HBO's Leaving Neverland - Page 6 - Politics | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

Seeker8 wrote:Oops.

Feldman did not change his opinion at all on MJ, hence he still says it was not his experience with Michael. He was just defending their right to say such things(Freedom of speech, Robson has a right to say this shit).
Seeker8 wrote:Also, @colliric If he liked Women why did the police find books full of naked male children in a locked safe in his house? ... sons-home/

I really want to hear the excuse for this one.

Huffington Post beats "MJfacts.con".... ... 6648f4a3f8

No need for an "excuse".

Note how all the actual Pornography was hetrosexual and all of it was legal. Yes including Barely Legal.

The art books are very common and were not considered erotic and could not be submitted in 2005.
colliric wrote:Feldman did not change his opinion at all on MJ, hence he still says it was not his experience with Michael. He was just defending their right to say such things(Freedom of speech, Robson has a right to say this shit).

No, he said he would no longer defend him like you are doing currently. He is his friend, you are not. I'd say that's a change.

colliric wrote:The art books are very common and were not considered erotic and could not be submitted in 2005.

Yes very common with pedophiles, written by pedophiles. Why did he have them locked up and hidden with porn then if they were just art books?

The two books were The Boy: A Photographic Essay and Boys Will Be Boys. These books are classic examples of the type of materials many pedophiles own according to Bill Dworin, a 34-year veteran of the LAPD who has investigated more than 4,000 sexual exploitation cases. “Pedophiles will frequently have this material available because they can obtain it legally, it’s not illegal to possess”. [3].

The Boy: A Photographic Essay is a book compiled by two known pedophiles, Martin Swithinbank and Ronald Drew, under the pseudonyms Georges St. Martin and Ronald C. Nelson. More of their history can be found in this article.

Swithinbank and Nelson collated photos of boys, mainly from pedophile photographers Hajo Ortil, Karel Egermeier, Jos Le Doare, Jacques Simonot and others, and created The Boy. Around ten percent of the photos in the book are of nude boys, many of them with their buttocks or genitals displayed. The front cover features a naked boy with his buttocks exposed, wistfully staring into the ocean. This gives you an idea of the book’s intended audience.

In Boys Will Be Boys around ninety percent of the boys are naked. The worst images are far too lewd for us to publish here, and could possibly be illegal in many countries (reaching up to 6 on the COPINE scale). We talked with someone who has seen the book, who said, “This book is clearly targeted at pedophiles. One shot shows a boy staring straight to camera, relaxing in an easy chair totally naked, his legs spread with his genitals clearly on show. Another photo shows a boy in speedos, an erection clearly visible. Yet another is of a nude boy climbing a tree, shot from below so that nothing is left to the imagination. I’ve seen similar photos often of adults in similar poses.”

I also wonder why after being accused and going to court for child abuse he STILL slept in his bed with other people's kids. Did it not bother him being accused of being a pedo? or could he just not stop himself abusing kids?

But of course there's absolutley no evidence. :lol:

You must really like his music @colliric .
Last edited by Seeker8 on 11 Mar 2019 17:33, edited 1 time in total.
You have not refuted the Huffington Post article I notice. Typical.

The prosecution also played up the sexually explicit websites, briefcases full of nudie magazines, and centerfold cutouts...but the strategy backfired. It made Michael Jackson seem like a heterosexual male-Knopper 290-291

The jury in 2005 had every opportunity to see what Jackson possessed, as well as what he did not. People may form their own conclusions about his tastes in art, or even if they are prudent enough, his tastes in adult erotica. But let’s keep something in perspective: What was the man put on trial for? His tastes in art and erotica, his character, or to determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether a crime had been committed?

But just as there are some individuals who will never accept that the Civil War ended in 1865, so, too, is a faction who will never accept that Michael Jackson was fully exonerated by a court of law in 2005. To this end, they will continue to lie, to rehash and sensationalize old stories, to distort truth and yes, even to fabricate new “evidence” where none exists. I can only see this as a thinly veiled attempt to keep an old battle going that has already long been fought ― and won.

The fact is two controversial(by today's standards) art books amoungst the thousands he owned(and he owned alot) does not equate to evidence.

FACT: Perverts usually have ILLEGAL pornographic material too, and HE HAD NONE... Only two funny-by-todays-standards art books that were arguably quite PC in their time(both 60s books). One of them even seems to reference Golding's Lord of the Flies.

All his ACTUAL porn collection was Hetrosexual (and maybe slightly BI too) and legally obtained. He was a known fan of Barely Legal....


If I had books on Cherubs, you'd probably claim I had a baby fetish and I'm a pervert.....
Last edited by colliric on 11 Mar 2019 16:39, edited 1 time in total.
noemon wrote:I do not have any reasonable doubt that MJ was a child molester.

None of it can be prooven in a court of law.

The documentary has already been edited to 3h 30mins for it's UK release.

Why did they immediately cut 30 mins out? Something doesn't add up....
Dear God:

Photos from the Boy, the milder of the 2 Books found in his possession as previewed by

Spoiler: show


The banana and the ice-cream :knife: :*(

They actually cut nearly 45 minutes from the UK version.

Something's up. Lol.

Would be nice to know what was edited out and why.

I suspect it's got something to do with the upcoming estate Lawsuit.
By Rich
Its amazing the lengths progressives will go to defend a Black homosexual. This is totally different to say the Ray Moore case. Nothing was proven against Ray Moore. That Jackson was an abuser is not in doubt. We've seen him on TV hanging a baby over a balcony. That's torture. Babies are sensitive and pick up on their surroundings. If Jackson was willing to do this in front of the camera, the mind boggles at what he'd do away from the camera. That lefties will defend this man sleeping with ten year old boys is disgusting.

Just imagine if Ray Moore had admitted sleeping multiple nights with multiple 10 year old girls.
Rich is on another planet, Colliric is the only person defending MJ and he is a Christian Conservative.
Anyone who really wants to hang out in bed with kids is undoubtedly a pedophile. It's not significant or unique though. Pretty much all rich people fuck kids because they are all scum.
Michael Jackson was a piece of child molesting shit, in my opinion(I don't care what a court of law that he could buy, thought). If there's a Hell, then I hope he's rotting there.

@Rich I hope he's soon joined by Roy Moore. Your claim that "lefties" and such are defending Jackson, is idiotic and disgusting. Get a grip. Hating child molestation is a bi-partisan issue.
The book could just about be excused in a different context. It completely kills the image of him as being a “child like” softie and asexual.

Combined with all the other stuff it is pretty conclusive. Whether it isn’t in a technical sense or a court of law is t the point. Pofo isn’t a Court room.
The FBI found no evidence to support the allegations of Jackson abusing kids, after a 10-year plus investigation.

snapdragon wrote:I watched some of it last night and I don't think they were.

I did the same and thought the same, but will watch it all.
User avatar
By maz
I believe that MJ did nothing wrong. Nowadays, all you have to do is to wait a few weeks and then every narrative starts to fall apart. This was a disgusting display by HBO and everyone involved including Oprah Windfrey, the DNC operative and close friend of sex predator Harvey Weinstein.

Michael Jackson biographer says 'discrepancy' changes 'Leaving Neverland' narrative

Michael Jackson biographer Mike Smallcombe says the major "discrepancy" in James Safechuck's abuse claims in the 'Leaving Neverland' documentary "changes the entire narrative the film is trying to give" viewers.

In Dan Reed's film, James described how he was allegedly sexually assaulted by Michael at his Neverland ranch until the age of 14 between 1988 and 1992 after the singer befriended him after they starred in a Pepsi commercial together.

Among the locations where he claims the assaults took place is the train station at Neverland.

However, Mike - who penned the book 'Making Michael: Inside the Career of Michael Jackson' - has found the construction permit issued on September 2, 1993, which states that construction work on the train station did not begin until after that date and did not open until 1994.

The film's director Dan Reed accepted the validity of the station construction date in the permit but explained away the discrepancy by claiming the date that is wrong "is the end of the abuse" but Mike insists his discovery throws doubt on all of James' allegations.

Speaking to Australian breakfast TV show 'Sunrise', the journalist-and-writer said: "I can't say for sure that James Safechuck and Wade Robson are lying about the entire thing, but what I can say is that at least three aspects of their allegations that are featured in that documentary are provably untrue. The train station claim from James Safechuck being the big one. He alleges that the abuse went from 1988 to 1992 and he said during the documentary that he was abused at the Neverland train station, he went into great detail about how it happened in a room upstairs in that train station, it wasn't just a fleeting comment in that documentary it was a big part of it and it can now be proven through documents and photos that the train station didn't open until mid-1994 so that's a real two-year discrepancy there. It's not just a case of a dates being mixed up.

"Michael Jackson spent the whole year of 1994 living in New York City to get away from Santa Barbara because of the [Jordy Chandler] allegations and the DA going after him and also to record an album in New York, he moved there because of an earthquake as well and he was a bit scared to record in the LA area as well. But the point is by the time Safechuck would've been at Neverland again he would have been 17 or 18 years old so that changes the entire narrative that the film is trying to give us that Jackson lost interest in young boys once they hit puberty and, of course, Safechuck himself said the abuse ended when he was 14. It's not just a small matter it changes the entire narrative of that whole documentary, it's a big deal."
I watched the "documentary" and felt it seemed to be full of scripted bullshit, but it also was full of contradictions and I believe the two accusers are financially motivated liars.

The director has admitted to some of the lies from the film after they were provably untrue.

This is a psyop.

colliric wrote:Correction....

They actually cut nearly 45 minutes from the UK version.

Something's up. Lol.

Would be nice to know what was edited out and why.

Parts that were cut out was the dinner scene where Wade claimed that it was there, where he agreed to testify on behalf of MJ. Taj Jackson was also at that dinner and confirmed that that dinner took place the night after Wade testified. I'm guessing the other scenes that were deleted were also stuff that could be proven to be lies, I mean, he could've removed all that drone footage if he had to cut the film down for "programming" or whatever odd claim he made.

The French response was much more critical.


Wade Robson was employed by the same company - ARG - that Katherine Jackson, MJ's mother, is suing for negligence for her son's death. In court the company's attorney said things were going to get very dirty and it was two days later when Wade Robson alleged that MJ abused him for years and years, including for years before MJ had Wade testifying on his defence as a star/main witness. :hmm:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

The illib undems just had guy vernosestud over sa[…]

Why are you angry at antifa and not the literal n[…]

You can believe in religion and have socialist va[…]


Well the point of mental treatment is to adjust b[…]