Jump to content


Club Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Kittiara last won the day on September 16 2018

Kittiara had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

476 Excellent

About Kittiara

  • Rank
  • Birthday March 18

Profile Fields

  • Sex

Recent Profile Visitors

1,386 profile views
  1. Okay, so I have watched the documentary as well as the Oprah interview. Earlier in this thread I said that I had questions. I still do. As others have said, the documentary doesn't offer any actual evidence of sexual abuse. That would have been impossible. It did, however, lead me to draw some conclusions: - The documentary showed video footage, pictures, recordings etc of just how close Michael Jackson was to these boys. Some of it was pretty creepy, like that interview on the plane, and those faxes, and one of those answer machine messages. The relationship he had with the boys seemed very... intense. Overwhelming. It's easy to see how he made them feel special, and loved, and then he replaced them with the next boy, and the hurt that caused is easily understood. Regardless of whether or not any sexual abuse took place, I would class that as emotional abuse. - I still stand firm that regardless of whether or not any sexual abuse took place, it was wrong of Jackson to share a bedroom, let alone a bed, with unrelated children. - The parents, and especially the mothers, came across terribly in the documentary. Their reputation is in pieces forever. I am not sure why they would participate in the documentary if the allegations aren't true. No amount of money would surely make up for being seen as a terrible person, globally, for the rest of your life... - Like @downzy it was the second half of part 2 that I found the most convincing. If there isn't something to these allegations then the brother and sister especially deserve an Oscar. - The same goes for James Safechuck towards the end of the Oprah interview. If he isn't being genuine the guy deserves some kind of acting award. I can't, of course, be 100 percent certain that these guys are telling the truth. On balance, however, I find it difficult to believe they and their families could lie like that. I also find it difficult to understand why they would. They didn't seek to make this documentary. In the Oprah interview, the producer says he was the one who approached them. They, nor their families, received any monetary reward for it. The doors to any monetary reward are pretty much closed. They've made themselves hate figures in the eyes of many, and the same goes for their families and especially their mothers. Even if they are liars, though, as I mentioned above, it is clear that Jackson wasn't a nice person. As someone who was once a fan, that's not pleasant to admit, but enough evidence was presented for me to conclude that much...
  2. I haven't yet watched this documentary and I am not sure that I want to. However, I did read about it because, as I said in another thread, I read some of the trial transcripts due to a conversation on another forum and I was left with some questions. Questions that will no doubt never be answered. I have questions about these accusers as well. It does seem questionable that one of them claimed at that trial that Michael Jackson had never touched him inappropriately and now he claims the opposite. I am pretty sure that I read, though, that neither of the men were paid to be a part of this documentary. Why, then, are they exposing themselves to what will no doubt amount to a lot of vitriol? I just don't know. I do, however, agree with Len that regardless of his innocence regarding the actions he was accused of, there was some dodgy stuff going on at Neverland. I, too, stated in the other thread that if it were Bob the plumber from down the road sharing a bedroom with unrelated children I doubt anyone would rush to excuse this behaviour. And, indeed, there was the dodgy "art" book. And who leaves porn magazines lying around when there are kids staying over? I know people say Michael Jackson was an innocent, childlike soul but is that because that was just the image he meant to project, or something we're projecting onto him? Or is it the truth? And how far does that go? As said, many questions...
  3. The morality of the artist

    This is something that I have pondered as well on occasion, and especially over the last year. When I was a kid, I loved Michael Jackson's music. I guess he was the first artist who I was a fan of. I had the opportunity to meet him once, and I remember him being really nice. A bit shy. When the accusations emerged, I didn't believe them. I didn't want to believe them. Last year, due to a discussion on another forum, I ended up reading some of the trial transcripts and whilst he was found to be not guilty, there was some questionable stuff going on. I am no longer a kid and I see no justification for having unrelated children sleeping in one's bedroom. If it weren't Michael Jackson, but Bob, the plumber down the road, would anyone make excuses for that? Yet, I do like some of his music. It's music I grew up with. So, like others say in this thread, where do you draw the line? I was never into the Lostprophets but I do feel that it would be difficult for me to listen to an artist who was found guilty of a crime of that nature. I can't completely separate the art from the artist, because to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the piece, there will always be something of the artist that shines through in the art. I love to write and I know that even if I write a fantasy story, for example, there's something of me in there. It's inevitable. What we create stems from who we are - our feelings, our thoughts, our emotions, our personalities. I haven't known about Axl's alleged past for that long, despite having loved GN'R's music since '87. I was the kind of person who listened to the music and attended the occasional concert, and that's about it. Sure, I sometimes read music magazines aimed at teenagers but they were the kind where you mainly learned about an artist's favourite colour and food, not the serious kind of stuff. It's only through this forum that I have become more informed. And if it's true that Axl did those things then that's not something I can condone and that does somewhat diminish my enjoyment of his art. It also makes those t-shirts he wears at times, like the one with the woman in the trash can, all the more distasteful. And yeah, it's a cognitive dissonance thing. I can tell myself that with some artists whose music I love, that they may have done some awful things but they haven't been found guilty so we can't know for sure, but that if they had I would stop listening. Would I really? I think what that uncertainty says about me is not something I like.