Leaving Neverland - Michael Jackson Documentary [HBO]

jimbobaloobob · 08-03-2019 01:28AM

Would be interesting to see a poll Split of what people's perception is of MJ now.

shamrock55 · 08-03-2019 01:39AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just finished the whole thing. It's very convincing. I won't be avoiding his music out of protest or anything.

Of course it's very convincing, that's what it's ment to be, it's totally one sided with no proof whatsoever, zilch

Pete Moss · 08-03-2019 01:42AM

fritzelly wrote:

Most teachers, babysitters... Remember one time babysitting some kids and they were playing with lego - had forgotten how much fun it was. Another time grabbed my nephew and niece to go see Never Ending Story as I was about 20 and woulda felt weird seeing it by myself. Is it all that strange to enjoy being around kids, hell they make you feel younger

I agree. Kids attitudes and view of the world can help put things in perspective. It's good to have fun, and that's what kids like to do.

A lecturer in college once mentioned how people never really grow old internally. When people are honest, they still get a massive kick out of doing what they loved to do as kids!

However, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Jackson, as an adult, and no matter how much people say "he was basically a child himself" the stone cold fact remains that he was an adult, crossed that line.

He was fully capable of making decisions, and most importantly, understanding the consequences of those decisions in every aspect of his professional life. This guy was not naive or childish when it came to his professional reputation and output. I don't believe he was naive and completely childish in his personal life either.

Ultimately, in my opinion, I think the truth in this documentary is in the middle. The timing of the latest allegations and cries for financial retribution do stink. That said, there are far too many red flags when it comes to Jackson and his relationships with countless young boys throughout the decades. He was never found to be guilty of any wrongdoing, but it doesn't make him innocent.

sligeach · 08-03-2019 01:46AM

fritzelly wrote: »

Oooh thats a great read

It's unreal and it shows the lengths that they're willing to go to to try and get money from the Estate. But you don't hear the media talking about this. It's so crazy, I'm going to embed the images direct, in case some didn’t click on them and some can't read Tweets as they may be in work.

I hope the people accused in MJJ Ventures and MJJ Productions countersue them. Better yet, I hope Robson and Safechuck have a criminal case to answer to.

fritzelly · 08-03-2019 01:54AM

Pete Moss wrote: »

He was never found to be guilty of any wrongdoing, but it doesn't make him innocent.

When did "innocent until proven guilty" get expunged from all law books
Multiple investigations never found anything, multiple testimonies go against the few that alleged something. These two guys even into adult life defended him but now decide to make a documentary detailing stuff that I actually found hard to imagine would happen with a paedophile - one thing that stuck with me is the whole licking his bum I found really weird, in any cases that have been in the news I've never heard that come out. Then again I wouuldn't be an expert on this thank god

BorneTobyWilde · 08-03-2019 02:03AM

Oh my God, can't believe what I saw on the TV this evening
I was disgusted by all the injustice
All the injustice

With such delusions don't it make you wanna scream
You're bash abusin' victimize within the scheme

You try to cope with every lie they scrutinize
Oh brother please have mercy 'cause I just can't take it

Stop pressurin' me
Just stop pressurin' me
Stop pressurin' me
Stop fcking with me!
You make me wanna scream!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P4A1K4lXDo

ppn · 08-03-2019 02:26AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you name me anyone else in history who never grew up and liked to play kids games. It's a strange excuse.

Can you name another person in history like Michael Jackson? The 'King of Pop', love him or hate him, he was an American music icon of the 80's and 90's that the world had never seen before or since. No doubt he was a strange fish (I guess in part due to his upbringing) but there was a time when everybody knew who he was young or old. (The only other I can think of offhand with similar recognition would be Princess Diana). Can't say the same about any of the superstars nowadays.

ppn · 08-03-2019 03:00AM

sligeach wrote: »

Their careers weren't in great shape, financial difficulties, marriage difficulties in the case of Robson, they're scum. They're looking for a massive payday. Dead men can't defend themselves or sue them. Robson also would have been guilty of perjury until around June 2012. He wrote a draft of his book in late 2012/early 2013. Early 2013 is around when legal proceedings started by Robson. Safechuck joined in in 2014 and they used the same law firm.

Have done a lot of back reading on the accusers here since this 'documentary' was muted and have to agree that Robson in particular is a real scumbag.

To add to the discussion, when you look closely into the history of accusations against MJ, they begin to stink from Jordan Chandler's father Evan trying to extort money to advance his career with the help of a fabricated book penned by Victor Gutierrez (a career liar).

Victor Gutierrez is a guy worth looking up for anyone who is 100% than Jackson was guilty.

Seems the allegations stemmed from this opportunist originally in the early 80's. Another name, the Arvizo's (who had a history of welfare fraud, shoplifting and sexual abuse allegations against others).

And what's this I read about Wade Robson's original 'nothing ever happened' story only changing after he was denied the 'Cirque to Soleil MJ One' Director's job? Apparently the guy is stone cold broke now.

It's a pity people didn't actually look into the background in the slightest before taking this 'documentary' as gospel. Tom Dunne on Newstalk today lapped it up without even a suspicion of deception - hope he never gets serious jury duty.

Chilling to know that you can be tried and sentenced by social media nowadays without ever standing up for yourself.

(Sure 'Wacko Jacko' was odd but he was also rich and famous beyond dreams - he was always going to be a 'perceived' easy target).

Pete Moss · 08-03-2019 03:34AM

fritzelly wrote:

When did "innocent until proven guilty" get expunged from all law books

Well, he never faced the charges for the allegations in the 90s, the first allegations of sexual abuse.

Instead, his legal team advised to settle. So that was more of an "innocent until the money runs out" approach to the legal system.

Who needs law books when you have cheque books, I suppose.

08-03-2019 03:44AM

lol at the people still defending Jackson. Just admit that you don't give a sh1t that he's a child molester. You're not bothered that he was into kids. Trying to frame it like he was your idol, a musical genius, grew up with his music...blah blah blah.

So what if his accusers aren't pillars of the community....would you be well adjusted after their experiences at the hands of such a deviant? MJ had a succession of young boy "friends" who slept with him in his bed. He moved onto another pre-pubescent when the incumbent got older. He settled a previous case.

His "fans" are so gullible, uncaring or just plain naive that they will idolise a deviant.

terryduff12 · 08-03-2019 04:34AM

They should have bound his hand and just threw him into a lake if he floated he was guilty if he drowned he was innocent, easiest way to prove if he was a paedophile. and as for Louis Theroux he interview jimmy Savile and hadn't a clue.

leggo · 08-03-2019 09:21AM

fritzelly wrote: »

Most teachers, babysitters...
Remember one time babysitting some kids and they were playing with lego - had forgotten how much fun it was. Another time grabbed my nephew and niece to go see Never Ending Story as I was about 20 and woulda felt weird seeing it by myself.
Is it all that strange to enjoy being around kids, hell they make you feel younger

Did you then insist they slept in your bed with you without the parents around? Because that's what happened here. Did you curate and 'select' these kids you were playing with? Seeing them on TV or some other way then making it your business to find them to 'play lego with'? Because that's also what happened here. And did you discard these children when they grew up like they were nothing because they weren't young enough to 'play lego with you' anymore? Yep, that's what happened here.

If you didn't, your post is just a story about how you played lego once, which doesn't really have anything to do with Michael Jackson does it?

08-03-2019 10:02AM

ppn wrote: »

Have done a lot of back reading on the accusers here since this 'documentary' was muted and have to agree that Robson in particular is a real scumbag.

To add to the discussion, when you look closely into the history of accusations against MJ, they begin to stink from Jordan Chandler's father Evan trying to extort money to advance his career with the help of a fabricated book penned by Victor Gutierrez (a career liar).

Victor Gutierrez is a guy worth looking up for anyone who is 100% than Jackson was guilty.

Seems the allegations stemmed from this opportunist originally in the early 80's. Another name, the Arvizo's (who had a history of welfare fraud, shoplifting and sexual abuse allegations against others).

And what's this I read about Wade Robson's original 'nothing ever happened' story only changing after he was denied the 'Cirque to Soleil MJ One' Director's job? Apparently the guy is stone cold broke now.

It's a pity people didn't actually look into the background in the slightest before taking this 'documentary' as gospel. Tom Dunne on Newstalk today lapped it up without even a suspicion of deception - hope he never gets serious jury duty.

Chilling to know that you can be tried and sentenced by social media nowadays without ever standing up for yourself.

(Sure 'Wacko Jacko' was odd but he was also rich and famous beyond dreams - he was always going to be a 'perceived' easy target).

People in the public eye are in a bind. Imagine they came out with skepticism. They'd be ostricised.

nc6000 · 08-03-2019 10:14AM

The bit I didn't believe was when one of them was now older and saying they had basically been dropped by Jackson and no longer heard from him. This changed when Jackson wanted something from him and as soon as they met up again the abuse literally started up again the same day.

This apparently happened twice.

I find that hard to believe.

brian_t · 08-03-2019 11:33AM

'It comes to a point where as an advocate for victims, as an advocate for changing the statutes of limitations to make sure victims' voices are heard, it becomes impossible for me to remain virtuous and not at least consider what's being said and not listen to what the victims are saying.

'This is very important. We must give them their voice. We must allow them to speak, and therefore we must consider all sides of this, even as uncomfortable as that may be.'

Corey Feldman on CNN yesterday.

gerbilgranny · 08-03-2019 12:09PM

jimbobaloobob wrote: »

Would be interesting to see a poll Split of what people's perception is of MJ now.

After episode 1, ad hoc polls on Twitter were something like 65% saying MJ was innocent...after episode 2 that reversed completely.

I do think the wives' testimonies were overwhelmingly convincing, and I'm sad to think that if the men were gay and childless, without the added dimension of 'how this impacted on their lives as fathers and husbands', less people would have believed their stories.

Mervyn Skidmore · 08-03-2019 12:12PM

gerbilgranny wrote: »

After episode 1, ad hoc polls on Twitter were something like 65% saying MJ was innocent...after episode 2 that reversed completely.

I do think the wives' testimonies were overwhelmingly convincing, and I'm sad to think that if the men were gay and childless, without the added dimension of 'how this impacted on their lives as fathers and husbands', less people would have believed their stories.

Well if twitter polls say so, then it must be true.

JohnCreedon81 · 08-03-2019 12:29PM

Mervyn Skidmore wrote: »

Well if twitter polls say so, then it must be true.

How dare you have common sense!! Wait for the paedo defender accusations to roll in :pac:

ERG89 · 08-03-2019 01:10PM

https://twitter.com/latimesent/status/1103858525795696640?s=19

Stuff like this is so dumb, people won't forget the episode existed.
It's like people distancing themselves from R Kelly now after his doc, it's not like these allegations were suddenly a recent revelation. They have lasted 2 decades for a reason.

homerun_homer · 08-03-2019 01:58PM

I saw this on a friend's twitter after it aired, and given the documentary doesn't have a back and forth from both sides of the fence, it left me wondering what it would be like if wasn't just one sided. I came out of the doc ultimately believing them, but if this is true then I'd like to hear what Robson's response is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHvmi_Cr8QY

leggo · 08-03-2019 02:21PM

I don’t get people’s outrage at media companies making decisions not to advertise his art.

1) This has happened for ages when an artist is found guilty or suspected/accused of horrific crimes. Haven’t heard many Gary Glitter or Lostprophets tracks lately.

2) Media companies don’t want to be seen as endorsing this behaviour or supporting them in any way. It’s not as if they’re attacking either, though, or telling their employees to push a negative message. There’s a difference between ‘not endorsing’ and ‘attacking’. Anyone with even a slight concept of nuance can see that.

SozBbz · 08-03-2019 03:47PM

Pretty disgusted by some of the comments here. Equating working with children in the normal sense (teachers, babysitters) to what MJ publically admitted to. How many local teachers, babysitters etc do you know who single out young children and invite them to stay in their rooms at night, for one night let alone weeks at a time.

Whether you believe Robson and Safechuck is one thing, but even the stuff that is not in dispute (sleepovers, the success friendships with cute boys in a certain age range) was not normal and not in any childs interest. MJ acted in his own interests only the fact that he left a lot of damaged people in his wake tells its own story.

I do however believe them. A victim doesnt have to have lead an otherwise blameless existence to be telling the truth. You don't have to think that an individual is a blameless person in order for them to be credible in these matters.

Finally a lot of people are conveniently forgetting the scene where a member of MJs legal team gave a speech on the courthouse steps basically threatening anyone who dared to challenge MJ with "a legal force the likes of which the world has never seen".

Ashbourne hoop · 08-03-2019 04:41PM

leggo wrote: »

I don’t get people’s outrage at media companies making decisions not to advertise his art.

1) This has happened for ages when an artist is found guilty or suspected/accused of horrific crimes. Haven’t heard many Gary Glitter or Lostprophets tracks lately.

2) Media companies don’t want to be seen as endorsing this behaviour or supporting them in any way. It’s not as if they’re attacking either, though, or telling their employees to push a negative message. There’s a difference between ‘not endorsing’ and ‘attacking’. Anyone with even a slight concept of nuance can see that.

Yeah but why now ? Why not in 1993 or in 2004 when there was an actual legal case based on the accusations of Gavin Arvizo ? Seems a bit "reactive" to be banning his music based on a one sided documentary.

leggo · 08-03-2019 04:55PM

We lived in a culture that regularly tore victims and accusers to shreds back then, whereas now we’ve learned enough to take them seriously. Look at reactions to the OJ Simpson case for a good example of this. Celebrities were put on a pedestal and anyone seen as trying to take them down had to face having their character shredded piece-by-piece by people who had no way of knowing for sure the truth of the claims but didn’t want to believe them. A quick look at this thread reveals that attitude hasn’t entirely gone, but fortunately time and context has made those who do so look like lunatics now.

Ashbourne hoop · 08-03-2019 05:07PM

I get that to an extent. But the rush to remove his work now based on two accusations, which he may very well be innocent of, in a one sided documentary,just doesn't sit well with me. It smacks of "look at me" from the companies involved.

I've watched the first part. Genuinely don't know what to make of it. Pretty devastating testimony from Safechuck and Robson. Every question you may have about their truthfulness can be answered by what we know about other victims of child sexual abuse, although their are question marks in relation to their court cases against the Jackson company. Don't know if Jackson abused those boys but he clearly had an unhealthy interest in young boys and a grown man should not be sharing a bed with children who are not related to him.

SozBbz · 08-03-2019 05:12PM

leggo wrote: »

We lived in a culture that regularly tore victims and accusers to shreds back then, whereas now we’ve learned enough to take them seriously. Look at reactions to the OJ Simpson case for a good example of this. Celebrities were put on a pedestal and anyone seen as trying to take them down had to face having their character shredded piece-by-piece by people who had no way of knowing for sure the truth of the claims but didn’t want to believe them. A quick look at this thread reveals that attitude hasn’t entirely gone, but fortunately time and context has made those who do so look like lunatics now.

Absolutely this.

The OJ case defies logic when you look at it in a 2019 context but it was a product of its time. Times have changed however and celebrities are not as protected in their ivory towers as they once were.

Some extremely disappointing victim blaming/shaming going on here.

As I said in my previous post, the accusors don't need to be perfect human beings. In reality, it stand to reason that htey're both messed up and are from families that are far from perfect. Does any of that mean they're lying about this?

If I had my handbag robbed from me in the street, id be treated as a victim of crime, it would be straight forward. My motives in carrying a handbag would not be an issue. They type of handbag would not be an issue. Any previous history involving handbags would not be an issue. But in rape/sexual assault cases, the complainants are always smeared, to undermine credibility or to minimilise the crime.

Think before you jump to defending people, especially famous people who you don't know.

08-03-2019 06:45PM

homerun_homer wrote: »

I saw this on a friend's twitter after it aired, and given the documentary doesn't have a back and forth from both sides of the fence, it left me wondering what it would be like if wasn't just one sided. I came out of the doc ultimately believing them, but if this is true then I'd like to hear what Robson's response is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHvmi_Cr8QY

I copied your link and posted it in AH. I think you've made a very good point. I'd be interested to see the views of people who would listen to this first, and then watch the so called "documentary". Would people be so quick as to come to their conclusions and state that they 100% believe everything stated in this film?
I do wonder.

Smertrius · 08-03-2019 09:59PM

if he was paedophile then why would the kids go back to him more the once with the parent wishes , If he did have sex with the kids the kids would complain the next day

Michael never interested with men he loved women

his 1st was during his teens with Tatum O'Neal

his 2nd love diana ross 1970s
his 3rd love was Lisa Marie Presley 1974
his 4th love was a romance with model Brooke Shields in 1981.

Having first been introduced to Lisa Marie Presley by her father, Elvis, in 1974, Jackson reconnected with Lisa Marie in November 1992.[4] Shortly after becoming involved with her, in 1993, In a telephone call, he proposed marriage to Presley. She agreed, and the two wed on May 26, 1994, at a private ceremony in the Dominican Republic. Married life for the couple was difficult, and the union ended in divorce in August 1996. Presley and Jackson continued to date, on and off, for four more years after their divorce.

Jackson wed the pregnant Rowe on November 13, 1996, in Sydney, Australia. From the marriage, two of Jackson's three children were produced: son Michael Joseph "Prince" Jackson, Jr. (born February 13, 1997) and daughter Paris Michael Katherine Jackson (born April 3, 1998). Jackson and Rowe divorced on October 8, 1999, with Rowe giving full custody rights of the children to Jackson. His third and final child, son Prince Michael Jackson II, was born to an unnamed surrogate mother on February 21, 2002.

If he was really a pedophile he would done same to his own childen , But he didn't
so these are all lies

fryup · 08-03-2019 11:19PM

take time to watch this interview with the director, Piers Morgan asks some probing questions...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUvS9rTdzes

The Crowman · 08-03-2019 11:50PM

Smertrius wrote: »

if he was paedophile then why would the kids go back to him more the once with the parent wishes , If he did have sex with the kids the kids would complain the next day

Michael never interested with men he loved women

his 1st was during his teens with Tatum O'Neal

his 2nd love diana ross 1970s
his 3rd love was Lisa Marie Presley 1974
his 4th love was a romance with model Brooke Shields in 1981.

Having first been introduced to Lisa Marie Presley by her father, Elvis, in 1974, Jackson reconnected with Lisa Marie in November 1992.[4] Shortly after becoming involved with her, in 1993, In a telephone call, he proposed marriage to Presley. She agreed, and the two wed on May 26, 1994, at a private ceremony in the Dominican Republic. Married life for the couple was difficult, and the union ended in divorce in August 1996. Presley and Jackson continued to date, on and off, for four more years after their divorce.

Jackson wed the pregnant Rowe on November 13, 1996, in Sydney, Australia. From the marriage, two of Jackson's three children were produced: son Michael Joseph "Prince" Jackson, Jr. (born February 13, 1997) and daughter Paris Michael Katherine Jackson (born April 3, 1998). Jackson and Rowe divorced on October 8, 1999, with Rowe giving full custody rights of the children to Jackson. His third and final child, son Prince Michael Jackson II, was born to an unnamed surrogate mother on February 21, 2002.

If he was really a pedophile he would done same to his own childen , But he didn't
so these are all lies

How do you know he didn't?

Leaving Neverland - Michael Jackson Documentary [HBO]

Comments