Leaving Neverland - Michael Jackson Documentary [HBO]

retro:electro · 03-03-2019 05:34PM

sligeach wrote: »

I was a boy in Michael Jackson’s life, and nothing of what he’s being accused of in this documentary happened

https://talunzeitoun.com/2019/01/30/michael-jackson-and-me/

I encourage EVERYBODY to read this.
https://twitter.com/talunzeitoun/status/1090619148038819841

What a load of shlte. He can only speak for his own experiences, he can’t proclaim the experiences of others never happened purely because they are different to his own. There is this weird kind of cognitive dissonance with his situation where people believe that because he wasn’t sexually abusing all children at all times then he can’t have been an abuser.
Larry Murphy never raped me so does that mean I can categorically state he never raped other women?

What this always comes down to for me is, why Michael? Is it a case of there are multiples of children with opportunistic parents who have no shame in labelling an innocent man an abuser and putting their children through the trauma of trials and public ordeals and just happened to go for the same man time after time.. or maybe, just maybe the creepy Peter Pan dude who built a children’s fantasy land in his backyard and admitted sleeping in a bed with them was “a beautiful thing”, paid off various accusers and had a marriage end due to the inconvenience and preference of having little boys in his marital bed over his wife actually did abuse them.

Neverland was the extravelent equivalent of a pedo driving around an estate in an ice cream van trying to impress and attract kids.
A lot of his defenders could do with educating themselves on systematic grooming.

retro:electro · 03-03-2019 06:03PM

And there is no such thing as “Peter Pan syndrome” or whatever other baloney bs terminology people try to produce to justify his extremely inappropriate behaviour with children. He was a grown adult of sound mind, a lyrical genius, competent enough to produce shows, get married and father children. I’m not a fan of his music but I can appreciate the talent behind it, and those lyrics are not born out of a stunted mind. He was incredibly shrewd and manipulative, and as a victim of abuse himself should have known better than to put himself in a situation where he could have been accused.
At the very best, he was a strange man who was extremely inappropriate with children; and at the worst a predator and abuser. Not sure why anyone would want to defend that.

JohnCreedon81 · 03-03-2019 06:18PM

retro:electro wrote: »

At the very best, he was a strange man who was extremely inappropriate with children; and at the worst a predator and abuser. Not sure why anyone would want to defend that.

I’m certainly not defending him, I’m doing like you just there, saying he could well have just been a very strange damaged man extremely inappropriate with children. I think it’s mad people are believing these vultures who were admittedly put in extremely dodgy situations BY THEIR PARENTS.

As for the Peter Pan syndrome, obviously it’s not an actual thing. But the man was so bananas and rich he could make it happen.

If he wanted a whole town built where it always rained buckfast he could have had that.

He wanted the creepy Peter Pan universe and he got it.

The parents, again, need to be prosecuted.

Lithium93_ · 03-03-2019 06:54PM

The Rageaholic, A YouTuber I follow did 2 videos on this, one from June 2016 and the other just from last month, clearly he's done his research before he filmed the 2 videos, he does get foul mouthed, but he makes good points over the course of the 2 videos.

retro:electro · 03-03-2019 06:55PM

JohnCreedon81 wrote: »

I’m certainly not defending him, I’m doing like you just there, saying he could well have just been a very strange damaged man extremely inappropriate with children. I think it’s mad people are believing these vultures who were admittedly put in extremely dodgy situations BY THEIR PARENTS.

As for the Peter Pan syndrome, obviously it’s not an actual thing. But the man was so bananas and rich he could make it happen.

If he wanted a whole town built where it always rained buckfast he could have had that.

He wanted the creepy Peter Pan universe and he got it.

The parents, again, need to be prosecuted.

I am not at all absolving the parents from their responsibility in the whole thing. They handed their children up on a platter for Jackson to do god knows what to them and they didn’t seem to care. But I also think Jackson was a predator and carefully selective in the type of child he often sought out; ones who came from broken and troubles homes (as abusers do) whose accusations could be dismissed as financial shakedowns. Yes the parents were irresponsible also which makes it all the more troubling and sad when it comes to the victims, they were let down not once but twice by those they trusted, probably a third time if you disagree with the 2005 verdict. And now they have people the world over, dissecting their experiences on the internet accusing them of lying for financial benefit. Tbh i don’t think they even got paid for the doc.

sligeach · 03-03-2019 07:19PM

The Michael Jackson Trial : One of the Most Shameful Episodes In Journalistic History

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpzAtdQN56c

https://youtube.com/watch?v=xpzAtdQN56c

Loads of information disproving the upcoming movie(calling it a documentary is wrong) from Josef Kirk Meyers, it's the second comment on the page below.

Let’s talk about the journalism version of Fyre Festival and Jussie Smollett — “Leaving Neverland”.

The “documentary” coming out this weekend entitled “Leaving Neverland” details alleged child sexual abuse of Wade Robson and James Safechuck at the hands of Michael Jackson. Before the media storm surrounding these EASILY disprovable and unverified allegations catch any significant traction, allow me to present you with some very simple FACTS about these allegations and the two individuals making them, Robson and Safechuck.

I don’t care to sway your opinion one way or another regarding Jacksons propensity to commit these acts, because people often believe what they want to believe. Who cares about the truth if the lie is more entertaining, right?!

However I expect to receive a ton of messages over the next few days, and it’s easy for me as someone who’s knowledgable on the topic to share a detailed vetting of these two individuals and their claims that neither the director of the film or the mass media want to perform or share.

I’ll primarily focus on Wade Robson, because he’s the most well known, and it was Robson that convinced Safechuck to join him.
___

BASIC BACKGROUND — Wade Robson is a choreographer who’s career was personally guided by Michael Jackson from a young age. Over the years he’s adamantly and comfortably gone out of his way to defend Jackson. In fact, both he and Safechuck have testified under oath and thru intense cross examination that Jackson has never sexual abused them. However in 2013, ~4 years after Jacksons death Robson “remembered that Jackson molested him” which convinced Safechuck to hire the same lawyer and join him in a $100 MILLION lawsuits against the Michael Jackson estate. The case was thrown out of court, with the judge also stating, “No rational fact-finder could possibly believe Robson’s sworn statement”.

Now, for the fun part. THE FACTS:

1. In 2012, Wade Robson expected a job with the Michael Jackson Estate to choreograph a MJ Cirque Du Soleil show. Jacksons family, being close with Wade, expressed to him that he could have the job to the point that Wade confidently promoted having this job publicly on many occasions. Ultimately the MJ Estate hired a different choreographer, to the misfortune of Wade.

- Here’s Wade in 2012 (mere months before making these allegations) performing HIS proposed choreography for the Cirque show to Jackson’s song “Unbreakable” -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rva8LnJ5j-o

https://youtube.com/watch?v=rva8LnJ5j-o

- Here’s Wade praising Jackson before performing in a 2009 VMA Tribute -
https://twitter.com/dribrasilmj/status/1089788075004362752?s=21

- Here’s Wade sitting next to Janet Jackson while choreographing that tribute -

https://imgur.com/a/q2gEYHU

- Wade had a show on MTV in 2003, The Wade Robson Project. Here’s his tribute to Jackson on his own show -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYbLsNuUH0s

https://youtube.com/watch?v=eYbLsNuUH0s

- Here’s Wade (as a grown ass man) describing Neverland as “The best thing in the world” -
https://twitter.com/NeverlandFacts/status/1098248290749931520

- Here are Wade’s text messages with Jacksons nephew Taj Jackson asking to come to Michael’s memorial service, wanting to be in one of his films, and also to “catch up with MJ’s kids” -

https://imgur.com/a/F3uS10o

2. In the film “Leaving Neverland”, Robson and Safechuck claim that Jackson essentially had a no girls allowed policy and tried to keep them away from girls and liking girls.

- Jackson in fact introduced Wade to his niece, Brandi Jackson. Michael Jackson would go on to hook them up romantically, and they ended up dating for 8 years (friends for 10). *Side note* Brandi eventually broke up with Wade, because he, behind her back, had a sexual relationship with Britney Spears, who was dating Justin Timberlake at the time. Timberlake would write the song, “Cry me a river” in regards the situation.

- Here’s a picture of THE ACTUAL DAY Jackson introduced Wade to his niece, Brandi Jackson (Wade on the left. Brandi on the right). I have receipts people. It’s a damn shame that the filmmakers and the media have not done this BASIC research. Almost seems as though they didn’t want to as it would disprove the timeline and claims in the film -

https://imgur.com/a/CRJHaPE

- Here’s a recent interview of Brandi discussing her relationship with Wade -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFrypTZiusE

https://youtube.com/watch?t=2510s&v=XFrypTZiusE

3. In the film, Safechuck claims that Jackson “ceased contact with them after they reached puberty” (paraphrasing)

- Here’s a 16 or 17 year old Safechuck holding an umbrella for Jackson and his then wife Lisa Marie Presley. Also, what happened to the “no girls” policy???. Again why are you hearing this from Josef and not reporters? -

https://imgur.com/a/sbaYKUc

4. In the film, Robson burns all of “his” Michael Jackson memorabilia, for dramatic effect I’m assuming.

- There’s only one small problem with that. Robson SOLD all of his Michael Jackson memorabilia to Juliens Auction in 2011. According to a recent tweet from Juliens Auction, “he needed the money” -
https://twitter.com/JuliensAuctions/status/1099524875717304321

5. The film claims that Jackson would try to separate children from their families. While I could point to droves of content that would suggest that being untrue, I like the straight forwardness and simplicity of these ones below:

- Nathan Cavaleri (another Jackson protege) recently speaking out in defense of Jackson -

https://www.facebook.com/nathancavaleri/videos/147865022819485/?v=147865022819485

- Bryton James (“Little Richie” from the show “Family Matters”) recently speaking out in defense of MJ -
https://twitter.com/BrytonEjames/status/1096914094077014017

- Talun Zeitoun (another Jackson protege) recently speaking out in defense of Jackson -

https://talunzeitoun.com/2019/01/30/michael-jackson-and-me/

6. This isn’t evidence per se, but during a Q&A after the initial screening of the film, Wade and James would often look at each other and smile/laugh at really inappropriate times, especially given the serious nature of the questions.

- Body language experts might call this behavier “duping delight” -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVQUCWJlJ_w

https://youtu.be/dVQUCWJlJ_w?t=490

- Duping delight definition: The pleasure of being able to manipulate someone, often made visible to others by flashing a smile at an inappropriate moment. -

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/duping_delight

7. Lastly, when I first read some of the film’s and lawsuit’s graphic details of the sexual abuse, my first thoughts were like “Damn. It’s hard for me to believe this could be made up. This might be wrap on MJ.”

- Guess what? Actually, they in fact did not make up any of these details. They stole them from a FICTIONAL PRO-PEDOPHILIA book that’s supported by NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) — sick ****. The very explicit and detailed claims of sexual abuse in this documentary are virtually identical the the sexual fantasy written about Jackson and Jordy Chandler in a FICTIONAL BOOK. Yeezus Christ. This world truly ain’t ****. -
https://twitter.com/Hammertonhal/status/1098966848492748803

- The book is entitled “Michael Jackson Was My Lover: The Secret Diary of Jordy Chandler”. Jordy Chandler never kept a diary. Again the book was written from a PRO-PEDOPHELIA author. Jackson sued the author and won $2.7 million -

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/623505/Michael-Jackson-wins-27-million-in-lawsuit.html

Since I mentioned Jordy Chandler, in closing, I’d like to leave you with a few more links and a little bit more info.

Jordy Chandler is the reason any of us could possibly associate Jackson with pedophilia and not simply view him a happy-go-lucky Peter Pan-like manchild. There’s plenty of research you could do on your own regarding Jordy Chandler, and I’m convinced you’ll come away at least questioning the 1993 allegations, assuming you ACTUALLY do the research. But here are a few things to note:

1. Jordy Chandlers father, Evan Chandler, brought the first child sexual abuse lawsuit against Jackson.

- Here’s Evan Chandler on audio tape plotting to extort Jackson. “*laughs* It’ll be a massacre, if I don’t get what I want.” -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NlhDPjEI8I

https://youtube.com/watch?v=0NlhDPjEI8I

- Evan Chandler would later commit suicide a mere 5 months after Jackson’s death. Take from that what you will. -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di2pQgSq8To

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Di2pQgSq8To

2. People often say, “why would Michael Jackson pay this family $20 million dollars if he wasn’t guilty?” Good question.

- The Jordy Chandler allegations came out in the middle of Jackson’s “Dangerous Tour”. Jackson’s tours all made well over $100 million. You don’t have to be a pure capitalist or a master in economics to understand why his business handlers and insurance company would want him to pay the family and continue with the tour -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_World_Tour

- Jackson has a Guinness Record is for “Most Charities Supported by a Pop Star” and also donated ALL of his earnings from the “Victory Tour” to charity, so needless to say he had no problem giving away money. -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_Tour_%28The_Jacksons_tour%29

3. People often ask, “Well what would any grown man possibly be doing in a bedroom with little kids?”

- I dunno what “any grown man” would do but for Michael Jackson… video games, pillow fights perhaps? -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is2_kWJe5Bs

https://youtube.com/watch?v=is2_kWJe5Bs

- Also keep in mind that Jacksons bedroom was a 2 story suit with multiple sections and a gigantic bed — not your average bedroom or average sized bed. Furthermore, Jackson just seemed to be a pretty naive and innocent dude, and therefore an easy mark -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeqBDXgbg5c

https://youtube.com/watch?v=oeqBDXgbg5c

Other useful links — I’m sharing these because these are things I suspect people will bring up in my comments, but “I’m living my best life. Ain’t goin back and forth you…”. So:

- THIS MAN WAS OFFERED $200,000 TO SAY MICHAEL JACKSON TOUCHED HIS KIDS -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9elqn_sjCN4

https://youtube.com/watch?v=9elqn_sjCN4

- The FBI investigated Jackson for over 10 years and FOUND NOTHING. Over 70 police officers performed a surprise raid at Neverland and FOUND NOTHING. Really think about that. Has there been anyone accused of sexual abuse more scrutinized than MJ just to turn up with nothing? Reeeaaally think about that. Here are all the FBI files -

https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/fbi-file-michael-jackson/

- “The Michael Jackson Trial : One of the Most Shameful Episodes In Journalistic History”. This short but comprehensive documentary details why Michael Jackson was found Not Guilty on all 13 counts of child abuse in the 2005 trial. A MUST WATCH. This doc has changed COUNTLESS minds of people I’ve sent it to -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpzAtdQN56c

https://youtube.com/watch?t=2s&v=xpzAtdQN56c

- A couple years ago a tabloid story started circulating that Jackson had child pornography. I was surprised that some people believed this, because child pornography is illegal of course, and he would have therefore been convicted on that alone. So yes that story is simply made up and false. In fact he had tons of straight porn -

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-child-porn-found-at-neverland-thenor-now-the_us_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8

- Forbes also wrote a great article on this “Leaving Neverland” fantasy “documentary” -

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joevogel/2019/01/29/what-you-should-know-about-the-new-michael-jackson-documentary/#5dbb867d640f

Note in the video below how Corey Feldman was trying to expose ACTUAL PEDOPHILES, but law enforcement didn’t listen as they were intent on getting Jackson, despite Corey’s denials. Why would Corey expose other pedophiles but not Jackson. Makes zero sense.

Michael Jackson was/is is the media’s cash cow. In fact, MJ’s “Dangerous” concert special was HBO’s highest rated special ever, and now HBO is the same network airing this ones-sided unvetted unprofessional nonsense. They will play the public like this for ratings then turn around and praise Michael Jackson again in a few months. You watch. They’ve had the same routine on repeat since 1993. The next few days will be sex allegations, then once the public is over it they’ll bring out the MJ defenders and proof in his defense. It’s what they do.

https://www.kanyetothe.com/forum/index.php?topic=8172631.36

JohnCreedon81 · 03-03-2019 07:20PM

retro:electro wrote: »

They handed their children up on a platter for Jackson to do god knows what to them and they didn’t seem to care. But I also think Jackson was a predator and carefully selective in the type of child he often sought out; ones who came from broken and troubles homes (

Firstly, god knows what he did to them. Exactly. I honestly don’t think we’ll ever know. A part of me still things it may have been deeply weird but not sexual.

Secondly, predator? Wasn’t he heavily involved in charity and helping deprived children, and in his deeply warped sense of reality he felt letting them into his Peter Pan looney ville was in fact helping them?

I just think there’s so much doubt on both sides, and this documentary has more holes than the average football net.

Nobody can say for sure he did what they claim in this documentary. There’s as much chance it was as innocent as Culkin and others say the sleepovers were.

Still a bloody weirdo and still massively inappropriate behavior. I’d be hesitant to believe these hugely suspect characters though.

You honestly think they don’t stand to benefit hugely financially from this? I’m sure Ch4 didn’t get the rights to show it for free! Isn’t there a book in the works too?

retro:electro · 03-03-2019 07:34PM

JohnCreedon81 wrote: »

Firstly, god knows what he did to them. Exactly. I honestly don’t think we’ll ever know. A part of me still things it may have been deeply weird but not sexual.

Secondly, predator? Wasn’t he heavily involved in charity and helping deprived children, and in his deeply warped sense of reality he felt letting them into his Peter Pan looney ville was in fact helping them?

I just think there’s so much doubt on both sides, and this documentary has more holes than the average football net.

Nobody can say for sure he did what they claim in this documentary. There’s as much chance it was as innocent as Culkin and others say the sleepovers were.

Still a bloody weirdo and still massively inappropriate behavior. I’d be hesitant to believe these hugely suspect characters though.

You honestly think they don’t stand to benefit hugely financially from this? I’m sure Ch4 didn’t get the rights to show it for free! Isn’t there a book in the works too?

So was Jimmy Saville. If I was to put my cynical hat on I’d say that was all an aid to help him get closer to underprivileged kids. His generous benevolence is neither here nor there to me tbh. The facts remain; he paid off families, he slept in beds with kids and preferred their bedroom company over that of his new wife, he was overly tactile and touchy, he had a children’s fantasy in his backyard, he was abused himself as a child which increases his likelihood of abusing others; and that’s just a taste of all that has been confirmed. The It’s not looking good for the guy.

JohnCreedon81 · 03-03-2019 07:41PM

retro:electro wrote: »

So was Jimmy Saville. If I was to put my cynical hat on I’d say that was all an aid to help him get closer to underprivileged kids. His generous benevolence is neither here nor there to me tbh. The facts remain; he paid off families, he slept in beds with kids and preferred their bedroom company over that of his new wife, he was overly tactile and touchy, he had a children’s fantasy in his backyard, he was abused himself as a child which increases his likelihood of abusing others; and that’s just a taste of all that has been confirmed. The It’s not looking good for the guy.

None of that confirms anything. You’re not gonna convince me anyway and it looks like you’ve made your mind up “cos it doesn’t seem right” or “not normal behaviour”.

I don’t know if he did it, but I’m still skeptical and just wanted to voice that there are some of us not gonna blindly accept some of these very questionable claims by very questionable individuals.

And with that, I’m gonna stop thinking about MJ and what he may or may not have done to kids and bow the fvck out of this thread before it goes up in flames.... oh look! Olly Murs! :pac:

innuendo141 · 03-03-2019 07:46PM

retro:electro wrote: »

So was Jimmy Saville. If I was to put my cynical hat on I’d say that was all an aid to help him get closer to underprivileged kids. His generous benevolence is neither here nor there to me tbh. The facts remain; he paid off families, he slept in beds with kids and preferred their bedroom company over that of his new wife, he was overly tactile and touchy, he had a children’s fantasy in his backyard, he was abused himself as a child which increases his likelihood of abusing others; and that’s just a taste of all that has been confirmed. The It’s not looking good for the guy.

The above may be so (unfortunately) but in turn, all of the confirmed lies and changes of these 2 lunatics increase the likelihood that they are lying.

retro:electro · 03-03-2019 07:48PM

JohnCreedon81 wrote: »

None of that confirms anything. You’re not gonna convince me anyway and it looks like you’ve made your mind up “cos it doesn’t seem right” or “not normal behaviour”.
:

It’s more than something not seeming right and questionable behaviour. It’s a systematic and relentless patten of behaviour and way of living that if it happened to anyone else it wouldn’t be dismissed as “Peter Pan” man child syndrome. I’m not going to try and justify his fcuked up behaviour because he had a weird childhood and was famous. Plenty of people have had weird childhoods and don’t seek out disadvantaged children to take advantage of.
The man preferred to pay off accusers instead of going to trial and clearing his name. You’re right that I’ve my mind made up but it’s based on years of interest in this case and many, many debates on this site about it :pac: I’ll never be convinced of anything other than he was a manipulative predator. Others can think what they like

JohnCreedon81 · 03-03-2019 08:03PM

I just know you won’t stop and you’re relentless

I’ll say one more thing. The payouts. Didn’t he go on record saying that was his biggest regret? But it was also somewhat understandable, he was in huge pain physically and had a juggernaut industry and tonnes of advisors literally signing agreements for him and giving him terrible advice.

It’s just an insanely complicated life. The world sees things as they are meant to appear, and obviously he was not of this world, a pure and utter fvcking weirdo :pac: but there’s still a chance that he did absolutely nothing harmful to those kids.

Ever seen Amelie? There’s that scene where the glass man sends Amelie a vhs showing how things just sometimes are completely odd and bizarre and unique, but they still have their place in the world.

The optimist in me sees MJ as not having a malicious thought or bone(careful now :pac: ) in his body, ruthlessly picked off by the vultures in the world. Taken advantage of cos he was too bloody stupid and spaced out to realize that it was not cool to have kids sleep over with a grown bloody man.

Heal the world Anna, make it a better place, laaaa deee daaaa!

sligeach · 03-03-2019 08:23PM

Michael didn't pay out, his insurance company paid the money.

retro:electro · 03-03-2019 08:25PM

JohnCreedon81 wrote: »

I just know you won’t stop and you’re relentless

I’ll say one more thing. The payouts. Didn’t he go on record saying that was his biggest regret? But it was also somewhat understandable, he was in huge pain physically and had a juggernaut industry and tonnes of advisors literally signing agreements for him and giving him terrible advice.

Well of course he has to say he regrets it! He could hardly say it was the best decision of his life and reinforce the rumours could he.
His lawyers produced some half assed hogwash that stated his insurance settled on his behalf and Michael had no say, but this has since transpired to be bs. They were subpoenaed for proof of this settlement (signed by this mysterious insurance company) by the prosecution in the 2005 trail but the defence filed a motion blocking this request, despite the fact it would have helped his case if anything as these documents would prove it was all settled without his consent. Also, small fact that Michael’s own signature is on the settlement.
Never mind the fact that California law does not settle for accusations of interference with minors.

I think he was a lot more calculated than you’re giving him credit for. I don’t for a second buy the fact that he was this dumbass innocent and an eternal victim of absolute misfortune through no fault of his own. He was the sole creator of a lot of his problems. I also see that there’s absolutely no point in having this discussion with you as we are both as stubborn as each other

so let’s both bow out now while we still like each other yeah? :pac:

But anyway.. that’s that. Sure at least we can be thankful that we still have Olly Murs

JohnCreedon81 · 03-03-2019 08:46PM

retro:electro wrote: »

Well of course he has to say he regrets it! He could hardly say it was the best decision of his life and reinforce the rumours could he.
His lawyers produced some half assed hogwash that stated his insurance settled on his behalf and Michael had no say, but this has since transpired to be bs. They were subpoenaed for proof of this settlement (signed by this mysterious insurance company) by the prosecution in the 2005 trail but the defence filed a motion blocking this request, despite the fact it would have helped his case if anything as these documents would prove it was all settled without his consent. Also, small fact that Michael’s own signature is on the settlement.
Never mind the fact that California law does not settle for accusations of interference with minors.

I think he was a lot more calculated than you’re giving him credit for. I don’t for a second buy the fact that he was this dumbass innocent and an eternal victim of absolute misfortune through no fault of his own. He was the sole creator of a lot of his problems. I also see that there’s absolutely no point in having this discussion with you as we are both as stubborn as each other so let’s both bow out now while we still like each other yeah? :pac:

But anyway.. that’s that. Sure at least we can be thankful that we still have Olly Murs

Like?! You used to love me you b!tch :pac:

Just FYI I think you’re fully justified in thinking he was a paedo. As you say, the evidence is not good.

However, this thread is about the documentary, and I find that severely questionable, and the 2 lads majorly suspect. Xo (still love you)

sligeach · 03-03-2019 09:00PM

Rush Hour 2 is starting on Virgin Media 1 now. You can enjoy the Michael Jackson references in the movie. Especially you retro:electro.

Mr.Nice Guy · 03-03-2019 10:19PM

JohnCreedon81 wrote: »

It was a completely bizarre situation. But say it’s s huge bed, with loads of teddies between them, fully clothed, lights on. It’s really hard to believe these lads when as others have pointed out, they already stood up in court under oath and DEFENDED him.

MJ was clearly not “normal”. But comparing his existence to Joe the plumber down the road is just ridiculous.

Was Joe trapped in some warped Peter Pan existence? Was Joe the biggest star of all time who got whatever he wanted, literally anything? Even if it’s a deeply fvcked up sleep over party with kids scenario?

The parents of all these kids should be the ones getting prosecuted and jailed.

Was MJ bananas and troubled? Clearly.

Was he a malicious sexual predator who was a violent paedophile who defiled loads of kids? I don’t think we’ll ever know.

I’d say he was just some tragic Peter Pan wannabe who was asexual if I was pushed to lay a verdict on him.

Would anybody be comfortable with a minor sleeping in a bed with an adult stranger no matter how big it was, or how many teddies were in it? I agree that the parents have a lot to answer for, but why should we allow the person who engaged in this behaviour a pass?

And would Joe the plumber's upbringing and lifestyle be given as much of a focus so as to defend his behaviour? I don't think so.

We know for a fact that he was on record as saying he enjoyed sleeping in bed with children. We know for a fact that he chose not to take the court case to its conclusion and clear his name, but to settle it. We know for a fact that multiple allegations have been made against him by children that slept in the same bed as him. We know for a fact that employees such as his former maid have alleged they witnessed abuse while working for him.

If Joe the plumber had a rap sheet like the above, how many would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt?

judeboy101 · 03-03-2019 10:21PM

brian_t wrote: »

Jimmy Saville is gone too.

Never arrested, never questioned, never charged, never found guilty. Just saying.

JohnCreedon81 · 03-03-2019 10:23PM

Joe the plumber doesn’t have endless wealth for people to feed off and have the incentive to make these false claims. The comparison you guys keep making to the average joe is simply ludicrous.

Mr.Nice Guy · 03-03-2019 11:00PM

JohnCreedon81 wrote: »

Joe the plumber doesn’t have endless wealth for people to feed off and have the incentive to make these false claims. The comparison you guys keep making to the average joe is simply ludicrous.

It's revealing that you reference his wealth and assume the claims are false and incentivised by money. Not the fact that this guy who confessed to sleeping in bed with minors may have actually had a sexual motive for doing so.

If one can accept that his desire to share a bed with children was abnormal, why is it then so difficult to accept he may have possessed abnormal sexual proclivities as a motive for doing so?

JohnCreedon81 · 03-03-2019 11:37PM

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It's revealing that you reference his wealth and assume the claims are false and incentivised by money. Not the fact that this guy who confessed to sleeping in bed with minors may have actually had a sexual motive for doing so.

If one can accept that his desire to share a bed with children was abnormal, why is it then so difficult to accept he may have possessed abnormal sexual proclivities as a motive for doing so?

My response about the money was directly in relation to “all the different witnesses”, I.e. their motivation.

The comparison to joe average is so lazy and pointless as it ignores basically all the context.

You’re essentially saying, man shared bed with kids, closed case. Paedo. Done and dusted.

You’re completely ignoring the possibility he was 6 feet away from them, maybe under a different duvet, maybe fully clothed, maybe with a maid or someone else in the room. It’s all pretty pointless when you ignore the context.

Yep, completely abnormal. Yep, highly suspect. Not a guarantee that he did anything to the kids for me though. Not at all a guarantee that he did anything to these 2 lads.

Again it’s their story this thread is about. He could even have been a paedo and still not done anything to these 2. Their whole story stinks of bullsh!t.

But hey, he slept in a bed with children who weren’t his. If you guys wanna ignore all the weird wacky context around that, then I don’t know why you bother even gathering any more information. Ye are simplifying it far too much. It’s not just “ah he’s a celeb and a bit wacky, leave him be.” It’s a massively complex situation.

But ya, for the 2nd time, before you reply with the simplistic “he slept in a bed with kids that weren’t his”, I’ll bow out of this utterly pointless debate.

BorneTobyWilde · 03-03-2019 11:49PM

Funny how estate don't buy Neverland and make money from it using it as a tourist day trip, bound to get 100,000 plus visitors a year at 100$ a pop/. A tour guide of the estate and house. Would be interesting to see.

sligeach · 04-03-2019 12:14AM

Why did the Michael Jackson Estate sell his 50% share of the Sony ATV catalogue when there was absolutely no need to do so? Michael never wanted to sell it and didn't, even when he was supposedly in financial difficulty. There was no such financial difficulty after his death. The Estate has earned well over $1 billion since Michael's death and that's minus the sold price of the catalogue. Sony always wanted it outright and so did many others. Whose boat did Oprah watch the Leaving Neverland movie on while celebrating her birthday recently? What has he ever been connected to or accused of? Oprah's getting a lot of stick over her upcoming interview with the two "victims" and rightly so. And there's a much deeper story here, though how you prove it, good luck with that. Maybe it's as much BS as this Leaving Neverland story is.

leggo · 04-03-2019 09:57AM

JohnCreedon81 wrote: »

You’re completely ignoring the possibility he was 6 feet away from them, maybe under a different duvet, maybe fully clothed, maybe with a maid or someone else in the room. It’s all pretty pointless when you ignore the context.

Maybe, maybe, maybe. If all this is the case, why go to such efforts to remove the children from their parents? Why is it important he sleeps in the same bed as them to begin with? Fair enough, he had a stunted childhood and had a Peter Pan-like quality yada yada yada, he liked hanging out with kids and wanted to give them a life he never had...but still, why is it important that this all ends with all of them sleeping in the same bed as him? Why is it important that the parents aren't there? With ALL of his advisors, whose entire livelihoods were staked in this guy continuing to prosper as an artist, there's no way he wasn't told at some stage to cover himself in some way when his behaviour with children was openly known. Yet he chose not to. This particular element, that's inappropriate before you even apply a sexual connotation to it, was essential to him. It caused difficulty with his marriage, but he still carried on. It was a dealbreaker that he had to sleep in the same bed as random, curated children who weren't his, no matter the consequences.

You're totally ignoring the loud and clear warning signs that this guy behaved in a way that, we know in 2019, is standard for predators and pedophiles. We've seen, time and time and time and time again over the past couple of years, how celebrities abused their power to get away with doing questionable things that normal people simply wouldn't. This guy used his to get the parents out of the picture and to sleep with children. None of that needed to happen to tick the boxes you claim he wanted ticked! There's an entirely appropriate way of doing everything you've laid out as his motivation and he made deliberate, conscious and complex efforts to do it differently. This is how predators act!

I'm sorry but people are baffled when they watch stuff like Abducted In Plain Sight and are like "How did the parents not know something was up?!" That's how Michael Jackson defenders sound to me. I was on the fence for years and heard both sides out, I've no axe to grind here and like his music as much as the next guy, but with context in 2019 and what we've now learned...it's just there, clear as day, that this dude was a nonce.

And it's kind of sickening, when we know that the established facts that he confessed to at the least are wildly inappropriate, that people will go to such lengths to try prove that people who claim abuse are liars. Like think about how damaging that would be to you if you were a victim of a pedophile, to have your name publicly dragged through the mud repeatedly by some strangers who simply weren't there, on top of everything else you've gone through. You're doing that to another human and for what? Because you like some songs? Come on.

valoren · 04-03-2019 11:02AM

The more scrutinized and investigated the claims against Jackson are is inversely proportional to how exonerated and vindicated Jackson becomes. This was a high profile celebrity with a level of fame that rendered him incapable of going out in public without an entourage, a man who was powerful enough to do whatever he wanted and have it enabled and indulged, a weird man who had a pet monkey and a naive man who had sleepovers with boys. Plaintiffs and prosecutors tried to convict him twice and nothing criminal could be found. Yes, he may well have have a predilection for prepubescent boys, he may well have been a pedophile but only he knows that and he is dead.

The bigger questions go down the rabbit hole of thought crime. Is it a crime for a pedophile to be sexually attracted to children? It isn't. Is it a crime to act on those sexual urges? Of course yet Jackson, who very well may have been a pedo, was never charged with any criminal offence. He got justice. Is it weird and highly inappropriate for a grown man to have sleepovers with boys. Of course it is, any rational person can see that.

The whole notion of Jackson's sexuality is subjective and considering he is dead, irrelevant but Robson, under oath, testified that nothing sexual and thus criminal happened between them. He, for me, has no credibility now, ten years after Jackson's death, to say that there was sexual abuse because when he was personally under the gun he foundered and confidently vindicated Jackson. To me that speaks volumes. Had he a thirst for fame, he'd have been the smoking gun, the victim who took down Jackson, who was the big game for rapacious prosecutors who scrambled and failed to find anything incriminating. Robson would have made a fortune from selling his story, book deals, TV appearances, a movie of the week etc. He would be a household name. Anyone accepting his changed tack as proof of Jackson being a pedo is very gullible.

retro:electro · 04-03-2019 11:05AM

JohnCreedon81 wrote: »

Joe the plumber doesn’t have endless wealth for people to feed off and have the incentive to make these false claims. The comparison you guys keep making to the average joe is simply ludicrous.

The music industry in the 90’s was rife with plenty of wealthy multi million dollar pop stars who could have fallen victim to accusations.. why was it always the man who preferred the company of little boys over his wife and made it his business to sleep in bed with them?

So unfortunate :pac:

JohnCreedon81 · 04-03-2019 11:07AM

retro:electro wrote: »

The music industry in the 90’s was rife with plenty of wealthy multi million dollar pop stars who could have fallen victim to accusations.. why was it always the man who preferred the company of little boys over his wife and made it his business to sleep in bed with them?

So unfortunate :pac:

Seriously? I told you I was done, fvck off :pac:

retro:electro · 04-03-2019 11:11AM

No!!!

spodoinkle · 04-03-2019 11:22AM

innuendo141 wrote: »

They've pulled his music from BBC 2 radio apparently. So much for letting people decide for themselves.

Ray Darcy also said he wont play his music again.

valoren · 04-03-2019 12:23PM

spodoinkle wrote: »

Ray Darcy also said he wont play his music again.

...who also said he'd leave the country if Enda Kenny ever became Taoiseach.

Leaving Neverland - Michael Jackson Documentary [HBO]

Comments