Leaving Neverland - Michael Jackson Documentary [HBO]

leggo wrote: »

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.

I don't think the Jackson estate has to sue as they're already owed legal fees by these two fellows from previously failed attempts to sue for damages.

Anyway, in the case of this documentary I've no interest in defending Jackson. Can't get past a 30 something year old man having such a relationship with kids. I just think of my own nephews and say "ah....**** that."

The parents played a shocking role however. One of them kept saying she didn't suspect anything even though she admitted seeing a an increasingly conceited effort to isolate her child from her. At best she's an absolute simpleton and that's being kind.

The White Wolf wrote: »

I don't think the Jackson estate has to sue as they're already owed legal fees by these two fellows from previously failed attempts to sue for damages.

Anyway, in the case of this documentary I've no interest in defending Jackson. Can't get past a 30 something year old man having such a relationship with kids. I just think of my own nephews and say "ah....**** that."

The parents played a shocking role however. One of them kept saying she didn't suspect anything even though she admitted seeing a an increasingly conceited effort to isolate her child from her. At best she's an absolute simpleton and that's being kind.

We only hear about the parents he succeeded to prise kids away from. There might've been many who told him where to go.. or he knew instinctively, without asking, who would allow him to have the kids and who would not.

The thing is, a lot of parents are themselves mentally unwell or emotionally unsound. A predator can sniff out a distracted parent a mile away. After all, look at the priests who walked in on exhausted single mothers and said you poor thing, have a rest, let me take Jimmy and Liam off to festival for the weekend to have some fun.. and here's some church money to help with the kids, etc.

Jackson's stardom and wealth must have blinded some parents, who were incapable of seeing the wood from the trees.. while others were wise to it and would not have been in that position in the first place.

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

We only hear about the parents he succeeded to prise kids away from. There might've been many who told him where to go.. or he knew instinctively, without asking, who would allow him to have the kids and who would not.

The thing is, a lot of parents are themselves mentally unwell or emotionally unsound. A predator can sniff out a distracted parent a mile away. After all, look at the priests who walked in on exhausted single mothers and said you poor thing, have a rest, let me take Jimmy and Liam off to festival for the weekend to have some fun.. and here's some church money to help with the kids, etc.

Jackson's stardom and wealth must have blinded some parents, who were incapable of seeing the wood from the trees.. while others were wise to it and would not have been in that position in the first place.

That is true. I do feel the reason Culkin and Feldman have only good things to say is because Jackson didn't see an opportunity there. Not every child would have been abused....just the ones he saw as vulnerable.

The White Wolf wrote:

That is true. I do feel the reason Culkin and Feldman have only good things to say is because Jackson didn't see an opportunity there. Not every child would have been abused....just the ones he saw as vulnerable.

Are you a paedoophile? How on Earth would you know how they think of you aren't one?

fullstop wrote:

Do you really have that little to be at that you’re emailing Canadian radio stations to check if they’re playing some paedophile’s songs or not?

He was never convicted of anything.

joe40 wrote: »

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.

Dont get me wrong in my comment of was it just sleeping I find that weird very weird and should not happen unless it's your kid/relative and there sick or scared. But is it been a Peodiphile.

eagle eye wrote: »

You said he wouldn't see Culkin and Feldman as vunerable.

I did say that. Admittedly an unfair assumption. My head is all over the place with this tbh. I've never beem quick to pick up the pitchfork usually.

eagle eye wrote:

You said he wouldn't see Culkin and Feldman as vunerable.

You think spotting vulnerability in people is something only pedophiles can do.....?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

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?

That is what a powerful documentary does, it convinces you and it knows the end of the story even at the beginning. I can see why everyone is convinced by it, but afterwards I had to remind myself of actual facts, things we know for sure, and way it up against the fiction of a '' movie'' .The facts won.

fullstop wrote: »

Yeah I’m sure that’s all he spent, considering he seems to spend every waking minute trawling through articles so he can post them on here with bolded font trying to defend the paedophile from these spurious accusations

Quit your lying. Michael was never convicted of anything, let alone of being a paedophile. Do you hate me posting facts that prove these 2 accusers are liars? Spoiling peoples fun of going unchallenged and bashing MJ? Good! This isn't Leaving Neverland, there's 2 sides to the story here.

walshb wrote: »

Just finished it..

A paedophile or not, the documentary is D pits...

Very odd the whole thing..

Ten years too late...

Safechuck’s mother is some piece of work..

Damn straight.

The most guilty people in this case are the so called parents who let their children sleep in the same bed as that singer. Seriously .!

brian_t wrote: »

Posting links to some anonymous twitter account is not posting facts.

I can't speak for anyone else but I can't be bothered clicking on any of your links so they prove nothing.

Of course you can't be bothered. It doesn't sound like you're here for or interested in the truth.

While their story is pretty in depth and they make it sound very convincing, the one thing I find disturbing is that they don't have a single piece of corroborating evidence. The interviews with the family members are not witness statements as their opinions of Michael Jackson are based solely on what the two guys say. FBI investigated him for ten years, got all his computers and they got nothing at all. No porn on the laptops, no dodgy websites visited, nothing. And that sort of stuff would have been leaked to the media.

I wonder will anybody else come out and make a claim against Jackson having seen the documentary. Macaulay Culkin has some influence in this whole affair. If he came out and said that he was abused that would pretty much be case closed in the eyes of the public.

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

While their story is pretty in depth and they make it sound very convincing, the one thing I find disturbing is that they don't have a single piece of corroborating evidence. The interviews with the family members are not witness statements as their opinions of Michael Jackson are based solely on what the two guys say. FBI investigated him for ten years, got all his computers and they got nothing at all. No porn on the laptops, no dodgy websites visited, nothing. And that sort of stuff would have been leaked to the media.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/michael-jackson-photos-naked-children-pornography-neverland-ranch-police-records-leak-abuse-a7094876.html

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/dec/23/michael-jackson-dossier-released-fbi

Wonder if there will ever be a full and thorough investigation into all of the paperwork, filtering out fact from fiction. I imagine it would be very difficult to do so.