Well yeah everyone knew of his sleepovers. It's been known for years. And he's admitted to it yes. That is sketchy I'm not gonna lie.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Leaving Neverland, HBO documentary on Michael Jackson's alleged child sexual assaults, review thread: Currently 94% on Rotten Tomatoes
- Thread starter Brian McDoogle
- Start date
- Status
Well yeah everyone knew of his sleepovers. It's been known for years. And he's admitted to it yes. That is sketchy I'm not gonna lie.
Macaulay is the godfather of Paris Jackson and Prince Michael Jackson. He is VERY protective when it comes to the kids of MJ. You will never hear him say anything about MJ, no matter what.
I don't know what happened I can delete the post if it is upsetting mate
So answer the question - who else could admit those things and you'd still be asking for more proof of a problem?
This was one of the most shocking aspects of the documentary besides the behavior of the parents. It was all in plain sight. And he was even doing this after the 1993 accusations.
Just like the vast majority of sexual abuse cases there's not going to be any proof like DNA or video. What we have is witness testimony and a man who spent over a decade sleeping with little boys. I'm going to go ahead and believe all of those victims over the man sleeping with little boys. You do you though.
Just finished watching part 1. I was on the fence, leaning a little on the skeptical side, and at first I wasn't really convinced by Wade Robson. Something about the way he spoke came off as slightly performative to me. Safechuck, on the other hand felt 100% genuine, which led me to reevaluate Robson. By the end of the episode, I was convinced that they were both telling the truth. Fuck MJ.
When one of the mothers told the story about going to the Neverland theatre and finding the door locked, 'accidentally', that's enough for me. If a grown adult gets themselves into a situation where they and a child are locked alone in a room, such that the parent of that child would have to knock on the door and wait, if that child goes on to say something happened I don't think it's up for debate.
Would you at the very least admit he is guilty of grooming?
Bruh, he slept with kids...
I don't understand how anyone can be on the fence. Ask yourself these questions:
Did MJ have an active sex life?
Did MJ's marriages seem legit?
Did MJ sleep with kids?
You would have to bend over backwards in order to give him the benefit of the doubt. Also, I'll quote this again:
If some random man living on your street was found to have been keeping preteen boys he isn't related to in his house, sleeping with them (all of this MJ himself admitted to), keeping them away from and manipulating their families, and some of these boys said it got sexual, would this be your reaction? "Ah still on the fence over what happened haha..."
His wife brings the rage pretty well. I'm totally with her, I wouldn't let her take care of her grandson either.
And Wade's grandmother. It's interesting to see how Michael distorted a sense of reality for the family he interacted with heavily - as the After Neverland interview highlights it wasn't just grooming the children, but also the family for otherwise bizarre requests, and it's interesting to hear Wade's brother's perception from the outside looking in.
I would add
Did MJ give those kids alcohol?
Did MJ separate those kids from their parents?
Did MJ have an alarm system around his room?
Again, these are undisputed and verified items.
After watching that Netflix doc Abducted In Plain Sight, I was taken aback at how similar MJ's behavior was to the pedophile in that. I knew about grooming, but I never really thought about how it affects the parents as well.
Regarding the last sentence, if he knew of abuse to others and continues to say nothing, that makes him either a bad or severely misguided person regardless of his relationship with Jackson's adult children. They shouldn't be blamed, shamed or victimised in any way but nor should they be protected at the expense of victims.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure Wade's grandmother and brother and sister were in both part 1 & 2 of 4 hour long version HBO aired in the US.
I've been told Channel 4 in the UK cut the grandmother's parts, and possibly other parts of the documentary, to save time because that version was only about 3 hours long without commercials.
User Banned (2 Days): Antagonizing and generalizing other members as an "angry mob"
When the person is worth a lot of money and there is no evidence other than someones word, I will never just believe it 100% without actual proof. People say and do a lot of sick things if they think there might be a lot of money in it for them.
MJ was a strange person and very child like, which could lead to people taking advantage of him / the situation by saying these things or maybe he really did it...... but without solid evidence, I'm not grabbing the pitchfork to join the mob, so staying on the fence.
What "solid evidence" can be given apart from someone's word in this case? What are these men supposed to have that conclusively says they were molested?
And even if you forget the sexual aspect, what about the rest of it? The fact that he was separating boys from their families, sleeping with them, etc.? Is all that not disgusting by itself? Do you not consider that child abuse?
MJ was definitely strange but the "childlike" persona was clearly an act of manipulation to get these boys and their families comfortable with him.
So besides the Facts, testimonials and multiple signs of grooming and predatory behaviour that you can find in classic prolific paedophile cases, what would it take for you to think otherwise?
Remember, hard evidence in these types of cases almost never exists.
Yeah he just seems exasperated by the whole thing. His laid back Aussie demeanour didn't hurt either.
But what about his money?!
But seriously, Yautja, would you let your child sleep with MJ?
Again it's just their word though. There is no video or forensic evidence and the law hasn't found him guilty after all these years. Their word isn't enough to just go on, maybe they are telling the truth, which sucks for them if it's true and can't prove it but maybe they are lying to try and get more money, we my never fully know the answers.
Nice job ignoring this post addressing that while continuing to display an incredible ignorance to the issues surrounding child abuse and sexual assault cases.
Either way good to know you're content with erring on the side of the dead adult that was known to groom and abuse children instead of abused children who've been raped by their idol and continue to live with the trauma.
God knows what he's done to command your unwavering confidence over a child with wedding bands given to him in exchange for sexual acts, or the child with daily faxes begging for his attention and saying he loves them.
I think you can grab a pitchfork just based on the details everyone can agree on - intentionally creating distance behind parents and their kids, being behind a locked door with those children, basically putting parents in a position to be villains to their children if they don't let them hang out privately with Michael Jackson. You can even see how being swept up in his life, placed at the centre of it, and replaced by a new child could be emotionally traumatising for someone that young.
Not my concern, it's just one side of a 2 sided argument.
If I had kids, personally I wouldn't let my kid sleep with any adult but that's me. These people clearly thought it was ok for their kids to sleep with him for whatever reason, which I find odd.
It's not though. Michael Jackson wasn't some persecuted child in need of defense from people who've never known or met him.
He was a man well known to have a proclivity for sleeping in bed with numerous underage boys. Again, an investigative journalist was so concerned by his behaviour of sleeping with children that he wrote a message to Jimmy asking if he'd been abducted. This attitude from an adult toward a child is abuse, and the entire circumstance surrounding his actions is blatant grooming.
You're effectively criticising a 7yo for not having the foresight to keep hold of evidence while he was being repeatedly raped by his idol.
So, again, what did Michael Jackson do to command this unwavering and compulsive defence from you? Over the children who say they've been abused by the adult known to enjoy sleeping in bed with them.
Maybe this can help. I don't know how credible slate is. https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/michael-jackson-jacket-gloves-burned-leaving-neverland.html
Ah, thanks for the info. I thought they burned the original jacket.
It's the word of a guy who locked himself in rooms overnight with children against those children saying they were sexually abused. I don't think the 'two sides to every story' are equal when one side was a child and the other was a man who shared a bed with them, multiple times, with intentional physical distance from the parents, behind a locked door. I think given that situation the burden of proof is on the claim that Michael Jackson didn't sexually abuse those children, instead of proving that he did. What evidence was there that he didn't abuse those children?
Just a periodic reminder for those who "aren't sure"
MJ gave kids alcohol
Slept in a bed with them
...far from their parents
...with an alarm system that warned of anyone approaching the room
Had no other visible sex life but clearly had sexual urges (he had porn)
Paid off two accusers for large sums of money
And these are the undisputed parts.
So when some of the other kids come forward and claim abuse, the above is the surrounding, undisputed circumstances.
MJ gave kids alcohol
Slept in a bed with them
...far from their parents
...with an alarm system that warned of anyone approaching the room
Had no other visible sex life but clearly had sexual urges (he had porn)
Paid off two accusers for large sums of money
And these are the undisputed parts.
So when some of the other kids come forward and claim abuse, the above is the surrounding, undisputed circumstances.
People say and do a lot of sick things when they realize they're worth a lot of money and there is no evidence other than someones word. Especially when they know people will never believe it 100% without actual proof.
Last edited:
Ahhh that will be why I haven't seen them, I'm watching in the UK on ch4.
He was just a child at heart.
Like most children, he gave his friends alcohol, took drugs, and had hardcore BDSM porn laying all over the place.
Such a sweet little child.
His brother and sister are in the first part plenty on Channel 4 (haven't seen the edited part two yet). Only the grandmother was cut, so far as total omissions go.
I'm not criticising a 7yo for having forsight on such things but I could easily criticise the parents for letting it get that far in the first place.
You seem to be confusing defending someone with being undecided on the matter, there's a big difference. I'm not defending anyone, I'm totally 50/50 on the matter, there's a chance he did it but I'm not blindly believing everything being said either, as there is a chance he didn't, it's as simple as that.
What does criticising the parents for letting it get that far have to do with you demanding concrete proof about child rape and abuse?
It doesn't require blind belief to see that Michael abused children, especially if you take away the sexual abuse. Everything is apparent, documented and uncontested. He had severely damaging relationships with children.
If you're undecided on the sexual aspects then I don't know what to say, did you say you'd seen the full documentary and the Oprah interview?
- Status