Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson Documentary, HBO

[PatrickS77]

Hmm. Apart from the sexual stuff looks like a very strange love letter to Jackson. Do not really believe any of the sexual stuff. Too many inconsistancies and those guys really defended and praised him way too long. Only when it became more lucrative to go the other way they changed their tunes and sued for 1,6 billion $. Michael Jackson had unusual, maybe borderline relationships to children, which made him vulnerable and a target, but not really an abusive pedophile. But whatever, people believe what they want to believe, despite everything that puts this accusations in doubt.

[PatrickS77]

On 5.3.2019 at 9:21 AM, SoulMonster said:

Of course sleeping is not bumming  The point was rather that if you as a father heard that an adult man wanted to sleep in his bed with your children, then that would be a HUGE red flag. You wouldn't simply go, "well, sleeping isn't bumming so all is probably alright."

Let's not get that twisted. It was the kids who asked to sleep in Michael's room.

[downzy]

53 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

Hmm. Apart from the sexual stuff looks like a very strange love letter to Jackson. Do not really believe any of the sexual stuff. Too many inconsistancies and those guys really defended and praised him way too long. Only when it became more lucrative to go the other way they changed their tunes and sued for 1,6 billion $. Michael Jackson had unusual, maybe borderline relationships to children, which made him vulnerable and a target, but not really an abusive pedophile. But whatever, people believe what they want to believe, despite everything that puts this accusations in doubt.

But so too do Jackson contenders. Everyone is in the same boat that there will never be conclusive proof either way. The $1.6 billion dollar tag can’t be sourced to anything other than a Forbes article. All unsealed court documents say nothing about a dollar amount. 

And yes the accusers have a consistency problem. But so too does Jackson and his estate. They have provided several accounts relating to the accusations and settlements. 

At the end of the day, it comes down to who you want to believe. For many that calculation changed after watching the documentary. 

42 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

Let's not get that twisted. It was the kids who asked to sleep in Michael's room.

Um, what?  Lol. I don’t think so. 

[DieselDaisy]

I tell you what Michael Jackson's paedophilia is reminiscent of: (Classical Greek) pederasty. In both instances an elite/wealthy male (erastes) adopts a child (eromenos), carrying that child into his own socio-geographic domain (in Jackson's case Neverland) and displayed that child publicly, almost as a sort of ''trophy''. In both instances the parents were cultivated and this arrangement was actually desired  (by parents) economically, professionally and in terms of social/celebrity standing. In both instances the relationship does entail many more aspects than simple molestation; with Jackson this entailed indulging in a schmaltzy Spielbergian Arcadia whereas for the ancient Greeks this entailed furtherance of the child's educational and military capabilities. 

The one difference is the fact that sexual relations were not prohibited and even deemed socially acceptable in Greek city-states, but then you look at the way paedophilia has been covered up and explained-away by powerful and famous people and organisations until relatively recently, and even this difference begins to diminish.

Edited March 16, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[action]

18 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I tell you what Michael Jackson's paedophilia is reminiscent of: (Classical Greek) pederasty. In both instances an elite/wealthy male (erastes) adopts a child (eromenos), carrying that child into his own socio-geographic domain (in Jackson's case Neverland) and displayed that child publicly, almost as a sort of ''trophy''. In both instances the parents were cultivated and this arrangement was actually desired  (by parents) economically, professionally and in terms of social/celebrity standing. In both instances the relationship does entail many more aspects than simple molestation; with Jackson this entailed indulging in a schmaltzy Spielbergian Arcadia whereas for the ancient Greeks this entailed furtherance of the child's educational and military capabilities. 

The one difference is the fact that sexual relations were not prohibited and even deemed socially acceptable in Greek city-states, but then you look at the way paedophilia has been covered up and explained-away by powerful and famous people and organisations until relatively recently, and even this difference begins to diminish.

phew.

"it's all greek to me" will never mean the same

[DieselDaisy]

42 minutes ago, action said:

phew.

"it's all greek to me" will never mean the same

Sufficing to say it is different from just plain ''noncing'' of the old man in trench coated variety. Jackson did forge relationships, strange paedagogical relationships but relationships nonetheless, with these children which extended beyond the sexual. But, of course included the sexual - well that is the topical debate we are having.

[Scream of the Butterfly]

8 hours ago, toroymoi said:

You're talking about normality in reference to a man who sought out children to put in this position, and as he admitted himself, slept in the same bed as them. Nothing is normal about this situation from the jump.

Abandoning a child, when you've made them dependent upon you (especially emotionally) and created a world for them, is indeed emotional/psychological abuse. That alone can damage someone in ways they may never realise.

The point is, not much of this is indisputable fact. We don't know whether he made children dependent on him only to abandon them in a manner that was abusive. It comes down to whether you believe the accusers or not.

If you go by the assumption that he was innocent, sharing a bed with a child is not such a bad thing. In fact, there are people who believe it's abuse to abandon a child to sleep alone in its own room.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Scream of the Butterfly

[Dazey]

20 minutes ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

If you go by the assumption that he was innocent, sharing a bed with a child is not such a bad thing. 

Sorry but it really is.

[Len Cnut]

31 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Sorry but it really is.

The amount of fuckin' people that say that shit worries the fuck out of me.  Do THAT many fuckin' people think that shit is normal or is it cuz we're talking about Michael Jackson?  Cuz if, God fuckin' forbid, I ever walked in on some shit like that that person would die that day.

[Angelica]

3 hours ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

The point is, not much of this is indisputable fact. We don't know whether he made children dependent on him only to abandon them in a manner that was abusive. It comes down to whether you believe the accusers or not.

If you go by the assumption that he was innocent, sharing a bed with a child is not such a bad thing. In fact, there are people who believe it's abuse to abandon a child to sleep alone in its own room.

Let’s be REALLY CLEAR - having the slightest urge to regularly share a bed with a child you have no familial relation too, free of any sinister context, is quite simply (and fucking obviously) NOT a thing. Let alone with multiple random children (...oh and who mostly happen to be of a similar physical type). Seriously WHAT THE FUCK. 

Edited March 16, 2019 by Angelica

[Len Cnut]

14 minutes ago, Angelica said:

Let’s be REALLY CLEAR - having the slightest urge to regularly share a bed with a child you have no familial relation too, free of any sinister context, is quite simply (and fucking obviously) NOT a thing. Let alone with multiple children. Seriously WHAT THE FUCK. 

Thank you!  Fuck me, I was starting to feel like I was the only one left.  I mean, really, break it down, OK, I wanna sleep with some strangers child.  Hmm, OK, whys that?  Because I love children in a totally non sexual way.  OK, well then, I dunno, maybe show your love a different way?  Why does your love manifest itself in wanting to sleep with the fucker?  And once you're sleeping with the kid, hows it gonna play out...what, you're just gonna take opposite sides, turn your fuckin' backs and go sleep?  If thats the case then why bother sharing a bed?  Oh, the kid don't wannabe alone?  OK, well then why not get another bed in the room?  Because if you ain't just gonna turn your back and go sleep then what?  Cuddles?  Spooning?  See how sinister this shit is getting? 

And if you love kids, in a broad sense as in love the children of the species then why does that require sleeping with one or two or ten kids?  I mean its at that point you're becoming sort of case specific aren't you?  You're not showing a love or an interest for ALL kids at that point, its something about that particular or those particular kids that is attracting you, them in a physical sense, it simply has to be.  There is no fuckin' rationalisation for that shit. 

And if you are some one in a fuckin' million unique fuckin' case where there's nothing at all fucked up in your intent, even then, what the fuck are you doing to that kid and his mentality by sleeping with him?  You might be unique but the rest of the world fuckin' ain't and it ain't fair on the kid, the formative years are really important developmentally and when you fuckin' with the kids psyche you are setting them up in life to be fucked up in the head, they're going through puberty, all that shit, its the responsibility to adults to fuckin' guide them and manage their growth to where they are presented with some semblence of normality so their impulses and compulsions and predlictions grow in a normal direction so maybe they don't grow up to be fuckin' Ted Bundy, perhaps its worth noting that the best way to achieve that is not by sleeping with a 40 year old plastic faced creep dressed like he should be on a fuckin' cereal box.  Its strange and ugly and wrong whatever way you hold it up. 

[Blackstar]

5 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I tell you what Michael Jackson's paedophilia is reminiscent of: (Classical Greek) pederasty. In both instances an elite/wealthy male (erastes) adopts a child (eromenos), carrying that child into his own socio-geographic domain (in Jackson's case Neverland) and displayed that child publicly, almost as a sort of ''trophy''. In both instances the parents were cultivated and this arrangement was actually desired  (by parents) economically, professionally and in terms of social/celebrity standing. In both instances the relationship does entail many more aspects than simple molestation; with Jackson this entailed indulging in a schmaltzy Spielbergian Arcadia whereas for the ancient Greeks this entailed furtherance of the child's educational and military capabilities. 

The one difference is the fact that sexual relations were not prohibited and even deemed socially acceptable in Greek city-states, but then you look at the way paedophilia has been covered up and explained-away by powerful and famous people and organisations until relatively recently, and even this difference begins to diminish.

Well, the difference is that because, as you said, it was a very different type of society where this kind of relationship was acceptable - basically a socially accepted homoerotic relationship with certain rules: teenage boys (not younger children) and no anal sex - it wasn't traumatic for the boy, as it was considered a paedagogic/coming-of-age relationship.

[Angelica]

32 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Thank you!  Fuck me, I was starting to feel like I was the only one left.  I mean, really, break it down, OK, I wanna sleep with some strangers child.  Hmm, OK, whys that?  Because I love children in a totally non sexual way.  OK, well then, I dunno, maybe show your love a different way?  Why does your love manifest itself in wanting to sleep with the fucker?  And once you're sleeping with the kid, hows it gonna play out...what, you're just gonna take opposite sides, turn your fuckin' backs and go sleep?  If thats the case then why bother sharing a bed?  Oh, the kid don't wannabe alone?  OK, well then why not get another bed in the room?  Because if you ain't just gonna turn your back and go sleep then what?  Cuddles?  Spooning?  See how sinister this shit is getting? 

And if you love kids, in a broad sense as in love the children of the species then why does that require sleeping with one or two or ten kids?  I mean its at that point you're becoming sort of case specific aren't you?  You're not showing a love or an interest for ALL kids at that point, its something about that particular or those particular kids that is attracting you, them in a physical sense, it simply has to be.  There is no fuckin' rationalisation for that shit. 

And if you are some one in a fuckin' million unique fuckin' case where there's nothing at all fucked up in your intent, even then, what the fuck are you doing to that kid and his mentality by sleeping with him?  You might be unique but the rest of the world fuckin' ain't and it ain't fair on the kid, the formative years are really important developmentally and when you fuckin' with the kids psyche you are setting them up in life to be fucked up in the head, they're going through puberty, all that shit, its the responsibility to adults to fuckin' guide them and manage their growth to where they are presented with some semblence of normality so their impulses and compulsions and predlictions grow in a normal direction so maybe they don't grow up to be fuckin' Ted Bundy, perhaps its worth noting that the best way to achieve that is not by sleeping with a 40 year old plastic faced creep dressed like he should be on a fuckin' cereal box.  Its strange and ugly and wrong whatever way you hold it up. 

EXACTLY. All of that. And the ‘Peter Pan’ bullshit. I would politely ask if anyone has ever heard that used as a defense  in relation to any other grown man in the universe who, regardless of abuse and exploitation in their background, has obviously unhealthy ties with children. (Spoiler alert, you haven’t, because it’s also not a thing). 

Edited March 16, 2019 by Angelica

[Len Cnut]

30 minutes ago, Angelica said:

EXACTLY. All of that. And the ‘Peter Pan’ bullshit. I would politely ask if anyone has ever heard that used as a defense  in relation to any other grown man in the universe who, regardless of abuse and exploitation in their background, has obviously unhealthy ties with children. (Spoiler alert, you haven’t, because it’s also not a thing). 

How people buy that shit I'll never know, it really makes me wonder how people like that make it out of life alive without getting robbed three ways from sunday or else taken advantage of in life, like I said earlier in the thread, where the fuck was Peter Pan when he was robbing his mate McCartney?  I've seen a few voices in certain American black nationalists quarters even going so far as to say that he was striking a blow for like...black people and how they were done out of rock n roll by white folks (a pretty spurious proposition to begin with).  Apparently he bought the rights to Little Richards shit and gave it back to him, how true that is I don't know. 

But yeah, childlike and innocent, if he's childlike and innocent then I'm Betty fuckin' Grable.  Furthermore, any 40 yr old man with a Peter Pan complex is profoundly mentally disturbed as is and probably isn't the kind of person to leave in charge of children, if you're seriously like, mentally a child then you're like the last candidate to be in charge of kids.  Honestly, how fuckin' dim can people be, this middle aged old cunt poncing about the place going 'i'm a child, i'm a child!' and everyones like 'awwwww, Michael's so sweet!', my fuckin' arse.  As you say literally any other man in the fuckin' world and they'd have the pedo police on him quicker than you can say 'get in the van!'. 

Shit, if thats a defence then lets excuse all pedos, shit, they're probably children inside, thats why they fancy children.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Len Cnut

[Lio]

That's what it comes down to. Even if you don't believe the sexual abuse thing, it is pretty obvious that he was mentally ill and if he hadn't been a superstar, he would have been locked up decades ago. Anyone still claiming he was innocent and childlike, is lying to themselves. Objectively, we do know he had his favourite boys and they were in rotation. It goes without saying it is devastating for a little boy to be the special one one day and live a fairytale, then have yourself replaced by another special one after some time. That will have lifelong consequences for the boys involved.

That leads me to the conclusion he wasn't full of love. Because if we were truly talking about innocent love, like you'd feel for your own child or a cousin or whatever child you have a bond with, you would never ever do anything like that to them. Like I said before, one of the things that struck me the most is how mean he actually was to those kids, not even considering inappropriate sexual behaviour. That's not love at all, it couldn't be farther away from love, actually.

Oh, and @Len Cnut, fortunately, I've only seen people on here claim it's not such a bad thing to want to sleep with a kid that's not yours.

[action]

I feel I need to clarify some things here, as I don't really like how this conversation is going.

I have never claimed that it is any sort of "right" thing to do; sleeping with children. I am not buying the reason given by jackson to do so either. I don't think it is normal behaviour, and yes, it can surely lead to more sinister acts.

My argument has been focusing on the legality of the "sleeping with children" part, in the event that it is sleeping, and nothing else.

Now this may seem as a twisted view, and may seem like I'm approving of this behaviour, but really I am not.

But there is a big difference between what is "inappropriate" and what is "illegal". everything that is illegal, is inappropriate, but not everything that is inappropriate is illegal.

of course it is inappropriate to sleep with children, on so many levels. But contrary to what many believe, sleeping is not illegal. half the duration of our lives, we're fucking sleeping

this is a distinction that goes over the head of many people, as proven by some of the posts made in this thread. If you so much as dare to shed a light on the legality of some aspects in this case, you're all but labeled a child molester yourself.

a witch hunting mob... best not to poke a stick at them, or you'll end up on the burning stable yourself. they can't be reasoned with and they will not fucking stop until you're hanged by the balls

Edited March 16, 2019 by action

[downzy]

3 minutes ago, action said:

this is a distinction that goes over the head of many people, as proven by some of the posts made in this thread. If you so much as dare to shed a light on the legality of some aspects in this case, you're all but labeled a child molester yourself.

Who is having a problem with this distinction?  

I haven't read posts by anyone here stating that because kids slept in the same bed as Jackson that it's proof there was sexual abuse.  Just as it's not illegal to give unrelated kids a lift to school in a windowless van.  Nobody is disputing the legality of a well-established fact; only that that fact is a strong cause for suspicion.

[soon]

10 minutes ago, action said:

half the duration of our lives, we're fucking sleeping

And here I am only sleeping for a 1/3 of my life, like a sucker! 

I gotta get on this Belgium sleep cycle!!

[downzy]

Interesting interview by Dan Reed, the director and producer of Leaving Neverland on Daily Beast:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/leaving-neverland-director-dan-reed-compares-michael-jackson-truthers-to-corbynites?ref=home

He clears up a couple of misconceptions and counters some of the arguments made by Jackson defenders.  

One of the first things he clears up is that he didn't look into the veracity of Robson and Safechuck's claims.  It's often argued that Reed didn't bother to fact check any of what the two men claim.  It's true that he didn't seek comment or clarification from Jackson, but as Reed argues, the film isn't about Jackson, but about the two men claiming sexual abuse by Jackson.  According to the interview he interviewed prosecutors and investigators in the 1993 and 2005 matters.  As Reed states,

• "I did a really long interview with both of them—separately—in February 2017, and found them to be very sincere and, on the face of it, credible, but knew there was a huge amount of corroboration I had to do to both study the interviews and research all the facts around the interviews—all the facts described, all the evidence, all the pictorial evidence. I was looking for anything that might undermine their stories, because I knew if anyone else found it I’d be in big trouble, and I couldn’t find anything. And I did find a lot of stuff that corroborated what they were saying."

Another argument brought up by MJ defenders is that Safechuck's mom's reaction to Jackson's funeral couldn't be true since, as they claim, she wasn't told about the abuse until 2013.  I always found this a weird argument since I thought the film makes it clear Safechuck insinuated to his mom in 2005 that Jackson wasn't a good guy and that she shouldn't testify in the 2005 case (just as he wasn't willing to do).  As Reed notes:

• "Well no, the reason they’re saying this is because they’re basically riffing off of [Jackson lawyer] Howard Weitzman’s tip sheet. Weitzman wrote his 10-page rebuttal of the documentary without having seen the documentary, so a lot of the things he includes as supposed claims that we make in the documentary are actually very selectively drawn out of context from the amended legal complaint. So we’re talking apples and oranges here. In the documentary, James says that in 2005, he didn’t want to testify and told his mom that he didn’t want to testify because, he said, “Michael is not a good man.” So he tells his mom and doesn’t expand, but to Stephanie it’s very clear what he means: James was abused. But they do not have any further discussion and he begs her not to tell anyone else. It stayed between the two of them until 2013. So that’s why she stands up and does a little jig when he dies, because she realizes she doesn’t have to put a steak knife through this guy’s heart."

There's also questions about Robson's desire to be part of the Cirque to Soleil show and that this somehow undermines his sexual assault accusations.  Here's Reed's attempt to clarify the matter:

• "The Cirque du Soleil thing is bullshit, because it’s actually Wade in 2012 who writes to the estate and says, look, I’m sorry I’ve been to-and-fro on this but I really can’t do it, so he is the one that pulls out and it’s them who wanted him to do it. That’s factually inaccurate, and I’ve seen the email where [Wade] does it and it postdates all the other emails. And the limo thing, well that’s explained. When Michael died, Wade is still in love with Jackson—still loves him, and still thinks he’s the best thing. His relationship is still very much alive. And it’s clear from anyone who’s watched the documentary how Wade talks about being distraught, weeping, and writing this eulogy for Michael. Wade is telling us this. We’re not hiding the fact that Wade was absolutely devastated when Michael died. Another thing is, about James not realizing the abuse until 2013, what James didn’t realize until 2013 were that his psychiatric symptoms were related to the abuse. He did know that what Michael did to him was child abuse—that’s why he told his mom that Michael was a “bad man.” The fans are trying to find inconsistencies that aren’t really there."

 

Also of note is the fact that Reed does speak to other accusers.  We hear from people that if Jackson was such a monster how come only four boys/men have come forward.  It turns out there have been other kids, as Reed asserts that the son of Jackson's old house maid was paid off relating to accusations to sexual assault.  Reed explains why he chose to focus on Robson and Safechuck instead:

• "So, I had dinner with her son, Jason, who himself had been molested and was paid off by Jackson. I didn’t get to Blanca because by the end, I realized that the testimony we had, which was about what happened behind Jackson’s bedroom door, was a lot more important and detailed and credible than anything that the maid might have seen. The maid did see them in the shower together, and that’s valid, but it wasn’t going to prove anything—and it didn’t prove anything in 1993 or the 2005 trial. It wasn’t enough to clinch the case against Michael. So I preferred to focus all of my efforts on the really new and unique thing that we had, which was for the first time, one of the children who was in Michael’s bed explaining what happened in that bed, and then to tell the story of how that young man exposed the secret that he’d kept for a long time, in the case of James and Wade."

 

 

[PatrickS77]

14 hours ago, downzy said:

But so too do Jackson contenders. Everyone is in the same boat that there will never be conclusive proof either way. The $1.6 billion dollar tag can’t be sourced to anything other than a Forbes article. All unsealed court documents say nothing about a dollar amount. 

And yes the accusers have a consistency problem. But so too does Jackson and his estate. They have provided several accounts relating to the accusations and settlements. 

At the end of the day, it comes down to who you want to believe. For many that calculation changed after watching the documentary. 

Um, what?  Lol. I don’t think so. 

Well, the prize tag hasn't been disputed by either side. This number is so outragous, one would think it would get disputed if false, since it hurts the credibility of the accusers. Until that happens I'm asuming it's true.

Um. Yes. It's even in the mockumentary. Robson asked to stay in Michael's room. And really, no one knows how it came about in each and every situation, so I refrain from really judging that.

[PatrickS77]

3 hours ago, downzy said:

Interesting interview by Dan Reed, the director and producer of Leaving Neverland on Daily Beast:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/leaving-neverland-director-dan-reed-compares-michael-jackson-truthers-to-corbynites?ref=home

He clears up a couple of misconceptions and counters some of the arguments made by Jackson defenders.  

One of the first things he clears up is that he didn't look into the veracity of Robson and Safechuck's claims.  It's often argued that Reed didn't bother to fact check any of what the two men claim.  It's true that he didn't seek comment or clarification from Jackson, but as Reed argues, the film isn't about Jackson, but about the two men claiming sexual abuse by Jackson.  According to the interview he interviewed prosecutors and investigators in the 1993 and 2005 matters.  As Reed states,

• "I did a really long interview with both of them—separately—in February 2017, and found them to be very sincere and, on the face of it, credible, but knew there was a huge amount of corroboration I had to do to both study the interviews and research all the facts around the interviews—all the facts described, all the evidence, all the pictorial evidence. I was looking for anything that might undermine their stories, because I knew if anyone else found it I’d be in big trouble, and I couldn’t find anything. And I did find a lot of stuff that corroborated what they were saying."

Another argument brought up by MJ defenders is that Safechuck's mom's reaction to Jackson's funeral couldn't be true since, as they claim, she wasn't told about the abuse until 2013.  I always found this a weird argument since I thought the film makes it clear Safechuck insinuated to his mom in 2005 that Jackson wasn't a good guy and that she shouldn't testify in the 2005 case (just as he wasn't willing to do).  As Reed notes:

• "Well no, the reason they’re saying this is because they’re basically riffing off of [Jackson lawyer] Howard Weitzman’s tip sheet. Weitzman wrote his 10-page rebuttal of the documentary without having seen the documentary, so a lot of the things he includes as supposed claims that we make in the documentary are actually very selectively drawn out of context from the amended legal complaint. So we’re talking apples and oranges here. In the documentary, James says that in 2005, he didn’t want to testify and told his mom that he didn’t want to testify because, he said, “Michael is not a good man.” So he tells his mom and doesn’t expand, but to Stephanie it’s very clear what he means: James was abused. But they do not have any further discussion and he begs her not to tell anyone else. It stayed between the two of them until 2013. So that’s why she stands up and does a little jig when he dies, because she realizes she doesn’t have to put a steak knife through this guy’s heart."

There's also questions about Robson's desire to be part of the Cirque to Soleil show and that this somehow undermines his sexual assault accusations.  Here's Reed's attempt to clarify the matter:

• "The Cirque du Soleil thing is bullshit, because it’s actually Wade in 2012 who writes to the estate and says, look, I’m sorry I’ve been to-and-fro on this but I really can’t do it, so he is the one that pulls out and it’s them who wanted him to do it. That’s factually inaccurate, and I’ve seen the email where [Wade] does it and it postdates all the other emails. And the limo thing, well that’s explained. When Michael died, Wade is still in love with Jackson—still loves him, and still thinks he’s the best thing. His relationship is still very much alive. And it’s clear from anyone who’s watched the documentary how Wade talks about being distraught, weeping, and writing this eulogy for Michael. Wade is telling us this. We’re not hiding the fact that Wade was absolutely devastated when Michael died. Another thing is, about James not realizing the abuse until 2013, what James didn’t realize until 2013 were that his psychiatric symptoms were related to the abuse. He did know that what Michael did to him was child abuse—that’s why he told his mom that Michael was a “bad man.” The fans are trying to find inconsistencies that aren’t really there."

 

Also of note is the fact that Reed does speak to other accusers.  We hear from people that if Jackson was such a monster how come only four boys/men have come forward.  It turns out there have been other kids, as Reed asserts that the son of Jackson's old house maid was paid off relating to accusations to sexual assault.  Reed explains why he chose to focus on Robson and Safechuck instead:

• "So, I had dinner with her son, Jason, who himself had been molested and was paid off by Jackson. I didn’t get to Blanca because by the end, I realized that the testimony we had, which was about what happened behind Jackson’s bedroom door, was a lot more important and detailed and credible than anything that the maid might have seen. The maid did see them in the shower together, and that’s valid, but it wasn’t going to prove anything—and it didn’t prove anything in 1993 or the 2005 trial. It wasn’t enough to clinch the case against Michael. So I preferred to focus all of my efforts on the really new and unique thing that we had, which was for the first time, one of the children who was in Michael’s bed explaining what happened in that bed, and then to tell the story of how that young man exposed the secret that he’d kept for a long time, in the case of James and Wade."

 

 

And yet he looks like a schoolboy being schooled by his teacher, when he comes across someone, who doesn't  fall for his bs:

As for Jason. Just read the court transcript. No one really believed him about the molestation. He was talking about being tickled and at one point admitting to anything, just so investigators would stop their questioning and let him leave back in '93.

Edited March 16, 2019 by PatrickS77

[DieselDaisy]

The Jackson fan rebuttals are amateurishly straw man-esque as most of them are dealt with in the actual documentary in significant length. But then many of the are refusing to watch the thing so there is nothing more you can do!

[Lio]

42 minutes ago, PatrickS77 said:

Um. Yes. It's even in the mockumentary. Robson asked to stay in Michael's room. And really, no one knows how it came about in each and every situation, so I refrain from really judging that.

He was a 7 year old boy and Jackson was his idol. What were they even doing in his bedroom anyway? I know my kid has never sat with any adult they hardly know on their bed. Why would you even do that? Invite a kid over and get them in your bedroom? Do you know people who do that? I've never in my life come across that. Ever. Why is it so hard to admit that it's suspicious and the boy was obviously manipulated? It's ridiculous that all those boys just out of nowhere came with the question of wanting to sleep in Michael's bed.

And even if they somehow all did come up with it themselves without any hints at all from Jackson himself: no, it is not normal, it is not appropriate and it will never be anything less than creepy to sleep with boys in your bed. Never. Don't pretend that it's somehow normal or say it was the boys who wanted to sleep in his bed.

Seriously, the things I read on here

[MillionsOfSpiders]

16 hours ago, PatrickS77 said:

Let's not get that twisted. It was the kids who asked to sleep in Michael's room.

I don’t believe that a boy of 7 or 10 would ask to sleep in the same bed as a grown man, no matter how much of a fan they were. I just don’t think it would enter the mind of such a young child - unless it was suggested to them by an adult. 

[PatrickS77]

24 minutes ago, Lio said:

He was a 7 year old boy and Jackson was his idol. What were they even doing in his bedroom anyway? I know my kid has never sat with any adult they hardly know on their bed. Why would you even do that? Invite a kid over and get them in your bedroom? Do you know people who do that? I've never in my life come across that. Ever. Why is it so hard to admit that it's suspicious and the boy was obviously manipulated? It's ridiculous that all those boys just out of nowhere came with the question of wanting to sleep in Michael's bed.

And even if they somehow all did come up with it themselves without any hints at all from Jackson himself: no, it is not normal, it is not appropriate and it will never be anything less than creepy to sleep with boys in your bed. Never. Don't pretend that it's somehow normal or say it was the boys who wanted to sleep in his bed.

Seriously, the things I read on here

Where have I ever said it is normal?? It's the crux of the thing, that it is not normal, but everybody wants to assume the worst and is jumping to the worst conclusion. Why is it obvious that the boy was manipulated? Because you want it to be. Because you can't fathom that it was nothing than a huge room, a wide bed and a kid, who would rather, than stay with the parents or on their own in a strange unfamiliar room, spend more time with the person they had fun all day. Where you never a kid?? When I was a kid I sometimes had a friend stay with me at my grandparents. We could have slept in different rooms and different beds, but that thought never crossed our minds. We slept in the same room, same (double) bed and had more fun until we fell asleep. 

26 minutes ago, MillionsOfSpiders said:

I don’t believe that a boy of 7 or 10 would ask to sleep in the same bed as a grown man, no matter how much of a fan they were. I just don’t think it would enter the mind of such a young child - unless it was suggested to them by an adult. 

And yet according to Robson it happened, so what you believe doesn't really matter.