An MJ song came up on shuffle on my way home yesterday and I had to switch it. Just not the same anymore.
-
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.
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
An MJ song came up on shuffle on my way home yesterday and I had to switch it. Just not the same anymore.
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 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.
Yeah, I had given up on him during the second court appearance.
If a song came on the radio it was Quincy and he was the genius, but I went back and it all changed.
The part when Wade's family find out was just devastating to watch. Both mother's though... what can you say. I mean, I'm not a parent so I don't know... but how can you not see a situation like a grown man having kids alone in his bedroom as being anything other than really fucking weird? And I'm not even sure both mother's acknowledged that.
More generally though, what still stuns me is this... hysteria... there is about celebrities, even today. Thousands of people screaming and going berserk about famous people... what is this? lol. So strange.
More generally though, what still stuns me is this... hysteria... there is about celebrities, even today. Thousands of people screaming and going berserk about famous people... what is this? lol. So strange.
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.
Wait what? I was not aware there was an uncut version. Each part was around 1h30mins long
yeah, the uncut version on HBO, each part is 2 hours long.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
Anyone got a list of differences between the cut and uncut versions? I watched the Ch4 UK version and I felt like i learnt more than enough...
Pedophiles never stop being pedophiles. And based on accusations he continued the behavior long after 1993.
I mean... they're not animals, or zombies, or whatever? Think about what you're asking for a few seconds. They're people who are willing to do horrific things for their own satisfaction, but they're still people who are in control of their actions. Rather, they're people who are in control of their actions, and they chose do to horrific things for their own satisfaction.
They can't "turn it on or off", but they sure can decide "I do not think I will get away with abusing this particular child". That's all it is.
I guess? He sent a ton of them. There are pictures and videos of him sent to the families as well which can't be faked.
The defense people have gone with in this thread has been "but he sent them to everyone", not "they weren't real", which is telling.
That he sent them to begin with isn't really up for debate.
it's not just about sex for dudes like Jackson, even if it is a factor.
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 if someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and should be sentenced 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.
Last edited:
This is the thing. He was a serial liar. I remember his 2003 interview where he was asked how many times he had surgery on his nose. He said 2. Which was a completely false statement since simply from photographs an expert mentioned he did it at least 13 times.
If he cannot be trusted for something is easily noticeable, why should anyone believe anything else?
If it walks like a duck....
Just watched it .As a kid and into early 20s, I was the biggest MJ fan I knew. And I didn't want to believe these things . I was going along with the other who were saying the accusers were lying .
After watching this, it just makes it so clear how much I was just trying to avoid the truth. The stories from the two victims were sickening and Michael Jackson sounds like a despicable human being and a paedophile.
I have deleted all my MJ stuff and will actively try to avoid it when I can.
After watching this, it just makes it so clear how much I was just trying to avoid the truth. The stories from the two victims were sickening and Michael Jackson sounds like a despicable human being and a paedophile.
I have deleted all my MJ stuff and will actively try to avoid it when I can.
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.
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.
What evidence are you expecting? Theres no hidden sex tape with jackson and a child. Testimony is evidence.
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.
Time just makes the existence of solid evidence less likely, it's not like they can analyse bedsheets now to get 'solid evidence'.
Michael Jackson slept in the same bed with children behind locked doors and is accused of abuse in graphic detail by multiple people - I think the onus is on providing 'solid evidence' that he didn't abuse those children, as opposed to providing evidence that he did. 'Michael Jackson slept in beds with children, behind locked doors, as part of grooming for alleged sexual activity - provide solid evidence that he did so out of a innocent, childish desire for sleepovers'.
That is a good point. I think that not many people know how it works.
I also don't know how these cases get decided. I am talking about 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 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.
And please no more of this disingenuous anymore.
I am going to let one of the most vocal about this matter in this thread decide "Surfinn" if you found my statements vile or stupid or disingenuous then please say so. Then I will stop posting in this thread. I don't want to be disingenuous or seen like I am trolling or something like that.
I even got banned for it. I really really don't want to repeat that.
Maybe it is better for all to make a judgement of the whole documentary and that I don't post about it anymore. Did I go to far for someone?
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 a good point. in the case of spencer, though he defined "wall of sound", you can kind of separate him more easily because he's not the one singing and emoting.
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.
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. Accusers feel slightly more comfortable in coming forward.
You've got it backwards. Leaving Neverland is a reflection of a cultural shift instead of outright 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.
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.
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).
I have seen the first part of it and hopefully tonight the second part (four hours is a long time but it is important that I see it all plus the Oprah show if I can find the last one).
But the points I made earlier are not something you can just put on this case. It is a seperate issue that you can apply to all such high profile cases.
If you want to know more then just pm me. Because I don't want to say the wrong things because it seems my communication skills suck.
How did the trial in the 90s find no evidence though? You'd think they'd find something, anything. Was it just poorly done?
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.
Ok thank you. I know what you mean.
And yes it is very important that the perception of acceptable behavior is changing. And also that it get's spoken about in public instead of letting the victims die in their loneliness and agony and pain. I know these feelings pretty well.
All the best wishes and sorry for the awkward conversation. Hope we meet at a happier thread and we can talk also about something else.
Bliman 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.
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.
I watched the documentary and I believe James and Wade 100%. I don't think James was his first victim and also don't believe that after Chandler in 93 his next victim was Arvizo a decade later. There were boys before James and after Chandler that he went on tour with like the Michael guy in that article that was posted earlier. You had Brett Barnes, Omhar Bhetti, the Casio Brothers, Culkin etc. They all have denied anything happen which may be true but they all don't deny they slept in his bed.
People are left wondering where was the staff in all of this but the staff definitely saw stuff. A lot of the staff testified in 2005 to seeing things. Despite Culkin denials, in that 60 minutes interview the maid said that she saw MJ touch Culkin inappropriately. This same maid also said that Jackson's bodyguards threatened to take her out if she said anything. Jackson even called her around that the first accusations and asked her "Adrian what do you know". He said it over and over. She lied in 1993 and said she saw nothing happen between MJ and the boys that stayed at Neverland at the time but in 2005 she testified for the prosecution. He payed her off with a thank you note the first time.
One of MJ assistants wrote a book where he mentioned that MJ would whisk away James's parents with trips, sightseeing etc in order to spend as much time alone as he can with him.
"Man Behind The Mask"
You had one of the other maid's son testify he touched him inappropriately 3 times. The assistant/driver testifying that he saw MJ fondling Wade after they finished Toy shopping one evening in the back seat the week he first stayed at the Neverland Ranch. One staff member saw MJ fondling Wade while they were rehearsing dance moves with each other in the private studio. What makes matters worse is that Joy Robinson was told by the staff not to enter the studio. There was also a maid who saw Wade and MJ taking a shower together unnoticed one time.
It makes you sad that if someone anybody had taken to task the gut feeling that something was going on, the parents especially. Wade's mom got a phone call from MJ one time who was crying and begging to bring Wade over to the ranch at 1:30am. She literally drove Wade to him that night. ughhhhhhh
People are left wondering where was the staff in all of this but the staff definitely saw stuff. A lot of the staff testified in 2005 to seeing things. Despite Culkin denials, in that 60 minutes interview the maid said that she saw MJ touch Culkin inappropriately. This same maid also said that Jackson's bodyguards threatened to take her out if she said anything. Jackson even called her around that the first accusations and asked her "Adrian what do you know". He said it over and over. She lied in 1993 and said she saw nothing happen between MJ and the boys that stayed at Neverland at the time but in 2005 she testified for the prosecution. He payed her off with a thank you note the first time.
One of MJ assistants wrote a book where he mentioned that MJ would whisk away James's parents with trips, sightseeing etc in order to spend as much time alone as he can with him.
"Man Behind The Mask"
You had one of the other maid's son testify he touched him inappropriately 3 times. The assistant/driver testifying that he saw MJ fondling Wade after they finished Toy shopping one evening in the back seat the week he first stayed at the Neverland Ranch. One staff member saw MJ fondling Wade while they were rehearsing dance moves with each other in the private studio. What makes matters worse is that Joy Robinson was told by the staff not to enter the studio. There was also a maid who saw Wade and MJ taking a shower together unnoticed one time.
It makes you sad that if someone anybody had taken to task the gut feeling that something was going on, the parents especially. Wade's mom got a phone call from MJ one time who was crying and begging to bring Wade over to the ranch at 1:30am. She literally drove Wade to him that night. ughhhhhhh
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 that
Just watched it and the part were Wade talks about how his family learned about it was fucking heartbreaking.
I've been thinking
why would any kid want to be known worldwide for being molested, abused, raped by Michael Jackson? people say so easily "they are in for money"...but isn't that a very screwed up way of doing money?
the two guys are risking their lives doing this. Any crazy MJ fan could assault and kill them.
Imagine yourself going on TV saying "I was abused by a man when I was a kid, it happened for years" and it not being a lie, it's the truth. You will break the hearts and souls of all your family members and friends. Many strangers will look at you with pity and only see you as the "dude that was abused by MJ as a kid". who the fuck wants that?? why in the world would Safechuck want to be remembered as the kid that was sexually abused by MJ? this idea of "Hell yeah, I'll be rich by claiming I was molested by MJ! let me go out there and tell the world he fucked me in the ass" is so.... absurd.
they are destroying MJ forever with this. Assuming for a sec. the sexual abuse didn't happen but they are pissed off and attacking him for other things (Wade not getting the circle du soleil thing, for example). Why do it with this elaborate, complicated lie that brings so much pain and suffering to many people involved, including themselves and their families? if you want to attack MJ and/or the estate, this is a terrible way of doing it.
can someone explain all this to me?
why would any kid want to be known worldwide for being molested, abused, raped by Michael Jackson? people say so easily "they are in for money"...but isn't that a very screwed up way of doing money?
the two guys are risking their lives doing this. Any crazy MJ fan could assault and kill them.
Imagine yourself going on TV saying "I was abused by a man when I was a kid, it happened for years" and it not being a lie, it's the truth. You will break the hearts and souls of all your family members and friends. Many strangers will look at you with pity and only see you as the "dude that was abused by MJ as a kid". who the fuck wants that?? why in the world would Safechuck want to be remembered as the kid that was sexually abused by MJ? this idea of "Hell yeah, I'll be rich by claiming I was molested by MJ! let me go out there and tell the world he fucked me in the ass" is so.... absurd.
they are destroying MJ forever with this. Assuming for a sec. the sexual abuse didn't happen but they are pissed off and attacking him for other things (Wade not getting the circle du soleil thing, for example). Why do it with this elaborate, complicated lie that brings so much pain and suffering to many people involved, including themselves and their families? if you want to attack MJ and/or the estate, this is a terrible way of doing it.
can someone explain all this to me?
Last edited:
- Status