Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson Documentary, HBO

[Kittiara]

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...

[RussTCB]

48 minutes ago, Kittiara said:

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...

It's not about projecting anything. It's about facts. The fact is that all of the people who have accused him of any wrong doing are proven to be people who were attempting some sort of extortion. 

That's provable fact. So it's not really something that needs further thought or debate. The reason those accusations started is because people thought it would be easy to get money from Michael because of his association with children. 

Again, there were a 10 year FBI investigation that found he was absolutely not responsible for any abuse or molestation of children. On top of that, the facts that prove the motives of people who have accused him are very easy to find. 

[DieselDaisy]

I have to confess I'm probably about 70-30% on Michael's side, i.e., I myself have some doubt. I suspect it is something we'll never know for certain, rather like James Dean's sexuality or the location of Lord Lucan. But I have researched the issue and am not just relying on Off the Wall being exceedingly good (you cannot bring Gavin Arvizo into proceedings for instant, as the case was turfed out by a court of law). 

Although Off the Wall is exceedingly good!

2 hours ago, Kittiara said:

And who leaves porn magazines lying around when there are kids staying over?

I think we've found the culprit behind the great British leaving shards of German Milfy porn mags around in bushes saga!! 

[Crazyman]

I'm of the opinion that he was innocent but also very ignorant to social norms and basically trapped himself into a cycle of getting accused/sued by people who were looking for a handout. 

There's a part in the documentary where Safechuck's mother said she danced when she found out MJ had died - Safechuck himself said that he only "realized" he had been molested after Robson sued the estate (after getting denied a directing job for an MJ-Cirque du Soleil show) several years later.

The 93/2005 allegations are pretty clearly from families trying to take advantage of him. 

[downzy]

13 hours ago, RussTCB said:

Again, there were a 10 year FBI investigation that found he was absolutely not responsible for any abuse or molestation of children. On top of that, the facts that prove the motives of people who have accused him are very easy to find. 

Well, it's a bit of a stretch to characterize the report in that way.  I don't think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that it ever concluded that Jackson was not responsible for any abuse.  A lack of corroborating hard evidence that would hold up in a criminal trial isn't necessarily proof that someone is innocent nor responsible.  

The investigation wasn't a full on ten year investigation, but the result of the LAPD requesting assistance from the FBI at various moments from between the various accusations.  Also, the report was heavily redacted, with some strange findings listed that were never clarified nor given any further explanation (some of which are summarized here: https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-fbis-case-against-michael-jackson-eyewitnesses-train-rides-and-an-alleged-sex-tape?ref=scroll)

Personally, I go back and forward on the matter.  I can't say one way or another whether Jackson was guilty of the crimes or not since I don't think anyone other than Jackson and those reporting to be his victims knows the truth.  

I do believe the burden of proof is required to assume guilt, especially with something so heinous.  I haven't had a chance to watch this new documentary and find it unlikely it will sway my opinion one way or another. 

That said, i think it's understandable why there are suspicions.  From the multiple accusers, to multiple payouts, to not filing civil action for damages against said accusers, to the very fact he slept with small children in his bed - there's enough there to give people cause for concern.  

[action]

the FBI couln't find any proof and he was acquitted in trial.

MJ then dies under mysterious circumstances (later confirmed to be manslaughter) mere days before he would make a massive comeback.

someone clearly didn't agree with his message of world peace and anti-war

rest in peace MJ. say hi to martin luther king, kennedy and tupac for me. 

[downzy]

2 minutes ago, action said:

the FBI couln't find any proof and he was acquitted in trial.

If there was no proof, there never would have been a trial.  And the verdict of the trial could have very well been determined by the testimony of the two men who now accuse MJ of molesting them.  It was also without the testimony of other Jackson's accusers as they refused to testify.  Keep in mind, OJ Simpson was found innocent by the same justice system.  

Again, I'm not saying he's guilty, but I don't believe it's as simple as some of Jackson's defenders are making it out to be.  Conversely, those who speak of his guilt with certainty need to recognize that the evidence isn't so air tight.  

[SoulMonster]

9 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Sleeping is not a synonym for bumming.

The talk of someone who definitely isn't a father.

[action]

29 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

The talk of someone who definitely isn't a father.

I'm not sure what being a father has to do with anything? Plenty of fathers rape their own children, so it's not as if being a father or not grants you some kind of illuminated whisdom or something. It's a throwaway putdown.

the fact of the matter is, sleeping IS not synonym for bumming.

Incidently, I'm a father and I strongly dissapprove of the thought of any grown up person sleeping with my kid. But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what I or anyone else dissapproves of. The only thing that counts is criminal law.

the first mistake was made by bad parents who let their own children sleep in MJ's house. ...or was it? Plenty of money was being made on the side of the "victims".

[SoulMonster]

Just now, action said:

I'm not sure what being a father has to do with anything? Plenty of fathers rape their own children, so it's not as if being a father or not grants you some kind of illuminated whisdom or something. It's a throwaway putdown.

the fact of the matter is, sleeping IS not synonym for bumming.

Incidently, I'm a father and I strongly dissapprove of the thought of any grown up person sleeping with my kid. But at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what I or anyone else dissapproves of. The only thing that counts is criminal law.

the first mistake was made by bad parents who let their own children sleep in MJ's house. ...or was it? Plenty of money was being made on the side of the "victims".

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."

[action]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

If there was no proof, there never would have been a trial.  And the verdict of the trial could have very well been determined by the testimony of the two men who now accuse MJ of molesting them.  It was also without the testimony of other Jackson's accusers as they refused to testify.  Keep in mind, OJ Simpson was found innocent by the same justice system.  

Again, I'm not saying he's guilty, but I don't believe it's as simple as some of Jackson's defenders are making it out to be.  Conversely, those who speak of his guilt with certainty need to recognize that the evidence isn't so air tight.  

slight correction. the prosecution gathered, what they "thought" consisted of proof, and they went to trial with it. All that had been gathered by prosecution was then reviewed by the jury, and they concluded it did "not" constitute proof.

it is also worth noting, that in this case the prosecution (tom sneddon) was having a personal vendetta against MJ, which to me shows he was not really fit for the job of being a prosecutioner

[Len Cnut]

I don't give a shit about whether or not he was prosecuted, shit, OJ wasn't prosecuted, with enough money and fuckin' clout you can buy your share of justice, fuck there's people on sex offenders registers right now for having done what Michael Jackson is known to have done, putting aside all the fuckin' allegations and all that fuckin' shit. 

@RussTCB, research, do me a favour, what, googling?   Googling and watching documentaries, reading books?  Well fuck me, then I've done 'research' on damn near every band I like, for years too, on-going research, I should apply for government funding  

Quote

the FBI couln't find any proof and he was acquitted in trial.

MJ then dies under mysterious circumstances (later confirmed to be manslaughter) mere days before he would make a massive comeback.

someone clearly didn't agree with his message of world peace and anti-war

I really really really hope this was meant in the humourous vein in which it comes across fella

Edited March 5, 2019 by Len Cnut

[Len Cnut]

10 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

A wrong 'un who took liberties. A rite old struggle n' grunt when ya have a butcher's. 

Grumble and grunt

[action]

1 hour ago, Len Cnut said:

 

I really really really hope this was meant in the humourous vein in which it comes across fella

[Len Cnut]

18 minutes ago, action said:

'you said hippie man?  ain't been no hippies round here for centuries, whats the matter, you been freeze dried or doin' hard time?'

[Len Cnut]

Quote

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?

Yeah, innocent and childlike my arse, he weren't innocent and childlike when he was fuckin' his mate Paul McCartney out of the rights to his songs though was he, he suddenly morphed into a cutthroat attourney for a moment there.

[Len Cnut]

11 minutes ago, lukepowell1988 said:

Len it's struggle and runt Son been tellin ya this for ages 

It fuckin' ain't, its grumble and grunt, why do you think pussy is referred to as grumble by old timers?  How can I prove this to you, I'm trying to think of an instance where the phrase is used in popular culture but I'm drawing a blank

[Len Cnut]

10 minutes ago, lukepowell1988 said:

Watch Green Street he says Struggle and Runt in that ... there ya go I win based on having evidence

Yeah, the problem with that is that Green Street is a load of shit with a bunch of pretend cockney shite in it

 

There you go, 6:58 'i've had more grumble than you've had hot dinners', written by proper old time Londoners, Ray Galton and Alan Simpson.  Struggle and grunt my arse, honestly, people just go around making cockney expressions up now and they tend to stick because people have forgotten the real.  Its like how these new age mockneys go about calling a beer a Britney Spears, the proper actual rhyming slang expressions are the old time ones. 

[RussTCB]

To me it just boils down to the same thing it's alwwys been: people who are looking for a reason to think Michael is guilty will find it. People who are looking for a reason to think he's not will find it. 

I probably should have went with my first plan and just not posted in this thread lol 

[Len Cnut]

12 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

To me it just boils down to the same thing it's alwwys been: people who are looking for a reason to think Michael is guilty will find it. People who are looking for a reason to think he's not will find it. 

I probably should have went with my first plan and just not posted in this thread lol 

In case I'm misunderstood here there's a good chance he is innocent, at least of the charges brought by the accusers but answer me this, does the idea of him sleeping with those boys, as he admittedly did, does that notion sit well with you?  What do you think was behind it?  And then throw in the boy art shit, overall this isn't any sort of a red flag to you?  I'm not being rhetorical or sarcastic here, this is a serious question. 

[EvanG]

I don't understand how people can be so sure he either did or didn't do it. I'm able to admit that I don't know. He was a grown man with needs (I'm guessing) who spent much of his time with mostly young boys (and not girls for some reason), even sleeping in the same bed. Who am I to state that nothing ever happened? I always thought he was just a very naive person with some mental issues because of his fucked up upbringing but who would never touch any of those kids inappropriately, but I've never even met the guy. So I'm not saying I believe these accusations but I can't say that it's all bullshit either because I simply can't know.

[Len Cnut]

13 minutes ago, lukepowell1988 said:

His death has nothing Mysterious about it play with fire and one day you will get burned the bloke knew what he was asking for taking that shit.

 

If you having trouble sleeping Mick just take a few Nhytol like the rest of us 

I agree with this, that doctor getting stuffed was just a witchhunt, almost every fuckin' famous person out there has a doctor like this that they can rinse for a script of whatever fuckin' disco pills they fancy, its not like they're being fuckin' pumped against their will full of shit that they have no idea what its about, alright it ain't double legal and all that but its a bit of a fuckin' skank pinning it on the doctor if you ask me though I haven't looked extensively into it so perhaps I'm missing something. 

And furthermore, expanding on the childlike innocence thing, no fuckin' person with that amount of money who can sustain it can possibly be THAT fuckin' childlike and innocent, its just not possible, he would get taken for a steamer and hung out to dry in a fortnight.  Everything you see in the media, in interviews, on record is fuckin' calculated.  And I'm not talking about Jacko exclusively here I'm talking about most famous people and the times when it ain't calculated it REALLY clangs.  I don't know how people can afford to be this naive, believing stuff like that, this guy has a fuckin' squad of attourneys, accountants, publicists etc etc but he's this total fuckin' babe in the woods that don't know his arse from a bag of crisps, really?  So they all sit there goin' over his end of year finances and various lawsuits while he sucks his thumb and goes goo goo gaa gaa, yeah, right.

[Angelica]

35 minutes ago, RussTCB said:

To me it just boils down to the same thing it's alwwys been: people who are looking for a reason to think Michael is guilty will find it. People who are looking for a reason to think he's not will find it. 

I probably should have went with my first plan and just not posted in this thread lol 

With all due respect...bullshit. I’m not out to get him OR protect him. I’m not going to state unequivocally that he’s a pedobear because I don’t know that to be true. I’m not going to state he’s not because I don’t know that either. My own personal instincts sway to the ‘there’s smoke and fire here’ but that’s not because I’m ‘looking for a reason to think he’s gulity’. Just as I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re not just blindly defending him. Okay? Cool. 

Edited March 5, 2019 by Angelica

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

The talk of someone who definitely isn't a father.

I don't see how that changes anything.

You don't see a difference between sleeping, i.e., the two of them lying down in bed, closing their eyes and going to sleep, and bumming or sodomy to give it its less colloquial expression, i.e., - well I'll not provide you with a graphic description but here is a clue: you accuse the Catholic church of it all the time?

As I said earlier, the issue is not whether he was eccentric - errant even. I think most of us can agree Jackson was psychologically imbalanced and did things that would be considered inappropriate for most adults. But the documentary specifically makes accusations of sodomy. 

[action]

the united states was founded more than 200 years ago and since that time, not a single parliament has made sleeping with children a criminal offence.

before you all burn me on the stable, bear in mind that while many people find such behaviour offensive and disturbing, no elected parliament, no elected representative body of our society, ever, has found the political will to incriminate such behaviour. so who the hell are you, witch hunting and judging people? Are all those people that judge, having clean records?

don't judge, lest you be judged yourself!

now, criminal law has penalized a lot of behaviour. Some rightly so, in other cases not so much. But if you ask me, you're a good citizen if you follow the law. But as it stands, I've yet to meet the first person who never broke the law. So whoever you are, you've got still room for improvement.

And now we're going to spit out people when they show behaviour that "does not sit well" with certain people?

get the fuck out of here, and come back to me when you're entitled! which is, never.

the parliament makes the rules. not you, not me. not even fucking president trump.

In a way, I'm sort of content with the fact there is a clear body of rules that concretes which behaviour is allowed and which not. As a result, a lot of tedious discussion is avoided between individuals in society. One person thinks behaviour A is unacceptable, while the other person thinks it is. To solve the problem, refer to the law. As for the rest, people should fucking mind their own business.

It's not for a accidental group of people to suddenly call the shots and witch hunt people for behaviour that is not, and has not ever been a crime.

 

Edited March 5, 2019 by action