" A little out of date perhaps, but social media is now a massive influence on traditional media as well as on the minds of people more generally around the world. It's PRECISELY why the real battleground is online and not on the streets of major cities parading around on buses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2019 11:36:20 GMT
The Jane Doe case is strange and troublesome to me. There are pictures online of two cheques written in 1993, one for $10k, another for $130k. All in all, she claims to have cheques adding up to the value of $900k. Why on earth would MJ have written cheques to a minor for this amount? And then you have this: I know MJ wrote affectionately to a lot of people in his life, but "I'm crazy about you" does sound a lot like something you would say to a lover. We have no idea what those cheques are for, but the fact she was not willing to back up her story suggests to me that she saw an opportunity to cash in at the right time. However, when she realised that Robson and Safechucks claims and stories were far from consintent, she was not willing to put herself through the same scrutiny. Thats what Im taking from it. This woman would have been an adult in 1993, and 31 in 2003. Its another case of MJ seemingly putting himself in a situation where this could arise. I guess we'll see more if they try re-open this one, but it was rejected if Im not mistaken.
|
|