Pearl is one person , trust you to pick up on her .
I didn't post her videos as I knew people would get distracted , I posted other videos debunking wade & Jimmy . Other forum members have posted credible factual videos about them as well . This isn't about "mj death hoax" it's about the wade & Jimmy & all the inconsistencies & contradictions with their stories. That's where the focus is :idc:.

And who says you have to agree 100% with someone?, I've watched plenty of videos about different topics where people have different opinions to me but we might still agree on some points :shrug: . It doesn't write off the parts WE DO agree on .

I'm not saying the original documentary is balanced - but I have yet to see a video debunking it from ANY impartial source that isn't quite blatantly an MJ family member, fan-site, or general MJ fan. Every video that has been linked is from sites or YouTube accounts called things like "MICHAEL JACKSON IS INNOCENT!!111!1!" ... it's not unbiased information, quite obviously.

Paris jackson....why does she self harm, why did she supposedly attempt suicide last week....why is she saying she won't defend her father?

To be fair it seems like she just wants nothing to do with any of it...

This might explain Parmnion, the media doing a job on her now it seems,as she says she did NOT attempt suicide and explains about her dad.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainm...cid=spartanntp

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainm...cid=spartanntp

You might want to read the last paragraph of the first link hun.:idc:

Obviously affecting all his kids of course they're going to be having issues , doesn't make him guilty! :nono:. Wouldn't you be emotionally upset if your loved one was accused years later of horrible abuse despite being cleared of all charges??, his family thought all this crap was behind them and now Wade Robber & Jimmy safebox want to drag Mj 's name and legacy through the mud :bored:.

The last paragraph....:shrug:

I have Parmy and 'maybe' that is true it was 2 years ago, she says this time she has NOT so why disbelieve her of you believe her the first time ,no need for her to deny it is there? so it seems the tabloids are rolling with untruths again.:nono:

Dando was about to open up a serious can of worms re high ranking child abuse ,CR befriended her close to her murder and was said at the time to be the last person to talk to her before she was killed

I doubt very much any of the children have a drop of MJ blood running in their veins

And what business is that biological or not who cares !? , MJ raised those kids & brought them up therefore he's their Father .

I'm sure it was confirmed at some point that none of the children are his biologically? Although I do actually agree with GoldHeart that that doesn't really matter.

So much for Dan Reed being a "respected documentary maker".

From MJ's ex lawyer HIMSELF....

https://i.ibb.co/cLqtMk2/Capture.jpg

Now click on the video that Greg posted in response to Dan Reed.

Dan Reed is the definition of a sleazy scumbag :suspect: , he had his own agenda throughout his fictional BS film . Even when he's called out with evidence he still talks utter garbage :facepalm:.

Nancy as he specifically references "charges and allegations", one has to assume that he is talking about both the XtraJet issue and the trial, as the XtraJet dispute had absolutely nothing to do with any "charges and allegations" as all that was happening there was them trying to sell footage from the flight (they actually said there was nothing dodgy in the footage at all; they were trying to sell it on the basis that it showed he WASN'T behaving strangely on the flights, but yes they were trying to sell it to the media).

But yeah. He says "charges and allegations" so the insistence now that he was only talking about the XtraJet footage, and not the wider legal situation, is clearly false.

TS if you can't see the issue here then I'm done :facepalm:

All you have to do is see the clear differences in the actual footage as opposed to the edited version Dan used , it's more misleading BS to fit his agenda .

It is a deliberately misleading edit but that doesn't mean he isn't talking about both cases; they were going on concurrently. What do you think he means when he says "charges and allegations", if he isn't talking about the 2005 trial? There were no charges or allegations against Michael in relation to the XtraJet footage.

I also find Reed's whole editing of the film suspicious and deceptive . It's more so obvious with Safechuck's shots that it wasn't all taken in 1 or even 3 days . It looks like it took several months to film . The clip with the pathetic rings and
ridiculous wedding ceremony story looks like it was an after thought to add in the film :bored: .

Wade's shots also look like they were re done alot , but safechuck's stand out more. And when a film is this choppy and padded out it's easy for 2 actors to lie and follow a script and even re film a scene so it's more "believable" :suspect: .

If safechuck & Wade were sat for 4 hours straight in a court room raw UNEDITED i guarantee the outcome would be different and they'd crack under pressure , there's no director saying "cut" or telling them what to say when a court of law is involved . Even the Oprah interview was cringy .

Maybe because she's as ****ed up as he was.

Have you seen this, Goldheart?



Here's more from the person who made that video...

"In response to the more frequent disagreements in the comment section here.

... Yes, a lot of documentaries have interviews that are filmed with multiple takes and very brief shots of the interviewees ... and it's arguably a deception in those films too - it makes the interviewees seem less credible. However, most documentaries actually involve evidence as well as interviews. In a case like this, where the "victims" already lack credibility on account of their own previous court testimonies and TV interviews, it was essential to get interview footage that was as honest and raw as possible. Multiple takes with selective editing was a very poor choice. It has resulted in the interviews having a scripted and acted appearance.

A few people saying that the director has already stated that the interviews were filmed over 2 or 3 days ... good. And I'm glad to bring more attention to that particular aspect of the production as a lot of people would miss the implication of multiple takes - the effort to try and get a strong acting performance that's actually dishonestly spliced together to appear like a natural flow of dialogue.

Regarding the people going on about the body language stuff, I did say in the video I'll be making a separate video on that so please feel free to respond that video when I post it.

Regarding the people asking if I've met any sexual abuse survivors, yes I have. I worked 17 years in the social care field and interacted with thousands of people in that line of work ... probation, homeless, learning difficulties, mental health, and yes ... I met and interacted with dozens of pedophiles and sex abuse victims so I have a personal experience take on both the victims and their abusers.

Regarding the folks who think that Jackson sleeping in the same bedroom as child visitors amounts to proof of sexual abuse. That's witch-hunt logic. A lot of people, adults and kids, sleep in the same bed or bedroom under various circumstances and it's not a foregone conclusion that sexual interaction has occurred. Yes, it does cast suspicion on Jackson and without that particular facet of his life there would be very little grounds for suspicion, but sexual intent is not the only possible motive. Jackson clearly had a child-like mentality in a lot of ways so it is perfectly logical that he enjoyed sleep overs with visitors to compensate for his loneliness and lack of family at the time. Yes, there is a possibility of sexual molestation, but possibility doesn't equal proof. And you need proof to convict in a court of law unless you believe in witch hunts.

Regarding the folks who say that there have been tons of accusers ... there have been a handful and it all kicked off with the discredited Jordy Chandler case. As Razorfist has aptly pointed out,Jackson made the mistake of settling the civil case out of court (without admission) so that he could defend the criminal case (the one that could actually lead to jail time). He defended and was acquitted on all charges, but the pay out given on the civil case gave the green light for other snakes in the grass to come out seeking multi-million payouts. From what I can tell, that has what has been happening on and off since.

"You just can't handle him being a pedo because you like his music". Yes, there are some who would defend Jackson even if proof were found of sexual abuse just as there are some who will keep calling him an abuser despite lack of evidence. Like most people, I fit into neither camp. I loved Kevin Spacey as an actor, Rolf Harris was a great cartoonist and Bill Cosby I found hilarious ... but I'm not trying to defend them.

Thanks for your thoughts folks."

The mockumentary is being released on Blu Ray/DVD? WTF!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Leaving-Nev...ct_top?ie=UTF8

So much for Dan Reed claiming "it's not about money".

I doubt that.

I think she is...hardly surprising. :wavey: