Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson Documentary, HBO

[Lio]

17 hours ago, Homefuck said:

(wall of text)
I can (and am) separating the person MJ from the artist MJ. I've watched the documentary, if you know the common mechanisms of victims of child abuse (especially in cases like this, where there was a lot of manipulation and no violence occuring) it's not uncommon for the victims to really understand that they are just that, victims, until a LOT of years later.

My line of work is based on making decisions on whether peoples assesments is considered trustworthy and I would definitely consider both Robson and Safechuck stories as trustworthy. The circumstance of some conflicting details (like that the train station was built after the molestations stopped occuring) doesn't change the big picture. Of course some details will be flaunted, this happened nearly 30 years ago and peoples memories are often blurry and some memories will be distorted. Perhaps Safechuck and MJ didn't have sex in the train station, but if they had sex at a lot of those other places in Neverland and Safechuck later saw the train station, no wonder he might remember them having sex there as well.

I've seen/heard about the "evidence" against Safechuck and Robsons assesments, and in my opinion, this "evidence" is WEAK.

If you don't believe MJ was a child molester, I recommend you to read EVERYTHING about the '93 case (the detailed description of MJ's penis from the child for example), and the books that were found in MJ's estate that was considered art, would probably nowadays be considered as child pornography.
I understand why fans of MJ are acting like rabid dogs, because he's their hero and could do no wrong, but it's very clear to me that he was a child molester. It is a phenomenon called cognitive dissonance, and people will go great lengths to avoid it. I will still enjoy his music, because his obvious crimes doesn't diminish his talent (not for me at least), and since he's dead, he won't benefit from my consumtion of his music. See you in Tokyo, bitch.

In an interview in the paper here a woman working with child abuse said the same thing. She often sees children mix up dates or memories, and sadly many people then cast their stories aside, as they're not deemed credible.

That's enough for me personally to explain supposed inconsistencies. I'm not an expert in all the MJ stuff. I only know the big headlines and I watched this documentary, never really delved into all the cases, but I'd rather believe an actual therapist who works in the field than MJ fans who obviously are biased.

[action]

4 hours ago, EvanG said:

I don't understand why that specific example would convince him either, I realize it's weird for a sister to accuse her own brother of something like that, but this is not your typical family we're talking about. 

But my discussion with him was already silly enough, I didn't want to bring this to it as well, and at the end of the day I can't argue his reasoning for losing faith in someone, even if he contradicted himself concerning that subject.

I give more credibility to his sister than two people who are in it for the money.

sisters don't say such stuff about their brother, other than if it were true. even for all their weirdness as a family. That's just a big no-no

his sister has no interest in saying that stuff. She wasn't in it for the money, she was genuinly concerned.

but with robson and safechuck, there were plenty of red flags from the get-go that they were having hidden agendas, such as adsking millions of the jackson estate (and not mentioning this in their propaganda piece). all the informtion since then, has confirmed this, time and time again.

Edited April 9, 2019 by action

[EvanG]

1 hour ago, action said:

sisters don't say such stuff about their brother, other than if it were true.

You can't know.

1 hour ago, action said:

his sister has no interest in saying that stuff.

Quote

She took it back and later blamed her statement on her controlling boyfriend who was hoping to cash in on it.

 

[Whiskey Rose]

17 minutes ago, EvanG said:

You can't know.

I don't get it. Can't someone change their mind about something when new facts come to light?  Especially when you can't know "for sure". 

I'm on the fence about a lot of things, and go back and forth and can't make up my mind.  Didn't know we were supposed to have one opinion about something and keep it forever! 

I mean, what if you start to like the heat?

[EvanG]

1 minute ago, Whiskey Rose said:

I don't get it. Can't someone change their mind about something when new facts come to light?  Especially when you can't know "for sure". 

I'm on the fence about a lot of things, and go back and forth and can't make up my mind.  Didn't know we were supposed to have one opinion about something and keep it forever! 

I mean, what if you start to like the heat?

I'll never like the heat!

But yes, I've already said many times that you can change your opinion. But that's not even what the discussion was about anymore, or ever really was.

[action]

what I find absolutely bewildering, is this notion that "the last thing he watches forms his opinion" is like something of a strange thing to do.

really, I can't tell how many times people have told me to "watch the documentary, then form your opinion" only to be told by those same people they find it strange that I form my opinion based on the last thing I watch 

it seems, I can only form my opinion when I watch propaganda that "they" see fitting to watch, but when I dare to watch other docus that contradict earlier docus, I'm blamed of constantly changing my opinion. No dears, I'm not constantly changing my opinion. The information is constantly changing, not me

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by action

[RONIN]

Went into the Leaving Neverland doc at 70/30 in favor of MJ's innocence (I am/was a major MJ stan). Dangerous is one of my all-time favorite albums. After watching the documentary, interviews with Robson/Safechuck, and checking out what the pro-Jackson evidence was - I think there's almost no doubt for me at this point that MJ had a sinister side to him. I bought into his public persona and victimhood hook, line, and sinker - needless to say, this documentary was absolutely damning. You get the full context and scope of the allegations and how the grooming unfolded, and I'm sorry to say, it all seems very very plausible. In my mind, I think there's an 80/20 chance that he's guilty of child molestation (on the low end) and probably a 95% certainty that he was a pedophile. At best, he didn't act on his attraction to children and engaged in emotional abuse with them through grooming/dating. At worst? The repugnant human being in the LN doc.

The question I had walking away from that doc was how much of MJ's abuse was pre-meditated (with full knowledge of what he was doing) and how much of it was him genuinely "loving" these kids and believing he wasn't hurting them but rather showing "love" with his actions. The latter would at least offer some (twisted) explanation for his behavior but the former makes him a calculating monstrous creature. LN seems to favor the premeditation explanation. Either way, if you apply Occam's Razor to this situation, well...yeah, there's a veritable dumpster fire on the guilty side. What are the chances of one guy being accused of molestation this many times, paying off up to 20+ kids for their silence (allegedly), spending 30+ consecutive nights in bed with a child as per the '93 suit (would love to hear an explanation for this)? Is it possible he was innocent and the man was misunderstood by the public and framed/taken advantage of by his accusers? Perhaps. Anything is possible I suppose. Is it likely?  Of course not. At what point does one wake up and smell the coffee?

As an aside, I actually think MJ was likely one of the earliest and most public pre-op transgender celebrities - it would explain the handsome albeit effeminate african american boy transitioning into the frightening pale skinned Eurasian woman by the end of his life. If MJ was straight/hetero as he claimed, why was he rarely photographed with women or rarely rumored to be dating anyone? You're telling me the most photographed and tabloid friendly celeb in the world had nary a story of a high profile romance/hook-up with a groupie aside from the obvious diversion tactic with Lisa Marie Presley? None of it adds up really even if you give MJ the benefit of the doubt. It's not one thing, it's everything. 

The only reason I'm not 100% convinced is because the facts have been muddied along the way - it's hard to say what is real and what has been embellished to drive an agenda. MJ had some very good lawyers and the prosecution had an overzealous lead investigator that may have tampered/overstated evidence in his zeal to convict MJ. What was the content of the books they found in '93 - much ado about nothing or was it basically child porn dressed up as art? Did the kid correctly identify MJ - the other side claims Jordan Chandler was wrong about him being circumcised. Were there photos of naked boys like Johnathan Spence? Was he fully undressed or was that exaggerrated by the prosecution? I've looked around and there doesn't seem to be any conclusive answers. Any of those things I brought up are smoking guns really if there's incontrovertible proof.  

Even if you doubt the sincerity of Robson and Safechuck (Robson appears to have a few skeletons in his closet) - the documentary reveals cracks in the "MJ is just a big kid" theory that his camp has put out there all these years. Objectively speaking, putting LN aside - 3 specific things made me go "Nah, I don't buy it anymore - we've been duped. He's guilty"

1. La Toya's interview with Howard Stern - I dismissed this given how most of the MJ fan community view her credibility. Unfortunately, even if you don't believe she's credible and think that her husband put her up to smearing MJ's reputation for money, how do you explain her mention of James Safechuck? That is just way too big of a coincidence. 

2. MJ holding hands tightly with Gavin Arvizo as Gavin rests his head on MJ's shoulder.  

I didn't notice this before when I saw the "Living with MJ" doc originally. I couldn't believe how I missed that. WTF? When you were a kid, did you act like that with your buddy? They look like lovers, not friends. There's hundreds of pics of MJ holding the hands of some boy and walking around Neverland which now seem seriously disturbing if there's even a scintilla of truth to these allegations. Also, as a guy in his forties (as he was in 2003), wouldn't he have grown up by then mentally? If MJ was reliving his childhood in the 80's - wouldn't he have been a teen/adult mentally in the 90's? So why was he always hanging out with 10 year olds? I'm no psychiatrist but his obsession with children (boys) was always bizarre and quite frankly creepy. 

3. The below picture.  Who commissions an art piece like this as an adult asexual/heterosexual male? Also, I love the token black child in the picture - it's the furthest from him. 

https://nypost.com/2009/12/06/michael-jacksons-weird-art-revealed/

P.S. From Anthony Pellicano, MJ's one-time private investigator - take it for what it's worth (he's on tape publicly defending MJ in '93):

Pellicano revealed why he allegedly dropped the King of Pop as a client, after being hired to investigate one of the families accusing the singer in the 2003 child molestation case. He claimed he told Jackson he would only work for him if he wasn't guilty.

'I said, "You don't have to worry about cops or lawyers. If I find out anything, I will f*** you over",' he said. 'I quit after I found out some truths. 'He did something far worse to young boys than molest them.' But the investigator did not elaborate on his sensational claim.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2023974/Anthony-Pellicano-claims-Michael-Jackson-did-far-worse-molest-young-boys.html

Edited April 10, 2019 by RONIN

[SoulMonster]

14 hours ago, RONIN said:

Went into the Leaving Neverland doc at 70/30 in favor of MJ's innocence (I am/was a major MJ stan). 

This is one of the things that fascinates me. Why does being a fan of a musician mean you are less likely to believe that person is a sexual predator? What is it with fandom that makes us put celebrities on pedestals? Why does being really good at singing and dancing somehow make you a morally good human being or a person less likely to molest someone else? These things are not connected! People aren't either completely good or completely bad (at music AND ethics). Celebrities aren't heroes (unless you are a celebrity because you, say, saved three kittens from a tree, then you are a hero). Celebrities are just as likely to be flawed as you and me, maybe even more.

I mean, I understand the mechanism why people tend to extrapolate from "being really good at music" to "being a good human being". I suppose that particular cognitive error is very human and we are all victims of it at times, at least unconsciously. But here RONIN, an intelligent guy, is admitting to, at some level, rejecting the pedo rumors because he was a fan of the artist (at least that is how I interpreted the sentence I quoted), so then it is a level of consciousness here, he is aware he is making an assumption about a person's sexual behavior and morality based on just an appreciation of said artist's musical accomplishments. And when you are aware of this logical error you should fight it because it might lead you to erroneous conclusions. At the very least, when knowing the foundation for your belief is so weak as just assuming a guy is good because you happen to like that person, then you should never stick your neck out by publicly defending that person.

And I think a predominant factor behind why people refuse to accept that Jackson was a sexual predator, is this fandom that obscures their ability to look at the case objectively. And that is sad, really, because, in a general sense, we want people to act as rationally as possibly, and more specifically for this case because it causes a lot of grief for the (alleged) victims.

And RONI: apologies if I erroneously jumped at conclusions here when interpreting your sentence above, I really just wanted to use it as a starting point for an argument about what seems to be a rather wide-spread phenomenon.

Edited April 10, 2019 by SoulMonster

[EvanG]

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

This is one of the things that fascinates me. Why does being a fan of a musician mean you are less likely to believe that person is a sexual predator?

I don't think it's because he's a musician, but because people have grown up with him. They have been listening to his music and watching his videos and movies for their entire lives. He has become a friend to them, even if they have never met him. That is why you often see his fans talk about him like he's their best friend. It might sound absurd to some (it does to me), but to a lot of other people this is exactly how it is. And especially in Jackson's case, who has always been seen as a philanthropist and a ''gentle soul'', it is especially hard for his fans to swallow that the artist with songs about not killing mother earth and how everyone is the same no matter what religion or colour, could ever have done anything inappropriate.

[soon]

17 hours ago, RONIN said:

Also, I love the token black child in the picture - it's the furthest from him. 

 

Yeah. And the only children not focused on MJ are focused on the black child. Perhaps there are two MJs in the painting, a baby and an adult? So thats why both get the attention of others? Maybe my imagination is getting carried away, but looking closely it seems theres a possibility that the white child is painting the black child? Theres something in the white kids hands and there appears to be a yellow swoosh on the black kids cheek.

Are the other 2 children looking on as he is painted or rubbed with a flower? Otherwise that part is extra, extra, extra, extra creepy imho. Because another read I have is that the black child almost appears to be receiving 'after care.' The way they are laying with eyes closed and it seems they are being cared for by the other child. With two other children looking on curiously, to see whats up.

Gross no matter what.

 

 

[downzy]

3 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I mean, I understand the mechanism why people tend to extrapolate from "being really good at music" to "being a good human being". I suppose that particular cognitive error is very human and we are all victims of it at times, at least unconsciously. But here RONIN, an intelligent guy, is admitting to, at some level, rejecting the pedo rumors because he was a fan of the artist (at least that is how I interpreted the sentence I quoted), so then it is a level of consciousness here, he is aware he is making an assumption about a person's sexual behavior and morality based on just an appreciation of said artist's musical accomplishments. And when you are aware of this logical error you should fight it because it might lead you to erroneous conclusions. At the very least, when knowing the foundation for your belief is so weak as just assuming a guy is good because you happen to like that person, then you should never stick your neck out by publicly defending that person.

 

I would suggest it has less to do with the celebrity nature of this particular issue and more to do with human nature in general.  

Cognitive dissonance is a powerful cognitive function that likely plays a far stronger role than most realize (my favourite example still is Craig T. Nelson railing government handouts, despite being on food stamps at one point).  Change in general is difficult for most people to accept and embrace even when it's obviously needed.    Human evolution has bestowed upon us an amazing capacity for rational thinking, but our emotional capabilities have also evolved as well to include complex and difficult to understand responses and reactions.  Personally, I find rationality requires proactive effort, emotions are largely reactionary and reinforcing.  

We find this conflict in all areas of human society but I think it mostly boils down to identity and the unwillingness to confront what is uncomfortable.  I do it with respect to the food I eat, fully knowing that the chicken breast I consumed last night was likely the product of fear, pain, and death.  But I am separated from the process of turning chickens into food so I am able to consciously or unconsciously decouple the two, despite a part of me having a limited knowledge of the processes involved.

I think what Leaving Neverland does is akin to making someone who eats meat walk through a slaughter house.  The film forces its audience to confront the accusations that can't be easily dismissed or ignored in the same way that reading the accusations in a headline can.  

With respect to the extrapolation issue, I don't see it in the same light.  I think most people would be fine if Jackson proved to be just an asshole.  We are on a Guns N' Roses forum after all and deserved or not, some of the members of Guns don't have the best reputations in a variety of ways.  I think for many it goes back to the issue of separating the art from the artist.  It's one thing to hear a song or watch a movie produced by a less than stellar human being, it's another issue altogether if that creator turns out to be a monster.  The ideal is separate the two, art and artist, but for many (including myself in some areas), it's not easy to do and I think it depends on the medium.  For years people adored MJ's music without really having to know who MJ is or was (and in large part, he was a projection of whatever people wanted him to be likely the reason why he got lost in it all himself).  But when confronted with the possibility of MJ being one of the worst things a human being can be, it's easier to dismiss it and hence avoid any guilt should he proven to be what he stood accused of.  Like I said, after watching the documentary I deleted all MJ music from my hard drive.  I just can't listen to it without feeling like I'm in some way supporting or condoning what happened.  There are a litany of careers we don't let pedophiles do once we're assured of their guilt.  For me, that includes entertainment, particularly mediums in which the art is physically tied to his or her art.   So I get why people want Jackson to be innocent of the charges.  It makes listening and valuing his art much more difficult if not impossible.  For years I remained agnostic about it as I wasn't privy to the full accounts.  But after Leaving Neverland, I can't be honest and say that I believe it's likely for Jackson to be innocent against the accusations levelled against him.  It is possible, but I can't say it's likely anymore.  

[downzy]

23 hours ago, action said:

what I find absolutely bewildering, is this notion that "the last thing he watches forms his opinion" is like something of a strange thing to do.

really, I can't tell how many times people have told me to "watch the documentary, then form your opinion" only to be told by those same people they find it strange that I form my opinion based on the last thing I watch 

it seems, I can only form my opinion when I watch propaganda that "they" see fitting to watch, but when I dare to watch other docus that contradict earlier docus, I'm blamed of constantly changing my opinion. No dears, I'm not constantly changing my opinion. The information is constantly changing, not me

 

No, it's just that your posts leads others to believe you're unable or unwilling to actually weigh what's being presented, and your opinions sway from one extreme to another based on the chronology of people's posts.

You watch the film and say your faith in Jackson's innocence is shaken dramatically.  

Then someone posts something about the inconsistency of Safechuck's claim of sex in the train station relative to when the train station was built.  This leads you to call both men both liars and call others who believe them naive or operating on bad faith.

Yet you still believe Jackson is a bad guy because something Jackson's messed up sister said 25 years ago.  But you still think Leaving Neverland is a work of fiction despite at one point finding their accounts credible.  While you didn't state this implicitly, how else can one interpret your change of opinion after watching the film?

As @EvanG and others have stated, there's no issue with a person changing their mind.  But reading your posts is akin to getting whiplash watching a tennis match.  You've been all over the place and it's hard to find a level of consistency in your reasoning for why you believe what you believe other than being affected by the last piece of evidence, whether exculpatory or inculpatory.  

[EvanG]

19 hours ago, RONIN said:

how much of it was him genuinely "loving" these kids and believing he wasn't hurting them but rather showing "love" with his actions. The latter would at least offer some (twisted) explanation for his behavior

This is what I've said before. He knew what he was doing was illegal, therefore telling them repeatedly to never talk about it, but maybe he sincerely thought in his twisted mind that he was ''loving'' them and that he wasn't doing anything wrong, and that society just didn't understand. He often talked in interviews about how people are ignorant. Maybe this would also explain why he would still be hanging out with Robson as an adult. I don't think in many cases, pedophiles who know that they are hurting the child, would still be friends with the victims after they stop being children. But maybe I'm wrong, I'm obviously not an expert on any of this.

Edited April 10, 2019 by EvanG

[Ratam]

 

I'm be stunning that this artist that MJ commissioned to paint this image don't seem weird he this assignement .

 

 

[action]

I think that horrible painting is another red flag. it's beyond disgusting, on so many levels

I litterally couldn't sleep after I saw that

I don't care that people think jackson's sister is messed up. She gave that interview when all was 'still well' in jackson's world. I dont buy that she was 'forced' by her boyfriend to make those claims. Just think about that for a second, then realise how ridiculous such a thought is.

[downzy]

55 minutes ago, action said:

I don't care that people think jackson's sister is messed up. She gave that interview when all was 'still well' in jackson's world. I dont buy that she was 'forced' by her boyfriend to make those claims. Just think about that for a second, then realise how ridiculous such a thought is.

The only thing ridiculous here is you speaking with such authority and confidence but seeming to know nothing about who La Toya was during the time she made the accusation. 

Wikipedia does a good job of detailing the chaos that was La Toya's life during this period and the tumultuous marriage she was in at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Toya_Jackson#1989–1996:_Public_notoriety,_abuse,_and_exile_from_the_Jackson_family

Again, that isn't to say that she didn't believe Jackson's accusers herself at the time.  But I think hanging Jackson's guilt on his sisters words is rather untenable all things considered.  If she truly thought her brother was guilty of sexually abusing kids, how could she recant those opinions years later and ask for her brother's forgiveness?  

[action]

1 minute ago, downzy said:

The only thing ridiculous here is you speaking with such authority and confidence but seeming to know nothing about who La Toya was during the time she made the accusation. 

Wikipedia does a good job of detailing the chaos that was La Toya's life during this period and the tumultuous marriage she was in at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Toya_Jackson#1989–1996:_Public_notoriety,_abuse,_and_exile_from_the_Jackson_family

Again, that isn't to say that she didn't believe Jackson's accusers herself at the time.  But I think hanging Jackson's guilt on his sisters words is rather untenable all things considered.  If she truly thought her brother was guilty of sexually abusing kids, how could she recant those opinions years later and ask for her brother's forgiveness?  

if she really was forced by her husband, then she wouldn't need forgiveness, because there would be nothing to forgive. When you are "forced" to do something, there is no intention.

 

[downzy]

Just now, action said:

if she really was forced by her husband, then she wouldn't need forgiveness, because there would be nothing to forgive. When you are "forced" to do something, there is no intention.

 

From the Wikipedia link I just provided:

According to La Toya, Michael knew that she was forced to attack him in the press against her will and he did not blame her.[47] "He never held any of that against me, I remember when I'd got away from this total hell I'd been through where I'd been beaten, abused, controlled, and forced to say those terrible things about Michael, which I didn't for a moment believe, he held out his arms and just hugged me. I was crying saying: 'I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry.' He just held me tight and said: 'I am your brother, I always knew it wasn't you saying those words."

[action]

9 minutes ago, downzy said:

From the Wikipedia link I just provided:

According to La Toya, Michael knew that she was forced to attack him in the press against her will and he did not blame her.[47] "He never held any of that against me, I remember when I'd got away from this total hell I'd been through where I'd been beaten, abused, controlled, and forced to say those terrible things about Michael, which I didn't for a moment believe, he held out his arms and just hugged me. I was crying saying: 'I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry.' He just held me tight and said: 'I am your brother, I always knew it wasn't you saying those words."

cool story, but I find that very questionable

michael knew she was forced to say those things?

what, he was there when her sister was beaten, abused, controlled etc?

look up the la toya interview, see the genuine worrying in her eyes about her brother. She doesn't look controlled at all. That's a woman who has seen things and is worried. 

Edited April 10, 2019 by action

[downzy]

7 minutes ago, action said:

cool story, but I find that very questionable

michael knew she was forced to say those things?

what, he was there when her sister was beaten, abused, controlled etc?

look up the la toya interview, see the genuine worrying in her eyes about her brother. She doesn't look controlled at all. That's a woman who has seen things and is worried. 

So then why’d she reconnect with her brother?

[action]

Just now, downzy said:

So then why’d she reconnect with her brother?

because that's what brothers and sisters do.

who knows?

it's family. it's a blood-bond. sons see their fathers in jail who killed people or raped women. that doesn't say much. 

and it's not just latoya either.

Why does janet refuse to comment? What does she know? When is lisa marie going to talk? What was that charade of a marriage all about?

[downzy]

28 minutes ago, action said:

because that's what brothers and sisters do.

who knows?

it's family. it's a blood-bond. sons see their fathers in jail who killed people or raped women. that doesn't say much. 

and it's not just latoya either.

So let's recap:

You didn't think Jackson was guilty.  

You saw the documentary, then felt differently.

Posts that highlighted some date/time inconsistencies with Safechuck and Robson led you to believe that both men are liars who gave oscar worthy performances

But you still think Jackson is guilty because of claims made by his sister La Toya, who was at the time was constantly being beaten and extorted by her then husband.  

And since you didn't bother to read the wikipedia post, I'll copy the most relevant part here (with most relevant underscored and bolded):

In 1993 in their New York home, Gordon beat Jackson repeatedly with a heavy brass dining room chair, leaving Jackson with black eyes, swollen lip and chin "the size of a clenched fist", cuts requiring 12 mouth stitches and contusions on her face, arms, legs and back.[33][34] Jackson lost consciousness during the beating, leading Gordon to believe she was dead. She recalled, "He called his friends and said, 'She's dead. I killed her,' because I was lying in a puddle of blood and I was out."[35] Gordon was arrested but then released, claiming he beat Jackson in self-defense.[36] In December 1993, Gordon hastily arranged a press conference in Tel Aviv, where he had Jackson read a statement claiming to believe the sex abuse allegation against her younger brother Michaelmight be true.[37][38] This was an abrupt reversal of her previous defense of Michael against the charges.[39] Gordon claimed La Toya had proof which she was prepared to disclose for a fee of $500,000. A bidding war between US and UK tabloids began, but fell through when they realized that her revelations were not what she had claimed them to be.[40] According to La Toya, Gordon threatened to have siblings Michael and Janet killed if she didn't follow his orders.[35][41] In 1993, Jackson claims her father Joe Jackson sexually abused her as a child.

But for some reason you still find La Toya's 1993 claims credible while Robson and Safechuck you accuse of lying (despite having no financial gain from participating in the film).

Never mind La Toya later recanted her claims and reunited with Jackson once her marriage to Gordon was over.  

So you believe Jackson is guilty of being a pedophile, but not with respect to Robson and Safechuck, who you claim are liars.  

--------------------------

Like I said earlier, people can believe whatever they want.  We'll never truly know with absolute certainty.  

But you're reasoning here seems pretty suspect.  You seemed convinced of your opinion and that anyone who feels differently is naive and not acting in good faith despite the fact that there's little rhyme, reason, or consistency in your own opinions.  

[Angelica]

2 hours ago, downzy said:

 If she truly thought her brother was guilty of sexually abusing kids, how could she recant those opinions years later and ask for her brother's forgiveness?  

I’d guess it was to get back on the Jackson family teat financially?

Are you saying you believe the family were genuinely unaware of MJ’s proclivities? 

 

Edited April 10, 2019 by Angelica

[DieselDaisy]

In fairness to action he is just reacting to concurrent events as they appear - like we all are. My opinion shifted considerably upon watching the documentary. 

[downzy]

3 hours ago, Angelica said:

I’d guess it was to get back on the Jackson family teat financially?

Perhaps.  But I find that less plausible considering the amount of abuse and torment she suffered from her husband.  Everyone is different so who is to say how anyone would truly behave, but it seems less plausible that she truly believed the allegations and was more responding to the immediate threat of her husband.  Then again, her account of being coerced and acting out of fear could be seen as tactic by which to ingratiate herself back into the family.  She would also have to be okay with believing her brother was a predator.  

Quote

Are you saying you believe the family were genuinely unaware of MJ’s proclivities? 

I really don't know what they knew.  I'm not sure how close the rest of the family was to Jackson during the time all of this was going on.  I really don't know how close he was with his parents and siblings during the 80s and 90s, though i believe he grew closer to his family in the 2000s.  

It's also possible that the family might not want to know the truth and hence didn't bother to really look under every rock.  I don't think any parent or sibling wants to believe that their child or brother committed those crimes, so it's tough to say how much they really opened themselves up to the possibility.