I know this but I was hoping to see an explanation here since all of his posts and others have been about how inconsistent Wade and his mom's story is, despite there being other victims even outside of the two in the documentary.
-
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
Finished the first part yesterday evening. That was a very disturbing watch...
Frankly, I just don't understand the responses defending Jackson's actions. Doesn't anybody have any humanity left nowadays? And the lawsuit against HBO by the Jackson estate is so disgusting.
Also, all the hostility across the internet towards that doc and the victims definitely makes me believe social media was a huge mistake.
Frankly, I just don't understand the responses defending Jackson's actions. Doesn't anybody have any humanity left nowadays? And the lawsuit against HBO by the Jackson estate is so disgusting.
Also, all the hostility across the internet towards that doc and the victims definitely makes me believe social media was a huge mistake.
They come with that excuse because he is rich and famous. Change the name MJ for a regular John Doe and nobody will show up to take a bullet for him.
He never had sex with the women who gave birth to his kids. Debbie admitted that.
Incredibly sad to hear these men talk about their experiences and awful to hear how MJ raped and molested these kids. Unbelievable.
The part that devastated me most is toward the end of Pt. 2 when Wade tells of how he came out about the abuse and his wife had to ask him if he knew how to appropriately love his daughter, Koa. My heart sank.
The part that devastated me most is toward the end of Pt. 2 when Wade tells of how he came out about the abuse and his wife had to ask him if he knew how to appropriately love his daughter, Koa. My heart sank.
...that explains a lot. Wade said he no interest in women whatsoever.
Mark Lester, Oliver in Oliver! fame, is rumoured to be one sperm donor (possibly Paris's biological father).
He apparently had sex with Lisa Marie Presley though. Speaking of, I wonder what she'd say about all this.
Anyone knows of any video analysis done by a body language expert on MJ?, from when he claimed he wasn't guilty?
Is there a link to this statement? I'm not finding anything. Closest is that they never shared a home. There are other reports of him and Lisa Presley being sexually active though (theres an interview with Lisa talking about this, and oddly Donald Trump confirming it)
His lawyers told that story
Read it all and much more here
https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1994/01/orth199401
Last edited:
Trump confirmed the two would stay at trump tower and have sex a lot (he just threw it out there in one of the Republican debates). Lisa backs this this up in an interview
No problem. It's pretty huge news he is saying that now. I'm stunned that hasn't been focused on more than it has been over the last day.
Conveniently right after the first ever allegations became public though.
They probably did, but it was a PR move by MJ I'm sure.
Lisa Marie was pretty hot back then.
Looking it up she had two kids before she married MJ. Wonder what their experiences were like at Neverland Ranch.
Looking it up she had two kids before she married MJ. Wonder what their experiences were like at Neverland Ranch.
Maybe, but i believe there are reports from Quincy Jones talking about him being with a lot of women, and Paris saying he had a middle eastern GF before he died. Its cool of none of that is convincing, but im just trying to lay all of what i know out there.
That said, Lisa and Mj divorced because she didnt want to have his kids. She defended him against the accusations but thought it would be a custody nightmare if they ever split. Apprently he really wanted to have kids with her, but went to debbie rowe because she wanted to do him a favor
Edit: if remember right, Lisa and MJ married low-key. It wasn't a big deal until she showed up in his music video
I recommend today's "The Daily" podcast by the NY Times. Today's guest was Wesley Morris and he spoke about the documentary and Michael's impact on music. I never really thought about it, but escaping MJ's music and his influence on music is going to be nigh on impossible. Hell, they played a variety of today's popular artists as a backdrop of sorts during the segment where they discussed his influence and it almost sounded like Michael was still alive and wrote the songs being played. I just never picked up on it before. This is really not something any of us can put away and never deal with...which might be a good thing. Hell, I was just at the grocery store buying dinner when I found myself singing along to the background song before I realized it was a Michael Jackson song...and all of this came right back into the forefront of my mind.
I was also a a store yesterday and a MJ song started playing. I don't think I can ever separate his abuse from his music. It's just constantly at the forefront now. Where it should be.
Basically every male pop star since him has been trying to be him (look at Justin Timberlake, for example, who has made an entire career off of it) or recapture that magic. His musical legacy is everywhere and will probably remain intact even if his personal one is destroyed and they stop playing his music. I don't think there has ever been a living individual as famous worldwide as he was (probably Elvis was the closest as it can get in his heyday but even then, still no - The Beatles as a group are probably the only ones that truly come close). I wonder what all this will mean for the music industry going forward.
Haven't watched the documentary, have kept up with every page of the thread. Appreciated seeing the discussion as it continued as I feel bad for being even slightly conflicted about the specific claims.
It's been frustrating to see new people come into the thread with the same arguments again and again, refusing to acknowledge that they were already discussed and dealt with (usually due to being inaccurate or misrepresenting reality - like with the supposed 10-12 years of FBI investigation), or actually address how the very obvious issues are already beyond defending.
But what really gets me is anyone who demands "proof" before they can even question if he's completely innocent, when like... so, I'm lucky enough to have never had this sort of thing happen to/around me, so maybe I'm wrong. But I'm going to guess that proving this kind of accusation in court does not necessarily require absolute physical evidence/documentation of the crime, right? It would be ridiculous to require a kid to have extensive proof/documentation, right? So why is some kind of miraculous definitive physical evidence the bar that needs to be passed before you even think he might have done something?
It's been frustrating to see new people come into the thread with the same arguments again and again, refusing to acknowledge that they were already discussed and dealt with (usually due to being inaccurate or misrepresenting reality - like with the supposed 10-12 years of FBI investigation), or actually address how the very obvious issues are already beyond defending.
But what really gets me is anyone who demands "proof" before they can even question if he's completely innocent, when like... so, I'm lucky enough to have never had this sort of thing happen to/around me, so maybe I'm wrong. But I'm going to guess that proving this kind of accusation in court does not necessarily require absolute physical evidence/documentation of the crime, right? It would be ridiculous to require a kid to have extensive proof/documentation, right? So why is some kind of miraculous definitive physical evidence the bar that needs to be passed before you even think he might have done something?
I am shocked as well. I wonder what kulkin will eventually say?
Many artists were ethically highly questionable people, committed crimes and terrorized their environment. If an ethically impeccable artist's life were made a prerequisite for the public availability of works of art, the museums of the world would have to be emptied as far as possible.
And the music is not to blame. On the other hand, you have to consider the people who have been seriously harmed by artists and for whom their music can mean a retraumatization. A certain consideration for these people is therefore of course not only justifiable, but even necessary.
Hearing his mom say, "I feel like maybe I was partially responsible (for Wade getting raped by Michael Jackson from age 7 to 14)" was even more heartbreaking considering what she did to the family to enable that to occur. Wade's wife cutting her out of their lives was justified.
I understand what you're saying about artists creating great works but being flawed people, but I can't separate the artist from the work in this case. We're talking about someone who manipulated and abused children and their families, and he seemed rather calculated about it, which makes him even more of a monster. For me, it rises above cases where I separate the artist from the work. And even though the music is not to blame, it's so intertwined with the despicable behavior, I don't know if I'll ever be able to listen to his music and not think about what he did.
No it was a giant pr effort at the time and very weird. She was beautiful and certainly understood fame and pressure but it was bizarre and the opposite of low key.
Especially that stupidly staged kiss at the MTV music awards.
Michael before awkwardly kissing Priscilla: "And they said it would never last."
Narrator: "It didn't."
To be honest I think it is quite the opposite. Wade is able to hide the process of working through it alot better.
I could have sworn I read that their wedding was private.
Yeah, they did have a small private ceremony: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lisa-marie-presley-michael-jackson_us_574603b8e4b055bb11710d34
I could have worded that better. Perhaps I should have said that they probably didn't see it as a big deal due to them having a private ceremony. Of course, the daughter of Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson getting wed was a big deal, but it was made public much later (https://www.brides.com/story/michael-jackson-and-lisa-marie-presley-wedding).
I think the bizzare part from the audience is how sudden it seemed, but they apparently knew each other for many years, and even tried working it out for almost half a decade after the divorce
The second part of this documentary is starting to get to me now. Especially the parts where they have children, and they show photos and their wives talk about how Wade and Jimmy were with their children. How broken they looked.
And then Wade says something like, "My children is about the same age I was when I first met Michael. And I think about him with my children... How I would never want that to happen to them. How I would defend them against someone like Michael. And if something ever happened like that to them... That I would kill that person."
"But then I think back to what happened with me and Michael... and I don't have those same thoughts at all. Only love... Why is that different?"
I think that idea is rather powerful.
____
Also, the previous documentary, "Living with Michael Jackson" is required viewing as well. You're actually able to see how Michael lived. The constant overwhelming crowds of fans, and his complete sense of detachment from anything resembling normal life.
Man.. that scene where he goes "shopping", and goes into the fancy classical art store... He's just pointing around, "I want that, and that. Ohh, that's beautiful. I want that. I like the blue ones. Both of those." The interviewer is stunned, "Do you know how much this stuff is?" He looks at the tag, "These are both $270,000." Michael nonchalantly spends more than $10 million on vases and art in the span of 5-10 minutes.
But finally, it's him being interviewing with Gavin. And Gavin puts his head on Michael's shoulder. They're holding hands. And talking about love.
After the interview, it's Gavin that starts the 2005 Trial.
____
I feel like calling Michael a freak, crazy, or nuts or even just calling him a monster is somewhat disingenuous and doesn't begin to describe him or his life. Those words don't have enough depth.
And then Wade says something like, "My children is about the same age I was when I first met Michael. And I think about him with my children... How I would never want that to happen to them. How I would defend them against someone like Michael. And if something ever happened like that to them... That I would kill that person."
"But then I think back to what happened with me and Michael... and I don't have those same thoughts at all. Only love... Why is that different?"
I think that idea is rather powerful.
____
Also, the previous documentary, "Living with Michael Jackson" is required viewing as well. You're actually able to see how Michael lived. The constant overwhelming crowds of fans, and his complete sense of detachment from anything resembling normal life.
Man.. that scene where he goes "shopping", and goes into the fancy classical art store... He's just pointing around, "I want that, and that. Ohh, that's beautiful. I want that. I like the blue ones. Both of those." The interviewer is stunned, "Do you know how much this stuff is?" He looks at the tag, "These are both $270,000." Michael nonchalantly spends more than $10 million on vases and art in the span of 5-10 minutes.
But finally, it's him being interviewing with Gavin. And Gavin puts his head on Michael's shoulder. They're holding hands. And talking about love.
After the interview, it's Gavin that starts the 2005 Trial.
____
I feel like calling Michael a freak, crazy, or nuts or even just calling him a monster is somewhat disingenuous and doesn't begin to describe him or his life. Those words don't have enough depth.
If he was doing this in the United States, then what was he up to when he played in third world countries? Ick......
Yep, he seemed like a top man.
And she's absolutely correct. She should never allow the mum near her kid, ever again.
Yes, that those people also have a child like innocence. So they don't understand the question. 😏
Don't ever forget. But to this day still think he cunt is innocent.
It was. Poor man's his entire family, just fucking abandoned him like he was nothing.
He was. Both of their mothers deserve to be alone for the rest if their lives.
Something that everyone seems to be ignoring.
I know this is a jokey aside in a serious thread. But i remember that part, and think all that shit he was buying was so tacky.
User Banned (3 Days): Drive-By Trolling in a Sensitive Thread
I have a simple quick question. I hope I don't get banned here because I know how this forum views a difference of opinions even if we have freedom of speech But is it fair to to accuse some one who is dead that has no rights to defend, im just curious on that? Is it possible still to say guilty of crime.That's all I wanted to know
And the fact that by that time he was already in serious debt. I remember that it got so bad near the end of his life the when he wanted an iPhone, he had to get it under his bodyguard's name because his own credit was so shit the phone provider wouldn't approve it.
Yes, yes it. Just look at Jimmy Saville.
And it happens all the time in criminal cases. So what's your point ?
It because he an innocent child. So he didn't know how money works.
They don't actually care. They're just asking questions.
Just finished watching part 2. They didn't went into it in depth, but a thing that is really getting to me is the hateful reaction of some Jackson's fans towards the victims. When Wade's wife, Amanda, said that they receives threats and that it makes her scared for her family it really made me sad.
There is nothing that can justify such hateful behavior. What a bunch of garbage people.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Not to be mean, but you've been on this site since it's inception with over 1000 posts, so you should know by now that you don't get banned around here for just having a difference of opinion. Moreover, freedom of speech doesn't apply to private platforms, which is why you nor I or no one can say truly hateful things here or on twitter because they're private platforms and are not protected by "freedom of speech" as intended; freedom of speech applies to the relationship between you and the government.
So, to get to your question, what's fair is up for you to decide. And, while the dead are protected from criminal prosecution in this country, they aren't protected from the court of public opinion.
I kept waiting for either of the mothers to show some kind of emotion or guilt. never happened. they both just seemed happy to be on tv.
- Status