Jump to content

Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson Documentary, HBO


JONEZY

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You really need to watch the documentary. You really do. You are asking the wrong questions. It is otherwise impossible to continue this discussion.

It is evident that the children certainly had a deep emotional bond with Michael. Much of the documentary focuses in fact on this bond!

Oh, I believe you. I am just not interested in Michael Jackson and as you can see from my posts (although you haven't) I talk about the overall mechanisms and principles. Those interest me. Weird celebrities, not so much. If you say Jackson established such deep bonds with these kids that they considered him such a close person in their lives they would climb into his bed for comfort, then I believe you. And if you are wrong, and the kids started sleeping with him quickly after getting into his sphere when such a strong bond couldn't have been developed yet, then I assume someone else will be helpful and point out this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Oh, I believe you. I am just not interested in Michael Jackson and as you can see from my posts (although you haven't) I talk about the overall mechanisms and principles. Those interest me. Weird celebrities, not so much. If you say Jackson established such deep bonds with these kids that they considered him such a close person in their lives they would climb into his bed for comfort, then I believe you. And if you are wrong, and the kids started sleeping with him quickly after getting into his sphere when such a strong bond couldn't have been developed yet, then I assume someone else will be helpful and point out this.

You shouldn't really comment on things you don't know much about Soul. You merely end up producing straw men and asking the wrong questions (the obsession with the bed!). The salient facts however are that,

- Michael ingratiated himself with the families becoming a sort of adopted child. He'd stay at the Safechuck's modest house, using it as a retreat from the celebrity. He partook of their meals, conducted lengthy phone calls and become very close with the two mothers.

- That relations, including sex acts, escalated progressively over time. They certainly did not begin instantly. Safechuck and Robson's first contact with Michael was very public, televised. 

- The children were in his care for lengthy periods, absent from their biological/legal custodians 

- Sexual relations continued into their teens, so to give you an idea of the time span here, Wade was 7 and James was 10 I believe when they first met Michael.

- Sexual relations were not dependent on them sleeping in his bed. They occurred all over the ranch. The arguments over the bed thing are now out of date, eclipsed by further developments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You shouldn't really comment on things you don't know much about Soul. You merely end up producing straw men and asking the wrong questions (the obsession with the bed!). The salient facts however are that,

- Michael ingratiated himself with the families becoming a sort of adopted child. He'd stay at the Safechuck's modest house, using it as a retreat from the celebrity. He partook of their meals, conducted lengthy phone calls and become very close with the two mothers.

- That relations, including sex acts, escalated progressively over time. They certainly did not begin instantly. Safechuck and Robson's first contact with Michael was very public, televised. 

- The children were in his care for lengthy periods, absent from their biological/legal custodians 

- Sexual relations continued into their teens, so to give you an idea of the time span here, Wade was 7 and James was 10 I believe when they first met Michael.

- Sexual relations were not dependent on them sleeping in his bed. They occurred all over the ranch. The arguments over the bed thing are now out of date, eclipsed by further developments. 

Completely irrelevant to my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Of course it is irrelevant as you are asking the wrong questions and producing strawmen.

Still talking about whether it is reasonable that a kid would ask to sleep with anyone who isn't their parents. And yeah, I know that you now again will point out that in the case of Michael Jackson, and his alleged abuse, this took place all over Neverland. So it is not really my asking the wrong questions or producing strawman, it is you never getting it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Still talking about whether it is reasonable that a kid would ask to sleep with anyone who isn't their parents. And yeah, I know that you now again will point out that in the case of Michael Jackson, and his alleged abuse, this took place all over Neverland. So it is not really my asking the wrong questions or producing strawman, it is you never getting it. 

You'll never get something when you insist on discussing something you have no knowledge about, and further make a conscious attempt to not even bother educating yourself which is a situation quite easily rectified. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You'll never get something when you insist on discussing something you have no knowledge about, and further make a conscious attempt to not even bother educating yourself which is a situation quite easily rectified. 

I have no knowledge about children and how the bond with grown-ups? That is funny coming from a guy who found it reasonable that the kids slept in Jackson's bed on their initiative and not his.

You criticize me from not bothering to watch a 4 hour documentary on Michael Jackson? Can't I make my own decisions on how to spend my time? :lol: I am not at all interested in Michael Jackson and from what I have heard the documentary would send me on an emotional ride I am not up for at the moment. I solve this by not talking about the contents of the documentary, nor of Jackson, but instead speak about some tangential issues that have arisen in this thread. You, probably because my posts trigger something in you, decided to disagree with me on the likelihood of kids themselves asking to sleep in the bed of someone not their parent, and this is what I am discussing while you sometimes try to discuss this with me, but then repeatedly fail at making it into discussing the allegations against Jackson and then deride me for not following along. It is like you suffer from short-term amnesia where you understand I discuss the overall principle, and then, in your next post, try to make it seem I discuss the peculiarities of the Jackson case, and then get all bewildered over the fact I wasn't, so you get sort-of mad about that and I have to explain it to you, yet again. And we do this over and over. Seriously, are you suffering from memory loss or lack of concentration or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I have no knowledge about children and how the bond with grown-ups? That is funny coming from a guy who found it reasonable that the kids slept in Jackson's bed on their initiative and not his.

You criticize me from not bothering to watch a 4 hour documentary on Michael Jackson? Can't I make my own decisions on how to spend my time? :lol: I am not at all interested in Michael Jackson and from what I have heard the documentary would send me on an emotional ride I am not up for at the moment. I solve this by not talking about the contents of the documentary, nor of Jackson, but instead speak about some tangential issues that have arisen in this thread. You, probably because my posts trigger something in you, decided to disagree with me on the likelihood of kids themselves asking to sleep in the bed of someone not their parent, and this is what I am discussing while you sometimes try to discuss this with me, but then repeatedly fail at making it into discussing the allegations against Jackson and then deride me for not following along. It is like you suffer from short-term amnesia where you understand I discuss the overall principle, and then, in your next post, try to make it seem I discuss the peculiarities of the Jackson case, and then get all bewildered over the fact I wasn't, so you get sort-of mad about that and I have to explain it to you, yet again. And we do this over and over. Seriously, are you suffering from memory loss or lack of concentration or something?

The topic is about,

Quote

Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson Documentary, HBO

Not generalities about ''beds and strangers''. There are a number of more general paedophile topics in the general chat I believe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The topic is about,

Not generalities about ''beds and strangers''. There are a number of more general paedophile topics in the general chat I believe. 

Haha, the moderator DieselDaisy :)

But true, the discussion on whether kids would themselves ask to sleep in the bed with an adult who isn't their parent, is tangential to the topic of this thread, and I can see how this would get you so repeatedly confused. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Haha, the moderator DieselDaisy :)

But true, the discussion on whether kids would themselves ask to sleep in the bed with an adult who isn't their parent, is tangential to the topic of this thread, and I can see how this would get you so repeatedly confused. 

It has no pertinence whatsoever considering Michael was certainly not considered a ''stranger'' by either the children or the families. This is demonstratively put across in Leaving Neverland!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MeridianHand said:

Anyone hear what Barbara Streisand said about this?

 

His sexual needs were his sexual needs, coming from whatever childhood he has or whatever DNA he has.

"You can say 'molested', but those children, as you heard say [Robson and Safechuck], they were thrilled to be there. They both married and they both have children, so it didn't kill them."

how horrible said it Barbara Streisand :blink: i think she had a son...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2019-03-22 at 4:43 PM, action said:

it's propaganda and not a documentary

why isn't the exact number of the litigation mentioned in the movie? surely it's of relevance to the case?

why don't they mention it? why hide the number?

what's to lose? their credibility?

Because it was likely sealed.  As I linked to earlier, it was reported that Robson didn't specify a specific amount; that he was going to leave it up to the judge.  In the documentary he claims it's not about money but the only means to litigate his claims.  

As for propaganda, I agree it has an agenda.  It doesn't attempt to portray both sides since the film isn't about Jackson.  It's about Robson and Safechuck's accounts.  The only people included are Robson, Safechuck, their wives, mothers, and siblings.  Is it fair to Jackson?  No.  But does it need to be?  I don't think so.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

His sexual needs were his sexual needs, coming from whatever childhood he has or whatever DNA he has.

"You can say 'molested', but those children, as you heard say [Robson and Safechuck], they were thrilled to be there. They both married and they both have children, so it didn't kill them."

What in the FUCK is that mad old bag babbling about?!  By that rationale anyone who ever manages to cobble together some semblence of a life post abuse should pay the abuser compensation if they happen to go down for it cuz hey, apparently they weren't so damaged after all!  All those hours under the fuckin' dryer have fucked her head up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wish Michael was here to defend himself or admit it. All this talk is only one sided.

All the friends and family of Michael will defend while others accuse him.

We can't really know the truth because Michael is dead.

Those two men had their chance to accuse Michael while they took the stand and didn't, so why now open this up again. If they were molested, I feel for them. No one should have to endure that, but why now?

I also blame the parents. You let your kids stay with a grown man. Because he was famous it was okay. No it's not okay for any kids to stay with a grown man alone. Even relatives can't be trusted sometimes. A parents' job is to protect their kids, not put them in harm's way. These parents dropped the ball big time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

Just wish Michael was here to defend himself or admit it. All this talk is only one sided.

All the friends and family of Michael will defend while others accuse him.

We can't really know the truth because Michael is dead.

Those two men had their chance to accuse Michael while they took the stand and didn't, so why now open this up again. If they were molested, I feel for them. No one should have to endure that, but why now?

I also blame the parents. You let your kids stay with a grown man. Because he was famous it was okay. No it's not okay for any kids to stay with a grown man alone. Even relatives can't be trusted sometimes. A parents' job is to protect their kids, not put them in harm's way. These parents dropped the ball big time.

It is explained in the documentary. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

James Safechuck claims to have repeatedly been molested at the train station at Neverland in the early days of his "abuse". He alleges that his abuse occurred from 1988-1992, which presumably would make the train station molesting 88/89/90. However the train station wasn't even build at Neverland until late 1993 and finished in early 1994, at which point James was 16yrs old and long after he'd claimed he'd been "dumped and replaced".

Makes no sense.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Towelie said:

James Safechuck claims to have repeatedly been molested at the train station at Neverland in the early days of his "abuse". He alleges that his abuse occurred from 1988-1992, which presumably would make the train station molesting 88/89/90. However the train station wasn't even build at Neverland until late 1993 and finished in early 1994, at which point James was 16yrs old and long after he'd claimed he'd been "dumped and replaced".

Makes no sense.

 

 

His New York story is also provably false.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...