An MJ song came up on shuffle on my way home yesterday and I had to switch it. Just not the same anymore.
Yeah, I had given up on him during the second court appearance.I think with time, I might start to listen to his songs again. (Huge fan here)
I was actually listening to him last week with my daughters without knowing of the documentary.
The man just had so many legendary songs that will transcend time.
However, It will be hard not to remember the documentary when I listen to Smooth Criminal again.
What a shame how one of the most influential artist of all time has ruined his legacy due his disgusting personal lifestyle.
I found Wade to be a very reserved person (even during the documentary) and definitely someone who could keep secrets inside for a long time. Given his broken home situation and being groomed/influenced by MJ from a young age, I came to the conclusion that - for a long time - Wade always had this notion in the back of his head that MJ was his real provider (or at least a valuable network connection) that would provide him validation in whatever he did in his life. I mean, he went into the career of choreography perhaps partly because of MJ's encouragement. MJ was a big part of the dude's life from a young age and it was obvious that Wade didn't see eye to eye with his broken family. Built up resentment from a young age can carry weight. So if MJ had advised him to keep this secret and Wade knows that by doing so he'll not only be a valid person in MJ's life (perhaps wishful thinking on his part) but also seek the validation from him that he clearly showed he desired in the documentary. And this desire carried with him until his early adulthood which should come as no surprise if he was groomed and influenced from a young age (whether it was through words or possessions). This is clearly illustrated in the documentary when Wade was asked numerous times by his mother about abuse and he flat out denies it over and over because MJ meant more to him than her. MJ meant so much of value that he took it as far as to lie in court. Again, something that's plausible if you were groomed from a young age by a man that has given you everything and all you are required to do is never say a word about something.
I'm seeing a lot of talk about Wade is faking it or he doesn't look emotional or serious enough in what he's saying therefore the documentary is a sham but based on his personality he is reserved so his behaviour from childhood growing up makes sense. Also, Jimmy's interview contrasts this well because we see how different Jimmy's personality is even though they went through the same awful experience.
Wade is no different than some of the veterans I had in group therapy for PTSD. Those like him are distant and cold, but obviously went through trauma.
I, like James, wear my heart on my sleeve.
Agreed on all accounts. Cold and calculating was probably not a fair description. It shows how different the effect of abuse can be and was well illustrated in the doc.It's worth remembering as well that Wade continued to spend a lot of his 20s in the public limelight, and so will be used to and confident in front of cameras and large crowds. Beside a very nervous Jimmy, it may make Wade come across as 'cold'.
yeah, the uncut version on HBO, each part is 2 hours long.Wait what? I was not aware there was an uncut version. Each part was around 1h30mins long
i wonder how long the grooming and stuff went on for? around the time of Bad/Moonwalker?
If you knew anything about serial predators you would know that it isn't out of character. Especially when you factor in the wealth, power and support that Jackson had around him, both legally and socially.One thing I'd also like clarified, the documentary highlights that abuse went on after the first allegations were made (before the settlement if i recall correctly). Did anyone else find this unusual? That Jackson would continue to commit these crimes after the allegations went public? I read somewhere that he was on anti-stress and depression medication to cope with addressing the accusations so clearly it affected him. So i find it out of character that he'd continue after the accusations given how the spotlight was focused on him and he clearly was cautious as stated in the documentary. Any thoughts?
The fuck is wrong with you? Sleeping in beds with children isn't just some small moral issue.
For Culkin, at least, it is very possible he was never molested (he keeps saying that). He was too big of a name then, and it would have been too risky. MJ also likely wanted to have some strong child witnesses/allies in potential court cases that would never turn on him. Culkin was perfect for that.
.
I finished part two last night. I think Jimmy's story is legit but wades, the weaker of the two, works better when both stories are paired together like this.
Pedophiles never stop being pedophiles. And based on accusations he continued the behavior long after 1993.One thing I'd also like clarified, the documentary highlights that abuse went on after the first allegations were made (before the settlement if i recall correctly). Did anyone else find this unusual? That Jackson would continue to commit these crimes after the allegations went public? I read somewhere that he was on anti-stress and depression medication to cope with addressing the accusations so clearly it affected him. So i find it out of character that he'd continue after the accusations given how the spotlight was focused on him and he clearly was cautious as stated in the documentary. Any thoughts?
Sorry, you guys are right, they are not morally equivalent.
Maybe I don't understand serial pedophile then. I would think if you were sick in the head, you wouldn't be able to control your desires. Can you just turn it off and on? Are there cases where these type of monsters don't go after certain kids but exhibit grooming behavior? As I understand, Michael was very attached to Culkin. He would call him and spend hours on the phone talking. Apparently, Michael bought him a Rolex. Given the documentary, I have a hard time believing nothing happened. At the very least, Culkin could probably corroborate that Michael locked himself alone in the bathroom with certain selected boys, which was one of Wade's claims.And then did Michael hurt his own kids? Ugh that just made me vomit.
I also found Jimmy more convincing. I don't know maybe it's the body language. These guys sequentially told their story in the documentary. In a trial though, they often ask you to tell your story out of order. Typically, if there is deception, there is a breakdown in body language. A tell tale sign is people talk with their fingertips. For me, the body language in this interview with the men is odd: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVQUCWJlJ_w
I believe he is guilty, but I have a question. Couldn't all the letters and faxes he sent have been faked? Didn't we just assume they were real?
I believe he is guilty, but I have a question. Couldn't all the letters and faxes he sent have been faked? Didn't we just assume they were real?
Sorry, you guys are right, they are not morally equivalent.
Maybe I don't understand serial pedophile then. I would think if you were sick in the head, you wouldn't be able to control your desires. Can you just turn it off and on? Are there cases where these type of monsters don't go after certain kids but exhibit grooming behavior? As I understand, Michael was very attached to Culkin. He would call him and spend hours on the phone talking. Apparently, Michael bought him a Rolex. Given the documentary, I have a hard time believing nothing happened. At the very least, Culkin could probably corroborate that Michael locked himself alone in the bathroom with certain selected boys, which was one of Wade's claims.And then did Michael hurt his own kids? Ugh that just made me vomit.
What I think is that people keep dangerously conflating public opinion with the court of law.What I really really dislike is the trial by public opinion.
Let me explain. It is not about letting the victims speak or someone being guilty or not that the victims being true or credible and such.
It is about a wrong process imo.
Now we hear a onesided story (which could be countered by a documentary by the MJ side) .It becomes a story about who has the most power in the media. It lays the power from the court to the media and that is wrong imo.
Like I already said. I would like much much more that there would be a case in the court and when MJ is found guilty then they can make a documentary of this case so they can educate people how this case happened, how it was for the victims and how we can help others come out much faster and help it get out of the taboo realm.
This system like it happens now. Is much to vulnerable for abuse from all sides.
A documentary is not a place to make a final opinion of someone, because you always depend on how the director wants to view things to the audience (and again this is not to say if these victims are real or not or that they are speaking the truth or not).
A court is much more rigorous imo and much more clear. Just like I would hate it if the MJ family would use millions to defend him and the victims can only afford much less. That to me is not fair and creates injustice.
This is a template for all public cases not only this one. To me it is not fair for the accusers or the accused.
I would have no problem that the victims would say by the media that they are going to sue MJ's family and that they retract their testomony of 2005 and urge all victims of MJ to come out and join them.
What do you all think?
If you knew anything about serial predators you would know that it isn't out of character. Especially when you factor in the wealth, power and support that Jackson had around him, both legally and socially.
How anyone can believe the same person who said the only surgery they had was on their head from a fire when it's as clear as the missing nose on his face that he had more.
Or what about his skin bleaching which he denied all through his life I believe yet they found it when he died.
First thanks for engaging with me on this point.What I think is that people keep dangerously conflating public opinion with the court of law.
There is no trial here. There is no jury. To cross them is both ignorant and irresponsible.
People have the right to drop MJ, dislike him, despise him, stop listening to his music. It's their personal opinion and choice.
That is not the same thing as determining is someone should be punished in the court of law for their actions.
It's really as simple as that so I'm not really sure why this is a legitimate talking point.
But, again, you're misusing the word "trial". There is no verdict. No one here has the power to convict MJ and no one can send him to jail or assign a consequence.First thanks for engaging with me on this point.
In my eyes there is a trial going on, only it is going on in public.
We already talked about the abuse that MJ did. But I strongly get the feeling that that isn't why he get's condemned here or why he get's dropped by radio stations. It is the allegations of the molestations and the alleged sexual handlings of MJ.
I don't know how pedophiles get convicted, but I would rather see a trial with this new information and then when we have a verdict with proffesionals who handle such information dailey.
There can be a full explanation from the victims and how there story went and such after the court system has spoken. And everyone can form an opinion on how the judge found him guilty or not guilty.
Because we are now forming an opinion that the director paints by letting these two people speak but also the insinuations the director makes.
They can probably speak the truth but you only get feed with a certain information that the director wants you to see.
Now imagine that the MJ family would have known the documentary came out or they started a new documentary.
But now they paint a very different picture of these victims. Do we then let MJ play again on radio or is innocent again?
This would be avoided by a proffesional court that handles such cases dailey and can form a good decision.
Now it is more of who paints the best picture from their side. And that is wrong imo. Because it depends who has the best director and story irregardless of the truth.
And with that I STRONGLY want to say that that doesn't mean they lie or that the documentary is wrong. I am saying that the procces is wrong.
The same in the court where you can with money buy the best laywers and can swamp the defense. That to me is all wrong.
So yes everyone can form there opinion and use this story, that is true. But to me it puts to much power on the media and is much to prone to manipulation and can and shall be misused by both sides no question about it irregardless where the truth lies.
At this point I don't know what to think anymore. Unable to watch this since I don't have HBO but what I've read is pretty damning. It's seems like after all this time there would be some kind of solid evidence though.
At this point I don't know what to think anymore. Unable to watch this since I don't have HBO but what I've read is pretty damning. It's seems like after all this time there would be some kind of solid evidence though.
I disagree with you on a couple of points. you say that there is no trial. Not in the strict sense of course.But, again, you're misusing the word "trial". There is no verdict. No one here has the power to convict MJ and no one can send him to jail or assign a consequence.
All we can do is look at the facts that have been laid out, not only by this documentary, but by evidence we have in plain sight.
There are two parts, IMO. Part 1, did he abuse children. Part 2, do you believe the victims in that they were sexually assaulted.
Part 1 is factual. MJ abused children, period. It's out in the open. He admitted to sleeping with children alone, regardless of if sexual acts took place. The faxes and other factual communications clearly exhibit child abuse. Fact. The grooming. He fucking staged a marriage between himself, an adult, and a child he had groomed.
We cannot send him to jail. We cannot officially declare his guilt. But if you look at the definition of child/psychological abuse, it lines up with what transpired.
Part 2 is whether or not you believe the victims. It's not just the doc, it's the Oprah interview that is at least as essential. The director has nothing to do with that. It's just the victims speaking freely about their experiences. I personally believe them.
Even if, hypothetically, the public consensus ends up being: MJ both psychologically and sexually abused children, they still don't have the same power the court holds or juries hold.
We can't convict him, even if he were still alive. We can only use our own minds and reach our own conclusions.
At this point I don't know what to think anymore. Unable to watch this since I don't have HBO but what I've read is pretty damning. It's seems like after all this time there would be some kind of solid evidence though.
That is a good point. I think that not many people know how it works.What evidence are you expecting? Theres no hidden sex tape with jackson and a child. Testimony is evidence.
This is either painfully naive, or disingenuous. Yes it's one-sided, they're telling their side of the story. MJ's 'side' has dominated the narrative for decades.I disagree with you on a couple of points. you say that there is no trial. Not in the strict sense of course.
But it is used as a trial but for the public. You say " assign a consequence" but that is not what is going on imo. He get's pulled from shows and radio stations all because of this documentary and that is a great consequence for the family.
And why that is, is because of the graphic descriptions in the documentary and the allegations in this documentary.
It was known for example that he slept with children for many years maybe decades. But this abuse did nothing for the public (which I said many times was his responsibility and he should have been punished for that + the other abuse like alcohol and such) and was shrugged off.
These stories now are of a very different magnitude altogether.
If they really want the public to make an as good opinion as they can they should release all the material that they have. Everything, all the faxes all the material they have.
I can accept that victims of sexual abuse don't need so much evidence because they lived through similar experiences and are screaming from their hearts why some cannot see how clear it is.
Now these people of the documentary are open to much attacks that could be avoided if they had gone through the court system. I guess they won't throw out the case this time.
There all these facts would get investigated, the marriage and all would be taken in to account.
And yes you can use your own mind and I don't want to say that their case is weak, but no matter how you turn it. It is onesided.
Just like if the MJ family makes a documentary is onesided. There is just to much room to make a bad judgement.
And this creates a situation where the victims can be attacked on a couple of points and where the other side has no way of defense.
I really hope this comes out clear.
I don't agree. The narrative of Michael Jackson always was that he was weird and childlike. And also that there was something off with him. That's what I always heard here at home. Not all the time because my sister wasn't a great fan anymore in the later period in the 2000's.This is either painfully naive, or disingenuous. Yes it's one-sided, they're telling their side of the story. MJ's 'side' has dominated the narrative for decades.
it's also impossible to get away from MJ's influence on pop music. you can boycott his music directly, but you're still going to hear stuff that is cut from a similar cloth.
It's kind of like Phil Specter, who also defined modern studio recording and mixing techniques to basically make modern music on an even broader level than just tunes and motifs. You can appreciate the artist without honoring them.
That's not.. what a trial means or is. Those are the natural consequences of people being unhappy with MJ. Those aren't lawfully assigned and executed ones. You keep conflating the two; they're not even close to being the same thing. This is the public reacting, by their own free will to what they're seeing, largely because expectations and standards have changed and are still changing. I'm not really sure why this is difficult to grasp.I disagree with you on a couple of points. you say that there is no trial. Not in the strict sense of course.
But it is used as a trial but for the public. You say " assign a consequence" but that is not what is going on imo. He get's pulled from shows and radio stations all because of this documentary and that is a great consequence for the family.
And why that is, is because of the graphic descriptions in the documentary and the allegations in this documentary.
It was known for example that he slept with children for many years maybe decades. But this abuse did nothing for the public (which I said many times was his responsibility and he should have been punished for that + the other abuse like alcohol and such) and was shrugged off.
These stories now are of a very different magnitude altogether.
If they really want the public to make an as good opinion as they can they should release all the material that they have. Everything, all the faxes all the material they have.
I can accept that victims of sexual abuse don't need so much evidence because they lived through similar experiences and are screaming from their hearts why some cannot see how clear it is.
Now these people of the documentary are open to much attacks that could be avoided if they had gone through the court system. I guess they won't throw out the case this time.
There all these facts would get investigated, the marriage and all would be taken in to account.
And yes you can use your own mind and I don't want to say that their case is weak, but no matter how you turn it. It is onesided.
Just like if the MJ family makes a documentary is onesided. There is just to much room to make a bad judgement.
And this creates a situation where the victims can be attacked on a couple of points and where the other side has no way of defense.
I really hope this comes out clear.
Yeah I know they are different.That's not.. what a trial means or is. Those are the natural consequences of people being unhappy with MJ. Those aren't lawfully assigned and executed ones. You keep conflating the two, they're not even close to being the same thing. This is the public reacting, by their own free will to what they're seeing. I'm not really sure why this is difficult to grasp.
The reason why this doc even exists is because of the #MeToo cultural movement. Because victims are at least more freely able to share their experiences.
You've got it backwards. Leaving Neverland is more a reflection of a cultural shift than it is changing the public's perception simply by the efforts of a director or accusers.
Natural consequences should not be conflated with lawful consequences. I think you know they're completely different.
One post then. I haven't seen the Oprah show (I shall watch that by youtube if possible and otherwise I have seen that you can see it with other means in this thread).Bliman have you watched the documentary in full and the Oprah interview yet? I'm interested to know what you're accounting for in your posts.
Thanks for the conversation. I understand what you're getting at but I think you're thinking of things in too much of a legal sense. If the public decides they don't like the actions of someone, it's well within their right to do that. The consequences are a direct response to those judgments. This is nothing new.. it's happened for years and years.Yeah I know they are different.
I think I am not going to comment anymore. Because it seems like I cannot make my point across.
Maybe my communication skills are not good enough.And that is way to dangerous with such a sensitive topic as this one.
All I can say is that I mean good and I don't want to be seen as being false or trolling or something like that.
And Surfinn thank you for taking the time of answering me.
Ok thank you. I know what you mean.Thanks for the conversation. I understand what you're getting at but I think you're thinking of things in too much of a legal sense. If the public decides they don't like the actions of someone, it's well within their right to do that. The consequences are a direct response to those judgments. This is nothing new.. it's happened for years and years.
The only difference is that people are finally starting to change their perceptions on what is acceptable behavior and what is not. They're changing the way they feel about victims and accusers. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. And it's an ongoing process.
There was one kid, James Safechuck, with whom Michael managed to carry on a clandestine relationship for years. James and his parents traveled with us around the world throughout 1988 and 1989 on the "Bad" tour. Michael and James spent virtually all their time together. James slept in Michael's room at night. In the afternoons, schedule permitting, in whatever exotic foreign city we were in, Michael would make chauffeur-driven cars available to James' parents for shopping sprees, entertainment, sight seeing and other diversions, clearing the way for hours alone together with James in the privacy of his hotel room. In Paris I told Michael, "The press is going to start questions about all these little white boys you keep around." When I said that he grew irritated and replied, "Who cares what they think?"
it's also impossible to get away from MJ's influence on pop music. you can boycott his music directly, but you're still going to hear stuff that is cut from a similar cloth.
Fucking hell, I would hope better from forum members than going to DM to insult and berate you over this. Sorry you have to go through thatBliman and the rest of the thread:
Thanks for the communication. One last thing I will say to your last sentence (about the tone of the thread) is that lots of people seem to be completely unaware or lacking empathy for people who have also been through sexual abuse. This has led to some very heated conversations out of sheer ignorance and/or lack of compassion for victims.
I hope that people consider this before they jump into such a sensitive topic. 90% of the arguments here have started this way, whether it be people jumping in without having watched, blinding defending MJ or trolling, or just not giving a damn about victims and their experiences.
I've even gotten hatemail (via PM) from someone who apparently had no reservations about MJ yet felt the need to personally insult and berate me through a direct message without showing their ass in this thread in order to avoid a ban.
Lots of very cowardly behavior happening here.
So I appreciate you for being honest and open about your thoughts.
Luckily you can report PM's just the same.I've even gotten hatemail (via PM) from someone who apparently had no reservations about MJ yet felt the need to personally insult and berate me through a direct message without showing their ass in this thread in order to avoid a ban.