goDel Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 ugh just read this part in the VF article A representative for Michael Jackson's estate reached out to Vanity Fair, and said, "Everything in these reports, including what the County of Santa Barbara calls 'content that appears to be obtained off the Internet or through unknown sources' is false." oh ok so the police are just making shit up then? this isn't like planting drugs on someone. i really wish the police called their bluff...maybe they did. Bit surprised, as I read two responses. One from the police themselves stating that the material contained pictures that weren't part of the original evidence. So, no, police is not making shit up. But there's def some shady stuff going on. And we basically don't know what is being considered evidence and what is added "pizzagate" material. Update (June 21, 10:10 A.M.): A representative from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department gave Vanity Fair the following statement regarding the documents: Some of the documents appear to be copies of reports that were authored by Sheriff’s Office personnel as well as evidentiary photographs taken by Sheriff’s Office personnel interspersed with content that appears to be obtained off the Internet or through unknown sources. The Sheriff’s Office did not release any of the documents and/or photographs to the media. The Sheriff’s Office released all of its reports and the photographs as part of the required discovery process to the prosecution and the defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchroast Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 like, on one hand you have evidence coming forward. on other hand, you have Moonwalkers (???) knowing in their heart that he is not guilty. i don't know. impossible to know fully when on one hand, all the evidence in the world to say this guy was a sick fuck and shouldn't be celebrated. on other hand, Billy Jean is such a good song. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchroast Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 whose to say the original members of the FBI conducting investigations weren't fellow Moonwalkers ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drome Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 As a grown man he was surrounded by other people’s children, particularly young boys. Was often alone with them. He used to share a bed with them ffs. All excused/explained away by being a ‘big kid’ at heart. He bought off those families in the 90s. Even one of the guys that just came forward didn’t want to believe it - defended the sick fuck for years. No matter how much we love his music, his talent and the fond memories that we associate with him, we must face up to that fact that he was a paedo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squee Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 fucking lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 i think that films like those should be illegal before a serious investigation by professionals took place. it's just another example for this backward thinking that #metoo institutionalized in recent years - "first we dump shit on someone in public and completely destroy him and then see if he manages to get out of it", which obviously he never will as his name will be linked to allegation forever regardless if they were true or not. allegation of sexual misconducts of different types have a particular stickiness and dynamic in the modern semi-puritanical pitchfork-wielding discourse (for more details on its mechanisms: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2106476). basically i don't think anyone has the right to put the seed of an idea in peoples' minds that some person is a pedo (or some other sexual criminal) before going through all the necessary legal processes to prove that for good first. this is my general take on the whole #metoo biz that is relevant to this topic as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KovalainenFanBoy Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 hell yeah give the government the power to ban documentaries. That's what the world needs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drome Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 i think that films like those should be illegal before a serious investigation by professionals took place. it's just another example for this backward thinking that #metoo institutionalized in recent years - "first we dump shit on someone in public and completely destroy him and then see if he manages to get out of it", which obviously he never will as his name will be linked to allegation forever regardless if they were true or not. allegation of sexual misconducts of different types have a particular stickiness and dynamic in the modern semi-puritanical pitchfork-wielding discourse (for more details on its mechanisms: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2106476). basically i don't think anyone has the right to put the seed of an idea in peoples' minds that some person is a pedo (or some other sexual criminal) before going through all the necessary legal processes to prove that for good first. this is my general take on the whole #metoo biz that is relevant to this topic as well. It’s not just a one-off accusation, dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 what difference does it make how many there are? go to court and prove your shit, then spread the news however you please if you win. but doing this backwards, is well, backwards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KovalainenFanBoy Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 theres already legal mechanisms in place against false accusations and all that. What you can't do is make it illegal for people to believe whoever they want to believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 those mechanisms don't guarantee people un-beliveing false accusations, that's the point. not allowing unsubstantiated allegations from being spread is the way to prevent such damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drome Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 what difference does it make how many there are? go to court and prove your shit, then spread the news however you please if you win. but doing this backwards, is well, backwards...Yeah right, went to court once and families were paid off. Anyway, it’s not like courts are the almighty arbiters of truth and lies is it. The guilty often get away with crimes, especially if they have enough money. Perhaps resistance to the accusations also stems from those who own the rights to, hence make money from, his music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitchroast Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 now i’m confused... should i throw out my michael jackson vinyls or not?? they’re pretty cool cos you can turn the pitch slider down and the high pitch singing works in favour of making it sound like a completely different dude is singing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drome Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 ^ good post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 what difference does it make how many there are? go to court and prove your shit, then spread the news however you please if you win. but doing this backwards, is well, backwards...Yeah right, went to court once and families were paid off. Anyway, it’s not like courts are the almighty arbiters of truth and lies is it. The guilty often get away with crimes, especially if they have enough money.Perhaps resistance to the accusations also stems from those who own the rights to, hence make money from, his music. you're going into minute details of the case i don't care for, i'm talking about a principle. and yes, courts are the best arbiters of truth currently available. if you want to present an argument that docus can rival courts when it comes to establishing facts you have a lot of work to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hello spiral Posted March 3, 2019 Author Share Posted March 3, 2019 If you can get past the paywall this is a pretty good interview with the Director here. He mentions how they had to consider all the claims that would be made to undermine the accounts of the victims by fans. One example was them not taking any money to be in the doc. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/exclusive-michael-jackson-documentary-leaving-neverland-director-dan-reed-interview-fzswz6wv0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drome Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 Flogging a dead horse with yougene. So do you feel the same way about the meetoo cases or just towards this sacred cow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eugene Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 Flogging a dead horse with yougene. So do you feel the same way about the meetoo cases or just towards this sacred cow? all of them obviously. i accept the notion that the typical legal processes can be flawed when dealing with this stuff. but it seems like #metoo's working theory is that they are always flawed and allegations are always true. that's fucked up. i would actually go further to claim that as a public we shouldn't have the right to know about a person's past misdeeds once he has done his time or whatever because of pretty strong stigmatization process, but that's another topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drome Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 Flogging a dead horse with yougene. So do you feel the same way about the meetoo cases or just towards this sacred cow? all of them obviously.i accept the notion that the typical legal processes can be flawed when dealing with this stuff. but it seems like #metoo's working theory is that they are always flawed and allegations are always true. that's fucked up. i would actually go further to claim that as a public we shouldn't have the right to know about a person's past misdeeds once he has done his time or whatever because of pretty strong stigmatization process, but that's another topic. I agree with your first point. Look at the Blasey-Ford allegations. Sketchy shit show that was. As far as past misdeeds go, depends on the severity of the crime and likelihood of the perpetrator reoffending. Difficult one to call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 Seems like I agree with eugene here. Not a fan of catering to a court of opinion without due process. That doesn't mean I believe in the "innocent until proven guilty" thing, btw. I believe it could have happened, but I reserve judgment. Which is different to assuming someone is innocent. And which also keeps open the option for believing the people making these accusations. As the innocent until proven guilty basically assumes the victims have lied until proven otherwise. Which is exactly why I don't like this notion of "innocence until proven guilty". But that could be my coloured interpretation of it, of course. I don't know the facts. And I don't intend to simply believe some doc claiming to have uncovered facts or done some research. If some type of investigative journalism uncovered some evidence, I'd assume the route forward is through the legal system. So if there's any valid evidence, I'd expect it to be validated through some kind 'due process'. Not by some doc on some commercial network. That network has a specific bias. It needs clicks and viewers in order to make profits. Private companies making profits and 'due process' seem diametrically opposed to me. And I'm sure there's nothing new here. In the sense that blaming the media for all kinds of crap is quite normal. So I don't see why this time is supposed to be any different from all those other times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drome Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 Non-paedo men do not seek to share a bed with other people’s children. Jacko admitted to doing that. Massive red flag there for starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 We simply don't know the facts of what happened. Also, there's a difference between being a paedo and sexually harassing kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drome Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 How many more people have to come forward before the allegations against jacko are taken seriously? All we have is witness testimony of jimmy saville’s crimes, from lots of people, granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candiru Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 Jacko got raped by Weinstein and Cosby at the same time. See what happens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.