Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Leaving Neverland - Michael Jackson Documentary [HBO]

1…6791112…27

Comments

  • #242
    den87
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 531 ✭✭✭den87


    Finished in one sitting today (yes, tough going). To be honest I don’t believe Wade Robson or his family one bit it could just be their manner or the way they speak but something doesn’t add up in the story they tell.

    On the otherhand I believe Safechuck 100%, he’s definitely been scarred by what he’s been through.

    I think you have to draw the line at Neverlands doors, we don’t know what happened there or we don’t have concrete evidence to fully back up these two men’s (or other victims stories) so in one sense it’s up to everyone to make up their mind based on what way they feel or how they interpreted the claims/documentary/articles etc.

    What’s undisputable (in my opinion) is that Michael in a way was grooming these boys and playing a game with their parents, he also undisputedly shared beds with underage boys, again you have to make up your own mind on what you want to believe happened after in and round those beds and rooms.

    I know what side I’ve chosen and I probably don’t want to hear or see anything that has to do with MJ ever again.


  • #243
    martingriff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,342 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    den87 wrote: »
    Finished in one sitting today (yes, tough going). To be honest I don’t believe Wade Robson or his family one bit it could just be their manner or the way they speak but something doesn’t add up in the story they tell.

    On the otherhand I believe Safechuck 100%, he’s definitely been scarred by what he’s been through.

    I think you have to draw the line at Neverlands doors, we don’t know what happened there or we don’t have concrete evidence to fully back up these two men’s (or other victims stories) so in one sense it’s up to everyone to make up their mind based on what way they feel or how they interpreted the claims/documentary/articles etc.

    What’s undisputable (in my opinion) is that Michael in a way was grooming these boys and playing a game with their parents, he also undisputedly shared beds with underage boys, again you have to make up your own mind on what you want to believe happened after in and round those beds and rooms.

    I know what side I’ve chosen and I probably don’t want to hear or see anything that has to do with MJ ever again.



    It is not in dispute he slept with the kids its just was it's just sleeping.

    But the bit in bold why now. We have had 25 years? of allegation why is this the 1 to make you say no more of his music. It is a question I love to ask stations who now will ban his music.


  • #244
    sligeach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,898 ✭✭✭✭sligeach


    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.

    I don't get why people keep mentioning O.J Simpson and comparing him to MJ. They were both high profile cases, yes and they were both black. But O.J Simpson got off because the police tampered with the evidence, not because he was innocent.

    Michael Jackson was found innocent because the evidence spoke for itself and he was innocent. And yes, Tom Sneddon, the lead prosecutor was caught trying to tamper with the evidence.


  • #245
    den87
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 531 ✭✭✭den87


    martingriff wrote: »
    [/B]

    It is not in dispute he slept with the kids its just was it's just sleeping.

    But the bit in bold why now. We have had 25 years? of allegation why is this the 1 to make you say no more of his music. It is a question I love to ask stations who now will ban his music.

    Fair point, I can only answer for myself and all I can say is I’ve never watched anything that had this amount of information on the subject, now i have and now I’ve made up my mind. I was 16 when the Bashir documentary broadcast and didn’t really pay attention to it.


  • #246
    sligeach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,898 ✭✭✭✭sligeach


    den87 wrote: »
    Finished in one sitting today (yes, tough going). To be honest I don’t believe Wade Robson or his family one bit it could just be their manner or the way they speak but something doesn’t add up in the story they tell.

    On the otherhand I believe Safechuck 100%, he’s definitely been scarred by what he’s been through.

    I think you have to draw the line at Neverlands doors, we don’t know what happened there or we don’t have concrete evidence to fully back up these two men’s (or other victims stories) so in one sense it’s up to everyone to make up their mind based on what way they feel or how they interpreted the claims/documentary/articles etc.

    What’s undisputable (in my opinion) is that Michael in a way was grooming these boys and playing a game with their parents, he also undisputedly shared beds with underage boys, again you have to make up your own mind on what you want to believe happened after in and round those beds and rooms.

    I know what side I’ve chosen and I probably don’t want to hear or see anything that has to do with MJ ever again.

    James Safechuck was found to be just as dishonest as Robson by the judge in their failed lawsuits against the Michael Jackson Estate. His case was thrown out earlier than Robson's. And he lied in the mockumentary.
    "Safechuck’s frivolous lawsuits were dismissed so early in the proceedings that significant discovery was never taken in his case, and he was able to avoid having his deposition taken and producing documents. But even in his sworn declarations in the litigations, there are clear signs that he is lying and trying to construct a false story of abuse from his vague memories of his interactions with Jackson."

    https://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress.com/2019/02/09/michael-jackson-estate-letter-of-facts-debunking-leaving-neverland/


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    martingriff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,342 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    den87 wrote: »
    Fair point, I can only answer for myself and all I can say is I’ve never watched anything that had this amount of information on the subject, now i have and now I’ve made up my mind. I was 16 when the Bashir documentary broadcast and didn’t really pay attention to it.

    Fair enough thanks. Would you listen to covers of his songs. I hope you dont think i an having a go at you with these questions

    I have allways thought there was something up with Jackson be it he is as cruel as Saville or a man in a boys body. That last bit does not absolve Jackson of anything he may have done. I suppose I can separate the music for the 2 to 3 songs I like to the man.


  • #248
    martingriff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,342 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    sligeach wrote: »
    James Safechuck was found to be just as dishonest as Robson by the judge in their failed lawsuits against the Michael Jackson Estate. His case was thrown out earlier than Robson's. And he lied in the mockumentary.



    https://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress.com/2019/02/09/michael-jackson-estate-letter-of-facts-debunking-leaving-neverland/

    Did I hear right both are appealing


  • #249
    den87
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 531 ✭✭✭den87


    sligeach wrote: »
    James Safechuck was found to be just as dishonest as Robson by the judge in their failed lawsuits against the Michael Jackson Estate. His case was thrown out earlier than Robson's. And he lied in the mockumentary.



    https://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress.com/2019/02/09/michael-jackson-estate-letter-of-facts-debunking-leaving-neverland/

    I’m convinced!!!! am changing my opinion now thanks.


  • #250
    den87
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 531 ✭✭✭den87


    martingriff wrote: »
    Fair enough thanks. Would you listen to covers of his songs. I hope you dont think i an having a go at you with these questions

    I have allways thought there was something up with Jackson be it he is as cruel as Saville or a man in a boys body. That last bit does not absolve Jackson of anything he may have done. I suppose I can separate the music for the 2 to 3 songs I like to the man.

    Can’t answer that because I honestly don’t know. Maybe in time I can separate music from the man but now, no.


  • #251
    sligeach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,898 ✭✭✭✭sligeach


    martingriff wrote: »
    Did I hear right both are appealing

    Yes, it's not their first appeal. God knows what they'll put in this amendment, given the craziness in their 4th amended complaint. They produced no evidence in the mockumentary.
    DwyGPuJXgAACz6C.jpg

    DwyGScHW0AEV6mG.jpg

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    stop animal cruelty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,012 ✭✭✭stop animal cruelty


    Can the documentary be viewed online? Might rte/tv3 show it?


  • #253
    fritzelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,116 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    stop animal cruelty wrote: »
    Can the documentary be viewed online? Might rte/tv3 show it?

    Unlikely for a long while if ever, sign up for a Netflix free trial


  • #254
    brian_t
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,890 ✭✭✭brian_t


    Leaving Neverland is repeated tonight (Saturday) and tomorrow on 4Seven at 10pm.


  • #255
    Mr.Nice Guy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,643 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Nice Guy


    Michael Jackson was a paedophile. I'm convinced of that, now.

    I watched the second part and I believe the two men. I think they've been very brave coming forward when you consider what they have had to put up with from the fanatics out there. The smear tactics, the lawyer threats, the personal abuse. I respect their courage and their search for justice.

    I don't believe for one moment this is motivated by money. One of the men talked about how he was tormented with images of his own child being abused by Jackson. I don't think that's something a person puts out there to boost their bank balance.

    I thought it was interesting when the sister talked about how she had been a fierce critic of those accusing Jackson, even testifying on his behalf more than once, and then when her brother told her he had been abused she found herself on the other side. I thought the older brother in that Australian family came across well and didn't pull any punches about any of it.

    Regarding the case, I was shaking my head listening to that one juror who said she took offence at one of the mothers clicking her fingers at them and seeming to insinuate this influenced her decision to acquit him ffs. One of the jurors who was convinced Jackson was guilty I think hit the nail on the head when he said no adult is sleeping in a bed 365 days a year with a child just to eat popcorn and play games.

    I'm sure there are others out there that Jackson abused who can't yet bring themselves to confront it. Possibly some famous names. When you see the attacks on these two men who have come forward you can see how hard it would be to do likewise, but I hope one day they are able to do so.


  • #256
    sligeach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,898 ✭✭✭✭sligeach


    ERG89 wrote: »
    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.

    Remember the song "Do the Bartman"? There's a bit of confusion over it. Michael did the background vocals, he co-wrote and co-produced it as well. It got to number 1 in many countries including Ireland and the UK. And it has a line in the song with his name. But because of his contract with Sony he wasn’t allowed receive credit, it's the same reason Michael's name wasn't in the credits for the episode "Stark Raving Dad". Will that song ever be allowed to be played again now?


  • #257
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    stop animal cruelty wrote: »
    Can the documentary be viewed online?

    You've got mail.


  • #258
    joe40
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭joe40


    martingriff wrote: »
    den87 wrote: »
    Finished in one sitting today (yes, tough going). To be honest I don’t believe Wade Robson or his family one bit it could just be their manner or the way they speak but something doesn’t add up in the story they tell.

    On the otherhand I believe Safechuck 100%, he’s definitely been scarred by what he’s been through.

    I think you have to draw the line at Neverlands doors, we don’t know what happened there or we don’t have concrete evidence to fully back up these two men’s (or other victims stories) so in one sense it’s up to everyone to make up their mind based on what way they feel or how they interpreted the claims/documentary/articles etc.

    What’s undisputable (in my opinion) is that Michael in a way was grooming these boys and playing a game with their parents, he also undisputedly shared beds with underage boys, again you have to make up your own mind on what you want to believe happened after in and round those beds and rooms.

    I know what side I’ve chosen and I probably don’t want to hear or see anything that has to do with MJ ever again.



    It is not in dispute he slept with the kids its just was it's just sleeping.

    But the bit in bold why now. We have had 25 years? of allegation why is this the 1 to make you say no more of his music. It is a question I love to ask stations who now will ban his music.
    I feel exactly the same way as Martin about this, and your question is valid why now.
    For me I think it is we have matured as a society in relation to child abuse and child grooming. The church scandals really opened our eyes to the damage that child abuse caused, it is taken much more seriously now.
    The Michael Jackson stuff with all the kids (the public stuff that is) would never be accepted nowadays but only 30 odd years ago it was tolerated.
    Maybe it is not just ireland that has matured in our attitudes towards child protection.


  • #259
    sligeach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,898 ✭✭✭✭sligeach


    https://twitter.com/MJJCommunity/status/1104071525643227136


  • #260
    BorneTobyWilde
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,591 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde


    We're living in the age of guilty until proven innocent, so the man has no chance. Everyone will shun Michael Jackson and everything he achieved because of a very well spun documentary. One could easily make another documentary praising him and after watching you'd want him to be made a Saint. This is what a documentary does, it tells you what to think, what to believe.


  • #261
    fritzelly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,116 ✭✭✭✭fritzelly


    sligeach wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/MJJCommunity/status/1104071525643227136

    Is this related to the company /charity created with no connection to him...or paper trail of where the money is going and why in hawaii???
    2019 they decide to do this, they are a very cold calculating family


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    Mr.Nice Guy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,643 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Nice Guy


    BorneTobyWilde wrote: »
    We're living in the age of guilty until proven innocent, so the man has no chance. Everyone will shun Michael Jackson and everything he achieved because of a very well spun documentary. One could easily make another documentary praising him and after watching you'd want him to be made a Saint. This is what a documentary does, it tells you what to think, what to believe.

    Yet earlier in the thread you said you thought he was innocent and that the documentary changed your mind. Did he not have a chance with you?
    BorneTobyWilde wrote:
    After watching the whole 4 hours I'm thinking it was probably true, and i've defended Michael up to this point. The last hour of it is what convinces me, the family stuff, the fallout within the two families once they told them it was true. It tore them apart, Wade's mom is an outcast, hated by Wades brother and sister for allowing Wade to stay with Michael.

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109599036&postcount=165


  • #263
    leggo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭leggo


    I find it amusing how people are screaming “ONE-SIDED DOCUMENTARY” while only posting one-sided evidence from non-credible sources trying to prove their own point. 2019 is weird.


  • #264
    fryup
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,067 ✭✭✭✭fryup


    ^^^^^^^^^^^

    but it was a one-sided documentary there was hardly any counter argument in it


  • #265
    leggo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭leggo


    So was ‘Abducted In Plain Sight’, so was ‘Fyre’, so was the Ted Bundy series, that didn’t give any time to ask what if he didn’t commit the murders. You need to learn the purpose of a documentary before slating it for something that isn’t even its job. It is a piece of entertainment telling a non-fiction story. You don’t have to accept or believe everything in it, but the purpose of it was to take these people’s story as fact and focus on their story. The Jackson estate is more than welcome to sue if they can prove claims made in it were untrue. However it’s also extremely unlikely that a company the size of HBO would allow such defamatory accusations to go completely unchecked.


  • #266
    fryup
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,067 ✭✭✭✭fryup


    ^^^^^^^^^^^

    well i think HBO were duped in this case


  • #267
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,510 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Obviously people will have different opinions on things. I know if I was on a jury in this case that I would be voting not guilty and be very confident that I'm.making the right decision.


  • #268
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,216 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    BorneTobyWilde wrote: »
    We're living in the age of guilty until proven innocent, so the man has no chance. Everyone will shun Michael Jackson and everything he achieved because of a very well spun documentary. One could easily make another documentary praising him and after watching you'd want him to be made a Saint. This is what a documentary does, it tells you what to think, what to believe.
    The guys behaviour would never be tolerated today.
    There's plenty stuff backing up either side out there. You've got to make up your own mind on it but essentially his behaviour had all the hallmarks of a Peado and would not be tolerated today.
    The fact that there are literally millions of people out there including yourself from what I can see, who believe his behaviour was appropriate boggles the mind to be honest. I am talking a out the verified behaviour, not the allegations.
    I don't think it really matters whether he or his achievements are shunned to be honest. He's dead. His behaviour was not normal and there are multiple people who have said he was an abuser.


  • #269
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,216 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    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

    These are not good defenses......


  • #270
    leggo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭leggo


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Obviously people will have different opinions on things. I know if I was on a jury in this case that I would be voting not guilty and be very confident that I'm.making the right decision.

    Once again, not a court case, a documentary. Its only job is to tell these people’s stories in order to inform, entertain and challenge an audience, not prove anything beyond reasonable doubt for the purpose of prosecuting a criminal. It’s like saying a footballer’s performance in a match was poor because he didn’t get a hole in one. I mean, nobody can stop you having that opinion, but also you’re criticising someone for something that wasn’t their job, so it’s just the ramblings of someone who doesn’t understand context really and, incidentally, that would probably disqualify you from jury duty in this court case you’ve imagined.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,510 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    leggo wrote:
    Once again, not a court case, a documentary. Its only job is to tell these people’s stories in order to inform, entertain and challenge an audience, not prove anything beyond reasonable doubt for the purpose of prosecuting a criminal. It’s like saying a footballer’s performance in a match was poor because he didn’t get a hole in one. I mean, nobody can stop you having that opinion, but also you’re criticising someone for something that wasn’t their job, so it’s just the ramblings of someone who doesn’t understand context really and, incidentally, that would probably disqualify you from jury duty in this court case you’ve imagined.
    People are using the documentary to say he is guilty.
    I'm using the same documentary to say I'm confident he is innocent.
    If I'm going to be disqualified so are all of those people.
    I'm just saying that based on that documentary as the evidence my decision would be not guilty.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement