Michael Jackson Thread

[Big Boss Man]

[Big Boss Man]

The Estate of Michael Jackson:


We want to start by again thanking all of Michael’s fans and acknowledge and thank Michael’s nephew, Taj, his niece, Brandi, and his brothers, Jackie, Marlon and Tito, Grace Rwaramba, Aaron Carter, Brett Barnes, Stephanie Mills and all of the other individuals around the world who have spoken out on his behalf. We also want to acknowledge those in the media who have done their job as journalists by reviewing the facts, noting how they were ignored in Leaving Neverland because it didn’t fit into the filmmaker’s one-sided agenda of denigrating Michael’s legacy.


We also want to provide a brief update on our efforts, as well as share some thoughts with you from the past two weeks. We share your frustration and anger that a man who was found innocent in a court of law in life is being attacked, financially exploited and smeared by corporations and individuals who are only making claims now because he is no longer here to defend himself.


In addition to our public statements regarding our position on Leaving Neverland, our legal efforts continue. While it would not be prudent to publicly divulge our strategy and list our efforts, rest assured we are committed to holding HBO and Channel 4 accountable for their egregious, uncorroborated smear of Michael’s legacy. Many of you have asked why we are seeking open arbitration. The answer is simple: we believe the public deserves to know how Leaving Neverland really came about, why no counter opinion was ever sought, why so many facts were ignored and why individuals were smeared who should have at a minimum been contacted to get the other side of the story. It is outrageous that such a one-sided smear was ever allowed on the air without challenge. We all know that if Michael was still alive it would never have been aired.


We also have other non-legal initiatives that we will disclose at the appropriate time. What is important for us, and always has been, is that we continue to take the long view as we have over the last decade. That means not doing anything rash that would give HBO, Channel 4, the film’s director and, especially, the subjects of the film, what they most crave now. They want to engage in a way that focuses more attention on a film that has no doubt underperformed given that the media did everything in its power to sell this film to viewers. But given the enormous attention and free publicity the media gave this film, the numbers have clearly not matched the hype in the markets where it has aired, with many viewers opting to stop watching after the first part.


We recognize that the press often magnifies each affront related to this film. But from our view the actual impact of this documentary on the public and their behavior has not been as significant as the media want people to think. While some would like you to think otherwise, we can confirm that the consumption of Michael’s music has not declined and his streaming numbers have not decreased in the wake of this documentary. This tells us that in addition to those of us who know the truth about Michael, those who may not understand Michael’s eccentricities and the way he chose to live his life outside of society’s norms are still choosing to appreciate and enjoy the art he created. We have licensees worldwide who are proudly selling Michael Jackson merchandise. We have insight into a significant amount of data that the fans do not see and we are working 24/7 behind the scenes to synthesize all that information and act accordingly.


We are also seeing a sharp disconnect between the reception of the film by everyday viewers and the mainstream media. Despite being outright propaganda, many viewers see through the one-sidedness, the over-the-top salacious claims, the staged dialogue and other dramatizations. They see that what Leaving Neverland boils down to is a sales job aimed at convincing viewers Michael Jackson isn’t the man millions of people know and love, including the two subjects of the film and their families until they chose to sue for hundreds of millions of dollars. As people have had time to digest Leaving Neverland and review the facts, many are recognizing they can’t take it at face value. We are especially proud of Michael’s fans and those who continue to stand up for him by pointing out the numerous inconsistencies and flaws in the film. Numerous individuals who have studied every facet of these cases has poked numerous holes in the stories of the two subjects. Some critics and individuals are now courageously admitting publicly that, having studied the facts, their view of the film changed 180 degrees.


Michael Jackson cannot be silenced, and neither can his fans, whether it is those who proudly play his music in public squares to show their support, the coffee shop owner in New Zealand who played his songs all day long in protest of Leaving Neverland or those who put posters and signs around cities proclaiming his innocence. As Michael predicted 25 years ago, the truth will be his salvation.


The Estate of Michael Jackson

[Big Boss Man]

Story from a family who knew Michael - https://www.facebook.com/roslyn.witz...55925370701837

(via https://twitter.com/VanjaJackson/sta...20772406579200)

Roslyn Witz Cohen
DO NOT BELIEVE THE LIES
My family met Michael Jackson at Sun City resort in 1997 and we remained friends with him up until his very tragic and untimely death. My sons were 12 and 10 years old at the time. During those years Michael spent many times at our house and we went to Neverland and in all those years I can honestly say that Michael never ever spent time alone with my two sons.
Everything that Grace Rwaramba has said is absolutely true. There were always so many people at Neverland that it would have been absolutely impossible for Michael to have "lured" boys to his room without anyone noticing it. Every room in the main house was always open to the guests and we never saw Michael's bedroom door closed. Michael had nothing to hide. He was open and transparent.
My husband and I were included in every arrangement. There was never even a hint of a suggestion of him wanting to spend time alone with my sons. They never slept in his bedroom at Neverland. We all slept in the guest cottages. As responsible parents had he suggested anything that we felt uncomfortable with we would have packed our bags and gone home immediately.
Michael never moved on to "younger boys" as claimed by Wade Robson. If he did why are they not making the same disgusting allegations? Why didn't the director speak to them? He knows they exist and where to find them. Michael was friends with families and their children from all over the world and everyone knows that including the director!
The reason the director did not speak to them is because they will all tell the truth which is Michael is 100% innocent of every allegation levelled against him so instead he chose two perjurers desperate for money in order to make this so-called documentary.
I believe that the reason Michael did not want to remain friends with Wade Robson or James Safechuck anymore is probably because they asked him for money at some stage and he did not give in to their requests so hence they took their revenge after he died. All Michael ever wanted to do was to help children which he did. To label him a paedophile is just beyond belief. He was truly the kindest and most honest person I have ever met.
What Wade Robson testified about Michael in the court trial when he said Michael never did anything inappropriate to him is the truth and nothing but the truth. Wade Robson's bitterness from not getting funding from the estate for a project he wanted to do turned him into a compulsive liar for the sake of money.
He is a perjurer and now people believe his lies. I shudder to think what this documentary has done to Prince, Paris and Blanket.Now they have to live with the lies about their father. What kind of world are we living in where people are prepared to destroy innocent children for fame and fortune?
My question is why did these two liars wait until Michael died to make false accusations against him? They had plenty of time to lay a charge against him before he died. My family and I will fight for Michael's innocence in every way we can until the day we die because his innocence is worth fighting for.
I see that these two perjurers claimed that they reason they did this documentary was so that this does not happen to other boys in the future. What nonsense! In my opinion all they have done is open up a door for anyone to accuse a celebrity of molesting them in order to get money out of them.
Nowadays when you admit to being molested, whether it is true or not, you become a hero to the public. I am quite sure that in the near future there will be many allegations coming out of boys being molested by celebrities as it is a very easy way to make a quick buck and get a moment of fame. My family could have done the same for fame and fortune but we are honest people.
Michael taught me many things but one of the most important things he taught me is don't believe what you read in the tabloids until you see it for yourself and I know the absolute truth and I saw it for myself that Michael Jackson was not a paedophile!
We miss Michael every single day of our lives and are thankful and grateful for the times that we spent with him. We had the best times of our lives with Michael. We are all devastated by the disgusting lies in this documentary as we know the truth.
What I found really disturbing in the documentary is the two mothers who really didn't seem to be angry about what their sons allege Michael did to them. If my sons had been molested I would have no fond memories of the molester at all no matter how famous, wealthy and kind he was to my family.
I would only have hate and resentment regardless of how kind and generous the molester was to my family and I certainly wouldn't keep any mementoes from him. I would want to see him rot in jail for the rest of his life and no amount of money in the world would make me back down if I knew for sure my sons had been molested, as per the first false allegation where money was taken by the father, and we all know how he ended up.
I would be fuming and angry and crying hysterically during the interview and have absolutely nothing nice to say about the molester yet these mothers spoke very fondly about Michael and certainly didn't seem upset in my view. Even more disturbing is that Wade Robson at the age of 22 did not realise he had been "molested." This so-called documentary is just downright disgusting and anyone who believes these lies is just plain stupid!

[Big Boss Man]

HOME / HOME

Why TV's Diane Dimond Has Ruined 'Leaving Neverland' For Me

Mon, 03/11/2019 - 6:11am
By
MATTHEW BERDYCK
With the latest wave of Michael Jackson molestation allegations, a call to the wolves was made. The wolves, in this case, are the throngs of now washed up journalists who have utilized the controversial documentary, Leaving Neverland, to reignite their worthless careers, of which their queen is former Hard Copy schlock jock, Diane Dimond.
Diane Dimond and I share a special relationship, especially since she used my story - albeit a completely embellished and fabricated version - in her new book, without contacting me or compensating me. To avoid being sued, she removed my name from the article but later admitted in an audio interview that the story was about me. This is not new territory for Diane because I can name another infamous public figure whose story she told, falsified parts of the narrative, and never paid him, but he'll remain nameless.
Not wanting to drag one of my closest friends into a public battle with Diane, I can tell you that he confided in me, at dinner one night, that when he questioned her about numerous inaccuracies in the book she'd written about him, she said, "It's good for the story," demonstrating Diane's ongoing personal battle with trumpeting her self-proclaimed upstanding honesty while wrestling with the third-party sourced fact that she's probably one of the most single dishonest journalists - if one even dared call her that - that I have ever encountered, a snake in the grass, schemingly purporting to be a "seasoned investigative journalist."
As soon as Leaving Neverland was announced, I'd expected her to appear in the film, since she is the journalist that claims to have broken the story. Whether she broke the story is up for debate because there are also claims that it was Anthony Pellicano, Jacko's now-incarcerated private investigator and wiretapper to the stars, who first brought the subject matter to the public. Like every other thing Diane says, we are left with only her word to gauge whether anything in her bio is actually true.
I've not watched Leaving Neverland, but I'm assuming she's not in it, or she'd be out on the internet promoting her appearance. As a documentary filmmaker, myself, I can understand why she's not in it, because her presence in the film would only serve to discredit the accusers. But, again, my own experiences with Diane have taught me to never trust anything she says, especially when she starts claiming she has information from a source.

In her drunken ramblings about me, she says I have been convicted with violent domestic assaults, public drunkenness, and host of other charges that cannot be found if one actually reads my now ancient criminal record. She tells a harrowing tale of the time I asked a writer for Modern Family out on a date and even though the woman said yes, Diane's version of the story claims I was rejected and then stalked the writer all over Los Angeles and spit on her date even though the actual record reflects that when Dimond claimed all of this was happening, I was on tour with then-current Grammy Nominee Jordan Rudess, from legendary prog band, Dream Theater.
Diane follows this media outlet on Twitter and whenever I try to ask her to correct her story, she accuses me of stalking her and harassing her, which is just... hilarious. But that is how she really is. During the period of time that I could have sued her for defamation, she claimed I was "delusional" when I mentioned her article. The moment she could no longer be sued, she proudly announced that her fan-fiction was about me.
Diane cannot reconcile the obvious false information she has published, with the actual facts, nor will she admit she was dishonest, for no other reason than it would confirm what most people already know about her, she's a professional liar and that she played a big part in tainting the legacy of Michael Jackson, manipulating the public in a way where watching Leaving Neverland takes people back to Dimond's original reporting as supporting evidence for the claims in the film, whether she's in it or not. Diane has made me not trust anything I have ever heard about Michael Jackson, bottom line.
I want to apologize to the alleged victims from Leaving Neverland, as well, because if the allegations in the film are true, then they deserve justice, but no matter how I process the entire affair, it's always with the knowledge that the original source for the allegations is Diane, the very same woman who accused me of attacking and shutting down a homelessness organization in California and causing the founder to flee the state, when the woman in questions was never in California and the organization she claims was shut down is registered to someone else and never had funding, in the first place.
Oddly missing from Diane's article is the fact that to this day, an organization I proposed and funded is operating in Barstow, California, providing art supplies and art studio time for homeless and disabled people. I guess it should bother me that I've been accused of destroying a homelessness organization that never existed while not being given credit for the one that is out there helping people but what can one really do when they are the victim of Diane's wildly dishonest and Martini-skewed imagination?
As soon as Leaving Neverland was released, Diane jumped right on the exploitation train, looking to make a buck off the suffering of everyone involved, appearing on Dr. Oz and other morning shows, as a nostalgia act, desperately clamoring for one more fleeting moment in the spotlight. It's not hard to see that she quickly and thoughtlessly cobbled together a book to sell as she hit the interview circuit to cash in on the latest wave of allegations.
It probably doesn't take long for the ripped-off reader to notice that they just paid $7.99 for articles that are already published on her website, for free, and that it probably took her no less than four hours to compile her poorly formed anthology of idiocy.
I can't say I'm angry that she is on TV or that she has somehow managed to maintain a career after all the terrible things she's done. I don't like what she does but I don't wish any ill will towards her. Afterall, a woman's got to eat, something I would imagine is pretty tough for her since one of her previous books can be found selling for a penny on Amazon.com, meaning she'd have to sell well over a hundred copies just to buy five packs of ramen noodles.
As soon as Leaving Neverland was released, Creators Syndicate immediately started pumping Michael Jackson is a child molester themed articles by Diane, which all reference her new book - I repeat, the one in which she admits she's partially written about me but hasn't paid me for - with no sense of shame, whatsoever. Creator's is also aware that Diane is publishing false information about me, but they've made no effort to correct their reporting. Shitbirds of a feather flock together, apparently.
In Diane's audio interview about me, she claims the Hermosa Beach Police waited outside Creator's Syndicate's office, for four days, trying to stop me from getting a documentary interview with their editor. The police have flatly denied these allegations and were actually appalled that someone would have the nerve to publish blatantly false information accusing their police agency of attempting to censor a documentary filmmaker making a documentary about Diane's false news. I can't imagine a more appropriate group than the police to become witness to a member of the media being dishonest.
In fact, her entire audio interview about me mostly focuses on how she called the Secret Service, Homeland Security, the FBI, the LA County DA's Office - She lives in Nyack, New York - to report me for defamation, for having the nerve to correct my own story and ask that she tell it honestly, instead of claiming I am a potential mass murderer. She actually said that, saying I sent her an e-mail saying, "I am a potential mass gun shooter," because that's who she is, a master fabricator and plastered abdicator of my throne, the one in which I've generated more readers than her, more money than her, and zero legitimate news articles discrediting anything I have ever published.
The subject matter of Leaving Neverland is very painful for me because I am also a victim of childhood abuse who was forced to live in silence my whole life. I even have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of what I endured as the son of a sociopathic, racist, police officer. The irony of my past lies in the fact that my wars with my father were the result of him buying me the album, Thriller, which caused me to want to become a musician, something he vehemently opposed. "No son of mine is going to be a dirtbag musician. I arrest those punks all night!"
Michael Jackson inspired me, along with Metallica and Def Leppard, to become an artist and later embark on a journey that made me everything I am, today. Not only does understanding the cries of the alleged victims in the movie resonate with me but having such an influential character in my life, Michael Jackson, wrecked and removed from his own reputability only takes the only good moments of my childhood and makes those bad, too. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Adding Diane in to the equation, there is no way I can watch the film without being reminded that Dimond is to me what Michael Jackson is to his accusers, a predator.
In her book, there is an article about the behaviors of child molesters, who often say, "Who are they going to believe, an adult, or a child?" All I have to do is replace the a few words and the statement becomes, "Who are they going to belive, Diane, a seasoned investigative journalist, or Matthew Berdyck?" or something she and numerous people connected to her have actually said to me. I imagine she pursued Jackson so viciously because she saw something of herself reflected in him.
In another part of her book she talks about her inability to commit perjury and disdain for people who do, claiming her parents instilled a sense of honesty in her that genetically requires her to never tell a lie. Reading that passage, for me, created nothing less than a sinister feeling, since a friend of Diane's had used her false article about me as a piece of evidence in a court of law, a man who attempted to file a false Civil Stalking Protection Order against me, even though I had never met him in my entire life. That case was later dismissed, twice, because all of the evidence was fabricated.
I can only hope that the alleged victims in Leaving Neverland find peace and that telling their story gave them some form of closure, whether they are telling the truth or not, because as of this writing I have received none, as Diane continues to relentlessly defame me and profit from selling her alcohol induced, poorly-spun yarn, about Matthew Berdyck, the mean man who had the nerve to ask Diane to tell the truth.
Maybe someday I will get my own Leaving Neverland type movie and also get peace but as long as Dimond is alive I will live in this intensely abusive situation, with no recourse. And as long as Diane is the source for the allegations against Michael Jackson, after everything I have endured, I cannot possibly take the statements in Leaving Neverland as fact, because I know that the very foundation for everything he was accused of was delivered to the world by a pathological liar and professional disinformation artist named Diane Dimond.

Matthew Berdyck is an experimental gonzo filmmaker, journalist, activist, and philanthropist, most notably known for his national environmental campaigns. He's made solicited major cable network TV pilots (Adult Swim), music videos for Grammy Nominees, experimental documentaries, and short films. His writing pieces on the subject of toxic waste have been read by millions of people in The United States. He is the founder of SuperfundResearch.org, an environmental activism and EPA watchdog group. In 2018 he founded Daily Independent Journal, an investigative journalism outlet dedicated to speaking truth to power and exposing the sordid, slimy, underbelly of reality.

Source: http://www.dailyindependentjournal.com/ ... verland-me

[Big Boss Man]

MJs former bodyguard of ten years standing up for him

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity- ... 161159.amp

[Big Boss Man]

[Big Boss Man]

[Big Boss Man]

[Big Boss Man]

https://www.billboard.com/articles/news ... son-cancel

What people fail to release is by "muting" Mike, they are depriving charities out if money. 20% of his estate royalties are donated to charities. All because of the testimony of two known liars.

https://leavingneverlandfacts.com

[Big Boss Man]

[Big Boss Man]

[Bandit]

[Big Boss Man]

[Big Boss Man]

[Big Boss Man]

[Hawq]

his family try to defend the nonce, in 4 hours aprox from time of post
DEBUNKING NEVERLAND: With Taj and Brandi Jackson

[Big Boss Man]

* In the documentary Wades wife states that she did not know how to deal with Wades abuse because she had no experience with abuse.. Yet their website stated that she was also an abuse survivor (This was until people started to catch on, any mention of his wife was taken down)

* That edited/sliced 'Happy Birthday' message was recorded within days that Wade and Michael first ever spent any time together (aside from the time they met in Australia) and was filmed 7 months before his Bday

* James claimed to have owned the Thriller Jacket, it was actually given to Dennis Thompson (his clothing designers) and they had it until 2011 when it was auctioned

* James claims Harrison Ford gave him the whip from the Indiana Jones movie but it was actually given to the Institute of Archeology in 1990 (only 1 was used in the trilogy)

* James claims Michael called him asking him to testify in 2005 but he was considered a 'non entity' in the case months before the trial began. Neither one of them had a say as to if he could testify.

* James claims to have been molested in NY after attending the 1989 Grammys.. Michael Jackson never attended the Grammys and they took place in Los Angeles that year.

* James mother states she danced when Michael Jackson died... because?? According to James, he was not aware he was abused until he saw Wade Robson on TV in 2013

* In the doc Wade claims that it was after his family left to the Grand Canyon when they had their first sexual experience, went into great detail as to having no contact with his family.. in court 2 months prior to the taping he stated that it was before his family left to the Grand Canyon while his sister was sleeping in the room.

* Both mothers were laughing and lovingly talking about the time period they spent with Michael.. This is the time they would have been 'neglecting' their children, it is unnatural for a mother to lovingly express of the time she neglected her child by handing over their sons to an 'abuser'.

* James claims they told the jewelers that the ring Michael was buying him was for a woman.. They are adult MALE rings he owns!

* They talk about this elaborate grooming process Michael did but say he molested him the first day they were alone.. That's only hours from day to evening to make Wade comfortable enough to feel ok about something like that? Mind you, they were not US citizens so after the event, they'd be going home to Australia.. That's VERY risky!

* They express a 'sexually satisfying relationship' at the age of 7 with MJ yet no mention of the conflicting feelings coming from two straight boys/now men.. We are to overlook not only the discomfort of a minor with an adult but to overlook the discomfort of sexual acts that conflicted with their true sexuality (heterosexuals).. Given the late 80's & 90's and where our culture was with homosexuality and the later period was post Jordan Chandler allegations, it is very unlikely that the duality of thee sexual acts would not leave an impact worth mentioning I the film.. But falsely claiming he owned the whip from Indiana Jones movie was worth keeping in.

IN COURT & beyond....

* When Wade was forced to release his emails, he breached the order claiming it did not exist, than refused to submit, than tried using 'attorney client privileges' to prevent the emails to enter the case.. It eventually entered the case after the internet provider submitted the deleted emails.

* Wade Robsons emails show he sent himself a link from an anti MJ website that paints Jackson as a pedophile to build his case (why would he need to do that if it's a personal event?)

* Emails between Wade and his mother, Wade sends her an article making claims about Michael, she responds "wow, that never happened" and he still used the story in court.

* Emails between him and his mother show them going over stories and having 'many versions'

* Wade was caught lying under oath so bad that the judge stated "Their is no rational juror that could believe his testimony"

* In wades case he states he came to the realization that he was abused in May 2012.. He was shopping for a 'tell all' book describing abuse, wrote 2 drafts prior to that.

* Wade Robson wrote 2 drafts of a 'tell all' book, the court ordered Wade to produce both drafts and the story of his abuse changed significantly from one draft to the next

* James claims that he first addressed his abuse after seeing an interview with Wade on TV, however it was Wades attorneys that reached out to James before James made any move about the abuse.

* In court James 'jewelry' story never included a 'wedding ring' story, he stated he had a neckless he was given with a medallion - and that is where the story ends.. The wedding ring would be the most important piece of jewelry to the story... James original interview with Dan Reed in Feb 2017 did not include the ring story, they later got together in July 2017 to film and include the 'ring' story..

* The court ordered Wade to present his personal journals to the court and it stated allegations would make him "relatable and relevant" and "it's time for me to get mine". When questioned about the quotes he stated he does not know what he meant by his own words.
* Wade robson claims two contradictory things.. 1. that he did not see anything wrong with the abuse at the time because he felt that he was in a 'fulfilling sexual relationship' at 7 years old and that's why he did not speak out... 2. that Michael would drill & threaten him about if he spoke out and he did not speak out due to fear.

* James legal briefing states Michael spent thanksgiving with the Safechucks in 1987, Michael was in Australia on the Bad tour and was actually the day Michael Jackson met Wade Robson after the Target event.

* Wade Robson was trying to have his wedding at Neverland and Michael Jacksons Nanny had to tell both Wade and Joy "NO" because the 2005 trial was going on at the time

* Wade claimed in court that he was unaware of the administration of the Michael Jackson Estate prior to March 6th 2013 which is another lie considering he was in contact with them about the Cirque De Soleil show and claims to have worked under MJ Ventures in the past. (which is why the estate would be liable in the first place)

* Wade claims that he was at Neverland and saw Michaels children and did not want Michaels kids to live without their dad and that's how he knew he 'had' to testify on Michaels behalf.. The time he visited Neverland was AFTER he testified

* They both have been working together since 2014 against the Jackson estate, it was Wades legal team that reached out to James (before James came forward). They worked with this legal team until both cases were thrown out. together switched to a different law firm where their complaints were amended. With those amendments, the accusations changed.

* James original case against the estate never stated that he had any working relationship with the estate, thus had no 'Duty Of Care'.. In the new claim, it included allegations against MJJ Ventures in respect to his alleged abuse in the 80's.. MJJ Ventures was not established until 1991 and never had any working relationship with Michael Jackson until 1994, 2 years after the alleged abuse ended.

* Wade Robson was trying to have his wedding at Neverland and Michael Jacksons Nanny had to tell both Wade and Joy "NO" because the 2005 trial was going on at the time

* Wade claimed in court that he was unaware of the administration of the Michael Jackson Estate prior to March 6th 2013 which is another lie considering he was in contact with them about the Cirque De Soleil show and claims to have worked under MJ Ventures in the past. (which is why the estate would be liable in the first place)

* Wade claims that he was at Neverland and saw Michaels children and did not want Michaels kids to live without their dad and that's how he knew he 'had' to testify on Michaels behalf.. The time he visited Neverland was AFTER he testified

* They both have been working together since 2014 against the Jackson estate, it was Wades legal team that reached out to James (before James came forward). They worked with this legal team until both cases were thrown out. together switched to a different law firm where their complaints were amended. With those amendments, the accusations changed.

* James original case against the estate never stated that he had any working relationship with the estate, thus had no 'Duty Of Care'.. In the new claim, it included allegations against MJJ Ventures in respect to his alleged abuse in the 80's.. MJJ Ventures was not established until 1991 and never had any working relationship with Michael Jackson until 1994, 2 years after the alleged abuse ended.

* When chronologically looking at the claims against Jackson, as they had a hard time battling the estates 'ownership' in the alleged abuse - the stories became increasingly more elaborate including Michael Jacksons employees to incriminate those who are hired under MJJ companies.. Neither Wade or James can actually name any employee that allegedly were willing participants in covering up any abuse (including those they supposedly had personal interaction with)

* James 3rd amended complaint added a story including companies under MJJ companies that had 'youth programs' where Michael would be a mentor, these companies were called the 'most sophisticated child abuse procurement & Facilitation organization'. '.... a 'youth program' never existed..

* James case came to a dead end, trying to make the estate liable. James and his lawyers desperately tried to make the argument since Michael Jackson was the sole share holder and owner of MJJ companies. That Michael Jackson had the obligation to 'supervise himself', knowing he (himself) had 'criminal tendencies' and should not allow himself work in his own company. Fire himself and warn others about his tendencies.. This is all to make the estate liable for alleged abuse.

I personally can't take an incredibly one sided "documentary" as fact. His niece and nephew are defending MJ because he didn't abuse anybody. The FBI thoroughly investigated him for ten years and if they found any tiny shred of evidence, they would have got him.

If you believe he did it than that's your own opinion but if you dig deeper and look at the real facts you'll see both are known liars, Wade calls himself the "master of deception" and only came forward with claims of molestation when he didn't get the Cirque de Soleil job. Plus he defended him in a court of law. So he's either a perjurer and blantantly lied in front of a judge or he was telling the truth that there was nothing inappropriate going on. He doesn't and shouldn't get a free pass because he's Michael Jackson but I honestly don't believe their accusations.

If they were genuinely abused that's absolutely horrendous and abhorrent and in no way whatsoever would I defend him at all. But I don't think Michael Jackson would do such a thing. He was a very complex and eccentric individual but they've twisted the real truth to make him a monster where he let cancer patients visit Neverland, gave millions to charity, participated with the Make a Wish foundation etc. to grant wishes to meet him. If it's still up on YouTube (they've been taking the video down) watch the interview with Oprah he did in 1993 where he talks about why he created Neverland. But you're free to believe what you want. Personally I'd never ever stand up and defend a nonce, molester, rapist etc because they are the lowest form of life. There's no proof whatsoever that Michael Jackson did anything untoward with children. I think in hindsight he should have went to court in 1993 and showed how he was blackmailed by Evan Chandler and exonerated himself then. Also MJ was against "paying off" the family, his insurance company did it.

https://whas.iheart.com/featured/terry- ... cumentary/

[Big Boss Man]

[Big Boss Man]

[Big Boss Man]

Apparently Reed admitted that the "burning" part of the "documentary" was staged on TV in France. "Master of Deception" sold all his MJ memorabilia too so any which was burnt was most likely not even legit

Taj Jackson has started work on the rebuttal doc now I've heard. Hopefully this will bring forward the real truth and will exonerate MJ for good and put all those repulsive "allegations" to rest.