|
|
Post by SmoothGangsta on Jan 5, 2024 11:05:16 GMT
Lots of likes on this
|
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Jan 5, 2024 17:24:50 GMT
Yep, as with most MJ 'scandals', it's only MJ fans talking about it. Some folks on Reddit are taking it as "proof/not surprised", but from what I'm seeing such comments are not being upvoted much. Proof of what exactly? |
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Jan 5, 2024 20:03:22 GMT
Twitter is a world of its own. Seen a couple of mentions on “ legitimate” “news sites but the name was just mentioned along with others like clinton. If you go hunting for gutter reporting and trolls on Message boards etc you will always find it.problem is that screws everything else
|
|
|
|
Post by amaya on Jan 5, 2024 23:39:43 GMT
Some folks on Reddit are taking it as "proof/not surprised", but from what I'm seeing such comments are not being upvoted much. Proof of what exactly? I guess in their minds this is proof of the other accusations against him being true. Which of course, is fucking stupid, but it's hard to change the minds of simple minded people. =/ |
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Jan 6, 2024 0:27:14 GMT
Yesterday morning when I Google searched MJ and hit the news filter it showed pretty much every UK tabloid media carrying a thumbnail with MJ and Epstein. I’m not saying the fans are always right in how they proceed, but let’s be honest here also, the fans have been responsible for keeping MJ’s legacy alive. It was, after all, the fans who dismantled Leaving Neverland by picking apart all of the inconsistencies and also sharing court documents and transcripts with a lot of the general public.
The media always use MJ as a scapegoat. Let’s not always use the fans as a scapegoat for the medias behaviour. Sure, fans don’t always need to draw attention to every single little thing, but at the same time, fans don’t need to cower away and hide from the facts either.
|
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jan 6, 2024 4:40:08 GMT
Seen a couple of mentions on “ legitimate” “news sites but the name was just mentioned along with others like clinton.11 That's the problem. His name doesn't pop up in these documents the same way as Clinton's yet they put him in the same category just because he's mentioned. While about MJ the only mention is an innocuous "I met him once and nothing happened", Clinton is mentioned with the remark of Epstein supposedly telling the victim "he likes them (girls) young" and there's also an e-mail with the claim that he actively participated in shooting down a damaging Vanity Fair article about Epstein. I don't know if these allegations are true or false or whatever he did crosses over to criminal ("liking them young" isn't necessarily criminal, depending on how young, for example - and of course there's also the question whether these claims are even true), but there seems to have been a closer relationship between Clinton and Epstein. There's absolutely no reason to run MJ's name in the company of Prince Andrew or Clinton here, other than the fact that his name is always used for clickbait. At least some media were fair to him. I was surprised that Sky News (considering how big jerks they usually are to MJ), for example, made it a point that there are no allegations of wrongdoing against him in these documents. In my country the media was worse though. The website I'm reading for news mentioned him in the headline and they didn't tell even in the article what the woman actually said about him. Just that he was there, suggesting guilt by association. I read from fans that some other publications did the same. So no, it's not just social media. Some media love to drop MJ's name regarding this because that's the most famous name. The publication in my country I mentioned above love to preach about the dangers of fake news on social media and the like but they do the same at every turn. But then this is true of most mainstream media. |
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Jan 6, 2024 7:22:08 GMT
Michael was mentioned once in these documents.
Bill Clinton was mentioned 73 times and Prince Andrew was mentioned 76 times.
Yet ITV News reported it with MJ's picture up alongside Epstein, Clinton and Andrew with zero mention of number of mentions or that nothing happened in relation to MJ.
Biggest TV news channel in the UK, no less.
I don't think it's the fans who've been drawing attention to MJ in this....
|
|
|
|
Post by amaya on Jan 6, 2024 23:41:17 GMT
Michael was mentioned once in these documents. Bill Clinton was mentioned 73 times and Prince Andrew was mentioned 76 times. Yet ITV News reported it with MJ's picture up alongside Epstein, Clinton and Andrew with zero mention of number of mentions or that nothing happened in relation to MJ. Biggest TV news channel in the UK, no less. I don't think it's the fans who've been drawing attention to MJ in this.... Is it even worth fighting this or would that also draw attention? I'm so tired... |
|
|
|
Post by NatureCriminal7896 on Jan 7, 2024 3:23:27 GMT
i believe this was a scheme to ruin these people. we already know Jeffrey Epstein was a sex offender.
and of course they going to dragged Michael in it. because why not? smh.
this is why you have to be careful in hollyweird and politicians.
as for Naomi i'm sorry this happen to her. she didn't know and pretty sure alot on this list didn't know either.
|
|
ontime
Wondering Who
Posts: 100
|
Post by ontime on Jan 7, 2024 21:03:43 GMT
Michael was mentioned once in these documents. Bill Clinton was mentioned 73 times and Prince Andrew was mentioned 76 times. Yet ITV News reported it with MJ's picture up alongside Epstein, Clinton and Andrew with zero mention of number of mentions or that nothing happened in relation to MJ. Biggest TV news channel in the UK, no less. I don't think it's the fans who've been drawing attention to MJ in this.... Is it even worth fighting this or would that also draw attention? I'm so tired... No, it’s not worth it. The media is doing what they’ve always done. They use Michael’s name as a distraction. Fox News did a segment on the Epstein documents, but they mostly focused on Michael. Jeanine Pirro repeatedly called Michael a pedophile. None of this should be surprising. |
|
|
|
Post by amaya on Jan 8, 2024 3:46:25 GMT
Is it even worth fighting this or would that also draw attention? I'm so tired... No, it’s not worth it. The media is doing what they’ve always done. They use Michael’s name as a distraction. Fox News did a segment on the Epstein documents, but they mostly focused on Michael. Jeanine Pirro repeatedly called Michael a pedophile. None of this should be surprising. It's not surprising but that doesn't make it any less frustrating, infuriating or depressing. If we do nothing they'll just keep doing this and re-enforcing the lies/discouraging questions, and therefore making it harder to convince people otherwise. Wouldn't it be better to stop this before it happens or spreads further? |
|
|
|
Post by NatureCriminal7896 on Jan 8, 2024 11:12:21 GMT
Court documents reveal that Michael Jackson met Jeffrey Epstein at his residence in Palm Beach, Florida and there is no evidence to suggest any involvement in the billionaire's sex trafficking crimes.
Michael reportedly visited Epstein for legal and financial advice due to the conflict between him and Sony in 2002.
In a deposition, Johanna Sjoberg, Jeffrey Epstein's victim, clarified that she did not engage in any sexual activity with Michael Jackson or receive massage during the one-on-one encounter at Epstein's Palm Beach residence.
Q. Did you meet anyone famous when you were with Jeffrey?
A. I met Michael Jackson.
Q. Oh, really? And where was that?
A. At his home in Palm Beach. At Jeffrey's house in Palm Beach.
Q. Did you massage it?
A. I didn't.
Q. You've been asked about famous people. You said you met Michael Jackson?
A. Yes.
Q. But you didn't massage him?
A. No.
Q. Maybe there were other famous people in Jeffrey's house that you didn't meet, correct?
A. Correct.
Sjoberg's testimony refutes any previous implications or innuendo suggesting that a sexual encounter or massage took place between her and the late pop icon.
As revelations in Epstein's extensive network continue, it is essential to thoroughly examine the allegations against individuals, given the available evidence. This recent discovery about Michael Jackson's limited connection to Epstein highlights the importance of fact-checking and fair representation in the midst of ongoing controversies.
As of now, the evidence provides strong support for the conclusion that Michael Jackson did not participate in any illicit activities during his visit to Jeffrey Epstein's home.
|
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Jan 10, 2024 23:15:30 GMT
No, it’s not worth it. The media is doing what they’ve always done. They use Michael’s name as a distraction. Fox News did a segment on the Epstein documents, but they mostly focused on Michael. Jeanine Pirro repeatedly called Michael a pedophile. None of this should be surprising. It's not surprising but that doesn't make it any less frustrating, infuriating or depressing. If we do nothing they'll just keep doing this and re-enforcing the lies/discouraging questions, and therefore making it harder to convince people otherwise. Wouldn't it be better to stop this before it happens or spreads further? I think it's still worth it and I've made one post tonight on that forum I linked you previously. It was on the 1993 settlement. But I don't expect it to sway those posting crap. Might give lurkers food for thought though. I've no doubt that I'll wake up to a string of posts branding me a paedo enabler as that's been done to others in it. Those will be reported and then deleted if they try it. 🤷♂️ |
|
|
|
Post by NatureCriminal7896 on Jan 12, 2024 23:21:04 GMT
it's is good people are defending Michael but unfortunately Chris Tucker also on the list.
i also believe Chris is innocent. Oprah on the list too and it could be true for her because people still want to know what happen to those girls in Africa.
|
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Jan 12, 2024 23:59:15 GMT
Yesterday morning when I Google searched MJ and hit the news filter it showed pretty much every UK tabloid media carrying a thumbnail with MJ and Epstein. I’m not saying the fans are always right in how they proceed, but let’s be honest here also, the fans have been responsible for keeping MJ’s legacy alive. It was, after all, the fans who dismantled Leaving Neverland by picking apart all of the inconsistencies and also sharing court documents and transcripts with a lot of the general public. The media always use MJ as a scapegoat. Let’s not always use the fans as a scapegoat for the medias behaviour. Sure, fans don’t always need to draw attention to every single little thing, but at the same time, fans don’t need to cower away and hide from the facts either. I personally don't think it's coincidental that I'm having to currently defend MJ on another forum. To be fair, they're making rubbish arguments but throwing a lot of mud to see if it will stick! I'm just picking them off slowly. But letting them rant first. |
|
Dec 5, 2020 18:51:15 GMT
Dec 5, 2020 18:51:15 GMT
