Is that really surprising? Michael molested their kids but they were both totally complicit in allowing it happen, and I believe the chief reason for that was that both were starstruck and saw fortune in glory in MJ.
-
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
Is that really surprising? Michael molested their kids but they were both totally complicit in allowing it happen, and I believe the chief reason for that was that both were starstruck and saw fortune in glory in MJ.
I can't morally justify anything. Would I let my kids sleep in a bed with MJ, heck no? But this is not what this about. Everybody has different morals. For example, I don't find it morally acceptable to cheat on your girlfriend like Wade Robson most likely did with Britney Spears. It's unfair not to listen to his side even though I find his behavior morally disgusting.
I just got done watching part 2. I did fall asleep during the 2nd part so excuse me if I didn't catch everything.
I found the families testimony even stranger. It's almost like part one of the documentary was filmed before they knew the Michael abused their child and part 2 was filmed after. They spend most of their time on camera laughing and smiling in part one and crying in part 2. Super super weird. Also, I found the line when Michael Jackson died by Jimmy's mom extremely cringe worthy. I danced when he died. What the heck? So removed from reality. Even her body language was strange. I wish they had a psychologist on to explain this weird disconnected behavior of the families because I had to suspend belief while watching the documentary.
Also, part 1 was much more convincing because we not only get the testimony of the two men but also get videos, photos, gifts, and letters. On their own all of this evidence is extremely weird and when you weave a story of child molestation through them they do make sense. Could there be another explanation? Could you take a series of strange video, clips, and letter and carefully string them together to tell your version of the truth? I don't know but I felt that part 2 was extremely weak with weaving tangible evidence with the testimony.
In part 2, we don't get receipts when some of the more incriminating claims were made. For example, when Jimmy's Mom claims that Michael Jackson bought her a house, we are shown some random drone shot. It seems to me that would be able to be proven through written records.
Wade says Michael began calling everyday during the molestation trial and we never hear one of those calls. It would seem that if Michael was calling everyday, you would have one of those calls. At the very least, we could look at the phone records and verify that claim that Michael indeed called everyday over the course of the molestation trial.
Based on the documentary, Culkin and Barnes had to have been molested and groomed really well. I don't know anybody who could watch the documentary and think otherwise. If Michael couldn't get a sexual relationship with them, they would have been replaced by other boys. That's the main premise of the documentary: Michael Jackson was a serial pedophile that replaced boys every 12 months to have sex with them.
I think this is the MeToo movement in the Michael Jackson story. There were hundreds of sick children and kids at Neverland. Did Michael hurt his own children? If this story has legs, there is no doubt in my mind that more young boys will come forward and cement this case in the public's eye and mine too.
Last edited:
But isn't this case different then Jimmy Saville?
Why can't the case be reopened completely and everything looked at and maybe getting money from the estate to benefit a good cause?
The reason I find it different is that the MJ estate still get lots of money from the music of MJ. I don't think that Jimmy Saville family has much money left and has no income flow of Jimmy anymore.
So why can't there be a trial anymore. For example the accusers against the estate of MJ? MJ cannot be convicted anymore but the income of his music can be used for good things.
But for that to happen I would like that there would be a trial again with as much as information as available plus the new information that came out. And use the same trial and judgement that they give in other abusement cases and pedophile cases (where proof is a difficult thing).
Wouldn't that be the best thing to do? It would be a good definite closure, either MJ did molest and he is also found guilty in court and his music can be of benefit for a good cause. Or he is not found guilty and there is closure in that way and we have more peace of mind that it was been investigated to the best possible way (without MJ of course so that is also something that they have to count in when investigating because he cannot defend himself anymore). But he was not found guilty even when he get's judged with the new information and with the same rules that they use in abuse cases.
I'd expect them to at least fake some sorrow or something. It was like they were in a different documentary or something. It was bizarre. The contrast between James and his mother was so startling.
exactly how many children need to come forward to satisfy you? like god damn, this is not complicated or wishy washy. it's so fucking crystal clear what the truth is.
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.
Also, you have to keep in mind pedophiles don't abuse every kid they have access to. For example, I know someone who was sexually abused as a child by a family member (for years) but her two other sisters weren't.
its aggravating seeing people putting these kids under a microscope and speculating about them being full of shit, then openly wondering why more kids didnt come forward
I have no idea what you're trying to say to me.
Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a thing.
"Go easy on that Hitler guy, fellas. He's dead and can't stick up for himself."
The fuck is wrong with you? Sleeping in beds with children isn't just some small moral issue.
Wait what
Just because he was her choreographer doesn't mean he was sleeping with her. And what does it has to do with anything whether or not he was fucking Britney? Are you comparing Britney maybe cheating on Justin with Wade and MJ sleeping with kids as if those are in any way similar morally speaking?
Thanks for your response an answer. I honestly didn't think it was fair to still accuse of some one when that person is dead, but if it happen before and it ok to do so than I got my answer was just curious.
Regarding the freedom of speech I meant regarding difference of opinions, ppl seem to have there options so personal to their lives that if some here disagrees with the majority they are attacked and then a fight happens and some one is banned. Of course saying hateful things to another poster is not allowed.
To answer the question being thrown around, I have not watched the video or could careless. Do I believed he abused children idk I wasn't there and like I said I didn't watch the movie. I grew up with his music if he is guilty I will still love the music and I can easily separate a person and their work as two beings. That's all I am going to say on the matter.
Oh. Am I this bad, lol.
Maybe in short. I think that the Saville case is different because his family doesn't get much money anymore by his legacy.
The family or others still benefit from the legacy from MJ's music.
Why is it not possible to reopen this case or start a new one? Investigate everything again and also use all the information available + the new information that there is and that maybe come taking in account that MJ cannot defend himself anymore.
And then sue the family or the MJ company and either MJ is convicted (by default the family or MJ company) and that money can be used for good. Or he is not found guilty and then we can have some closure about that so many years after his death and with the knowledge that it has been researched in the best possible way. and most exhaustive way And all with people that do abusive and pedophile cases (where proof is difficult).
My original post was a little more subtle.
I hope I am now more clear.
Equating an adult sleeping in bed with children, alongside everything else shown in the documentary, with cheating on a spouse? As if it's some morally grey area to groom and abuse children. What is wrong with you?
It's this casual "I'm too cool for this" attitude I find particularly pathetic.
The person just asked a simple question and is trying to learn. Not everyone has the same knowledge and maybe a bit more empathy towards that would be appreciated.
"Can we accuse/blame dead people for sexually abusing children?" should be a pretty elementary question, not something requiring of much knowledge or consideration. I get the sentiment but feel it's misplaced considering the question asked.
Fuck this. Anyone ok with letting their kid sleep in bed with a creepy pop star shouldn't have kids.
This post is unbelievable. Willful ignorance if I've ever seen it.
The public's eye luckily has been pretty cemented. Falling in line with the rest of us sheep mirite?
Not very smart of Capcom to pay homage to MJ in the new DMC. They had enough time to remove it.
Japan loves Michael, they probably give two shits about the documentary to be honest.
It's basically confirmed that Wade slept with Britney. He's essentially the inspiration for "cry me a river".
Who gives a shit? Wtf does that have to do with him being groomed an abused as a child?
Apparently not because they are banned now. For asking a simple question that from my eyes had no malice behind it. Would I get banned for asking what multiplication is even though it is simple maths? I'd argue against them in prefacing with boogeyman expectation for asking the question but in light of the context it had purpose.
As a note I believe anyone dead or alive can be questioned on guilt of a crime. That's what cold cases are for.
No, no they really didn't. It would have been set in stone for awhile now and this only aired what, March 3rd and the game came out March 8th. They would have to patch it out entirely or change the context completely. It isn't some snap of the finger so please do not actually allude to that.
The one that my quotes were speaking of?
Like I said, they didn't help their case certainly with the prefacing of boogeyman ERA moderation but they were simply asking a question and I don't see that worthy of a ban.
They also said they didn't watch the doc, couldn't care less, then signed off with a sentiment about separating art from the artist. That and including a less than sound version of freedom of speech as well
I watched Living With Michael Jackson for the first time since it aired. Bashir is a lousy interviewer but the parts with Gavin are particularly disturbing.
Michael: "The most loving thing you can do is share your bed with someone"
Gavin: "You're taking the position that you use every single night, that you go into, you sleep, and you're sharing it with another being"
Everything he says in this doc is either pure rambling or a carefully worded statement. He also takes some of Bashir's assumptions as a leading off point for his own answers as if he couldn't think of a better excuse in the moment.
Michael: "Who's the criminal? Who's Jack The Ripper in the room?"
...no one brought up serial killers but please, continue
"If someone announced that their were no kids in the world, I'd jump off a balcony. I'm done"
Completely normal theoretical thought.
Michael: "The most loving thing you can do is share your bed with someone"
Gavin: "You're taking the position that you use every single night, that you go into, you sleep, and you're sharing it with another being"
Everything he says in this doc is either pure rambling or a carefully worded statement. He also takes some of Bashir's assumptions as a leading off point for his own answers as if he couldn't think of a better excuse in the moment.
Michael: "Who's the criminal? Who's Jack The Ripper in the room?"
...no one brought up serial killers but please, continue
"If someone announced that their were no kids in the world, I'd jump off a balcony. I'm done"
Completely normal theoretical thought.
Last edited:
From the formatting I think there is a language barrier there, but wow did that post come off as trolling. Also it's totally possible the person honestly didn't know the answer, but it seemed wildly disingenuous. When there is this much smoke you absolutely can accuse or question a dead persons innocence, especially as others pointed out, the question came up long before he died.
To take this further what kind of question is that? This thread and question exists so yes obviously you can. Like I said there's a language barrier (I think), but come on that's a total lack of common Sense. Maybe that's why they jumped to drive by trolling?
That is indeed true on the second reply they had, and I disagree with his understanding of free speech. I more meant in context of his main reply that was quoted earlier in that it was an innocent question that certainly isn't ban worthy. I mean I'd also argue his reply following isn't ban worthy either considering there have been worse things said on here then someone voicing their opinion on freedom of speech and separating artist from music. I mean I personally can do just that and still condemn Michael Jackson for the fucked up shit he did which was very startlingly called to contrast in the doco.
I disagree. They seem pretty upset about it. Mrs. Safechuck celebrated his death. Mrs. Robson moreso than safechuck tries to make excuses for herself, I think she still is processing how she let this all happen. I think the amount of blame they get is pretty unfair. They were groomed as well as the children. They were naive, it was reckless, they were star struck, but so was the rest of the world.
I don't know If that's possible.
And i simply answered the question. In what way did i not show empathy.
Nah. I think that's a bollocks. They're weren't naive. They just saw money and fame, and sacrificed their kids for it.
What's crazy about this whole situation is that I do not think Michael Jackson was lying about loving children and wanting to make the world a better place, but at the same time in some twisted way he manages to twist that genuine love he has into something sexually harmful. Somehow rationalizing his actions as, "I'm doing these good things, so many good things, that it makes THIS ok."
Hi everyone, we don't have hbo here and I am eager to know what is going on. Is there a articles that explains this documentary or anything that I can see without needing hbo, I really want to hear teh stories of these people but have no idea where or how to
Neither of us are mods and we don't have any larger picture of that poster, I was just pointing out it wasn't as simple as just asking questions. It's also only 3 days
Watched this in the U.K. tonight on catch up.
I've always thought Jackson was innocent. Not anymore.
It's fantastically shot and directed. I also loved the score.
I've always thought Jackson was innocent. Not anymore.
It's fantastically shot and directed. I also loved the score.
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. The two things about wade that stuck out to me the most is how fast he gets to the molesting compared to jimmy who was eased into it. The other was that they get very emotional talking about their family being destroyed from chasing money compared to the sexual abuse. I still think he's likely telling the truth just that he doesn't tell it as well as jimmy.
It'll be interesting to see if anyone makes a rebuttal documentary. I'm sure there's tons of private video and information never seen by anyone. I think odds of Jackson being innocent is similar to the lottery at this point but if it can be done now is the time to do it.
He for sure would have called it pure and innocent to spin his actions. Much like how he was acting all frail walking into court scared he was going to be found guilty then was able to jump on the limo on the way out after being cleared. If he had been found guilty there's zero doubt they would have played the health card to get a retrial.
It'll be interesting to see if anyone makes a rebuttal documentary. I'm sure there's tons of private video and information never seen by anyone. I think odds of Jackson being innocent is similar to the lottery at this point but if it can be done now is the time to do it.
He for sure would have called it pure and innocent to spin his actions. Much like how he was acting all frail walking into court scared he was going to be found guilty then was able to jump on the limo on the way out after being cleared. If he had been found guilty there's zero doubt they would have played the health card to get a retrial.
the part where safechuck said she danced and cheered when michael died seemed super contrived to me. i don't really want to cast too much blame on the parents, and they've paid enough, but they failed their children. the contrast between the way the victims recalled the events and the way the parents recalled them really stuck out to me. it was like i was watching different films each time it switched.
Yep and as gross as it is, they have a "type" like normal people have a "type" when it comes to sexual attraction.
My understanding is that the audience was made up of mostly childhood-sexual abuse survivors. Throughout the interview, the cuts to the audience seemed to communicate a lot of shared understanding, that was almost communal in nature. There was a lot of head-nodding, smiles, grins, winces and other sorta subtle "interaction" between individual members of the audience and the people on stage.
I think you might be confusing glibness about the subject matter, when it actually seemed to be a case of "in-group" gallows humor, similar to how any group of people who have experienced trauma might joke around a bit about their shared experience.
In case you weren't aware, Oprah experienced sexual abuse as a child, and has been refreshingly - and quite bravely - candid about it. I think she's both irresponsible and narcissistically glib about a lot of subject-matters throughout her career (and most definitely shouldn't be considered a viable presidential candidate), but she's been consistently "on-point" about childhood sexual exploitation (perhaps because it cuts so close to her lived experience).
The doctor you mentioned - Howard Fradkin - was introduced as someone who works with male sexual assault victims. What he talked about (the act of grooming victims) was perfectly factual and is useful information (and also fairly well-known, in the context of manipulative behavior).
The point of "the Hawaii-story" was to illustrate how an emotionally manipulative person can use an extraordinary event - like visiting a nice place like Hawaii - as "ammunition" to gain emotional leverage. It wasn't brought up as a joke, but rather to illustrate how emotional manipulation works by predators who are keyed into the wants of most people: to be seen, to be validated, and to feel like they are completely unique in an intimate, person-to-person way.
Obviously, your reading of the interview is yours, but I thought I should chime in because it seemed so oddly different from my own. I think, if anything, that some people might have been caught a little off-guard by how "in-group" it all felt, and because there is a certain expectation of what an Oprah interview will be about.
As I mentioned before, I have a pretty negative attitude towards most of what Oprah has done and does, but I will definitely give her credit for how she handles childhood sexual violence, which tends to be extremely "keyed-in" and insightful (in a way that makes everything else she does so bafflingly tone-deaf or vapid by comparison).
No parent in the world can ever protect their child 24/7 as the dangers that are lurking in the shadows will be very eager to jump at sign of ease. I'd also love to know if you are even a parent to begin with because not being one really contrasts that kind of bold statement.
Definitely true, and I respect you for giving your opinion on it. At the end of the day the decision is always going to be down to the mods, not us :)
It felt like Wade is just a more cold and calculating person, or at least more capable of "shelving" emotion, as he was groomed to do. Jimmy seemed just utterly shattered by the experience and also seemed like his emotions are just nearer to the surface
I couldn't get over how terrible they were
Sorry, but no way does any decent parent say OK go ahead small child go sleep in the bed with a grown ass man without any supervision
No parent can protect a kid 24/7. But you know what they can do? Decide if its okay with their child sleeping in the same bed a grown man.
- Status