Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson Documentary, HBO

[downzy]

1 minute ago, Jw224 said:

One side has evidence that these guys are financially motivated and the other is their words and the words of their families. Who have already been caught outright lying in the doc. I think we'll have to agree to disagree as it seems the doc has made up your mind. 

What lies have been proven?  

[Len Cnut]

1 hour ago, ZoSoRose said:

He was a weird, fucked up guy who made really good music. Unfortunately, when it comes to rock and pop, you have to separate the artist from the art or you're left with a lot of music you can't hear

I don't know what happened, and I don't know if I can stomach watching the documentary. I wasn't there, and I guess I can't really form an opinion either way. It sucks, though. I wish I could separate the art and artist, but here I am on a GNR message board and there I was going nuts to meet Axl a few years ago. He was accused of fucked up shit, too.

I don't know, its all a bummer

*cough*  

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

Now Corey Feldman is giving his opinion on this show. He said Michael never molested or said anything inappropriate to him when he stayed there as a child.

He has been sexually molested by other people and wants the country to change the laws regarding anyone who sexually molests a child so he can bring those people to justice.

I just don't understand why these guys didn't say all these things when they were in court all those years ago. If their stories are true then they could have admitted it and Michael would have gone to jail. I still say they are lying.

[downzy]

52 minutes ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

I just don't understand why these guys didn't say all these things when they were in court all those years ago. If their stories are true then they could have admitted it and Michael would have gone to jail. I still say they are lying.

They answer this in the documentary.

For those who don't want to bother with the documentary but are still interested in what it covers, here's a fairly apt review:

https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/2/27/18241432/leaving-neverland-review-michael-jackson-hbo-safechuck-robson

I think what the film provides is what the author of the review makes clear: "Humans need more than just text to understand difficult truths; we need faces, emotion, expression, time to process. Leaving Neverland gives us that, with steady and sober urgency... cinema, an image- and time-based medium, can do what print cannot. It can make us sit with victims and serve as witnesses while they recount their experiences." 

 

[action]

13 minutes ago, downzy said:

They answer this in the documentary.

For those who don't want to bother with the documentary but are still interested in what it covers, here's a fairly apt review:

https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/2/27/18241432/leaving-neverland-review-michael-jackson-hbo-safechuck-robson

I think what the film provides is what the author of the review makes clear: "Humans need more than just text to understand difficult truths; we need faces, emotion, expression, time to process. Leaving Neverland gives us that, with steady and sober urgency... cinema, an image- and time-based medium, can do what print cannot. It can make us sit with victims and serve as witnesses while they recount their experiences." 

 

I'm not going to watch the documentary downzy, for the sole reason that they have already proven to be skilled liars, before court and under oath.

they kept on lying in court, they answered all these questions, but they kept a straight face and didn't gave away their lies. they fooled everyone in that room. lawyers, judge and jury.

case closed, as far as I'm concerned.

it is a fact, that these two people know how to put on an act. don't give them money, give them an oscar I say.

if they can do it in court, they can also do it in a 4 hour documentary

I'm sure the documentary is brimmed with emotion and makes for a damn good propaganda movie. It takes two great actors to pull this off, but again, they already did in court.

I'm not of bad will, I'm just putting things in context. I'm not watching 4 hours of lies, because other than a fine case of acting this proves absolutely nothing.

I know you mean well Downzy. I feel your confusion, I'm there too. Me too wants to know the truth but for me, these two individuals are highly skilled liars. 

Edited March 6, 2019 by action

[downzy]

15 minutes ago, action said:

I'm not going to watch the documentary downzy, for the sole reason that they have already proven to be skilled liars, before court and under oath.

they kept on lying in court, they answered all these questions, but they kept a straight face and didn't gave away their lies. they fooled everyone in that room. lawyers, judge and jury.

case closed, as far as I'm concerned.

it is a fact, that these two people know how to put on an act. don't give them money, give them an oscar I say.

if they can do it in court, they can also do it in a 4 hour documentary

I'm sure the documentary is brimmed with emotion and makes for a damn good propaganda movie. It takes two great actors to pull this off, but again, they already did in court.

I'm not of bad will, I'm just putting things in context. I'm not watching 4 hours of lies, because other than a fine case of acting this proves absolutely nothing.

I know you mean well Downzy. I feel your confusion, I'm there too. Me too wants to know the truth but for me, these two individuals are highly skilled liars. 

Skilled liars?  Really?

Safechuck only provided sworn testimony (not in court) in '93 while as a juvenile.  He has never testified in court as he wasn't part of the 2005 trial.  He would have been around 14-15 at the time.  I'm not sure we should condemn him as liar because of what his 14 year old self claimed several decades ago.  

Both, though particularly Robson, who did testified in open court in 2005, argue that they were not able to come to terms with the trauma and the abuse.  It took a long time to realize what Jackson did to them was even abuse.

I'm not sure you fully understand how victims of abuse internalize what is and has been done to them.  I'm not an expert either, but the little I have read indicates that there isn't this clear cut line between abuse and coming to terms with it.  For many victims it can take years, even decades to accept what happened to them and share their experiences with others.  

How is it a fact that both of these people know how to put on an act?  Is it not possible that both spoke what they believed to be true way back when or were unable to come to terms with what happened to them?

How do you know that it's 4 hours lies?  You don't.  No one knows other than Safechuck and Robson.  No one will ever know the truth.  But if you're interested in caring, perhaps it's worth your time to hear their sides of the story.  

[downzy]

Here's the thing I don't understand.   If both are lying now and are only interested in the cash, why didn't they pile on when others came forward?  If accusing Michael Jackson of sexual assault netted $20 million, why not join when others were doing it?  That's the part I don't understand.  They're in a harder position now with respect to any civil litigation now than they would have been way back when.  I suppose one could argue that they're in need of the money now; that they're desperate.  But has that been demonstrated?  

I've read repeatedly from Jackson defenders that Robson and Safechuck are suing for hundreds of millions, but I can't find in any legal summations where that kind of money is mentioned.  The only thing I've read is how Robson was only suing for $15k to cover his therapy costs.  He is already a world renowned dance instructor and choreographer with a lot of success to his name that has little or nothing to do with Jackson.  It just defies my own belief that he would put his reputation and credibility at risk for a hail marry attempt to extort millions from Jackson's estate.  

Another aspect of their stories that hit home was the fact that becoming dads reoriented how they looked at the world and themselves.  As a new father myself I definitely see the world and my place in it very differently.  I think having kids makes some come to terms with their pasts in ways we don't expect.  I'm not surprised that having kids would force these guys to re-examined what happened to them.  Defenders will point to the timing of their lawsuits as proof; that they wanted a piece of the money AEG lawsuit on behalf of the Jackson estate.  For me, that is the likely reason why their stories changed.  

[adamsapple]

On a sidenote...I don't think people like Eddie Van Halen, Mick Jagger, Bruce Springsteen, Stevie Wonder, Paul McCartney, Slash and many more grade a world class superstars would have worked and performed with him in public if they would have heard or noticed anything disturbing regarding his relation to children. If anyone's interested, look up what Macauley Culkin and Corey Feldman had to say about Jackson. As for conspiracy theories, listen to the "History" album from 1995 and pay attention to the lyrics.

[Len Cnut]

Quote

Here's the thing I don't understand.   If both are lying now and are only interested in the cash, why didn't they pile on when others came forward?  If accusing Michael Jackson of sexual assault netted $20 million, why not join when others were doing it?

Cuz it'd shorten the odds surely?  They might have lessened the chance of civil litigation but there's more than one way to get money out of this situation I'm sure, a few exclusive interviews, an hour long Oprah special.  Loads of others.  And they can still get a few quid out of the estate can they not?

Quote

On a sidenote...I don't think people like Eddie Van Halen, Mick Jagger, Bruce Springsteen, Stevie Wonder, Paul McCartney, Slash and many more grade a world class superstars would have worked and performed with him in public if they would have heard or noticed anything disturbing regarding his relation to children.

Because they performed music with him, on tour or what have you, don't mean to say they was round his house.  I do recall hearing somewhere that my man Marlon Brando did make a bit of a mention about him and the kids, 'what the hell is he doing with those kids?' some kinda comment like that.  And Marlon was more like a mate of his, in his home habitat.

[downzy]

13 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Cuz it'd shorten the odds surely?  They might have lessened the chance of civil litigation but there's more than one way to get money out of this situation I'm sure, a few exclusive interviews, an hour long Oprah special.  Loads of others.  And they can still get a few quid out of the estate can they not?

Well, they haven't taken that route.  According to reports they weren't paid to be apart of the HBO series, and I can only assume the Oprah interview.  I don't think anyone would pay them for an interview now since they kind of dished everything during the film.  

As for squeezing the estate through litigation, their lawsuits were already thrown out on a technicality (they were required to file litigation within 12 months after Jackson's death, they missed that window).  They are appealing it, but I don't see how they win their appeal.  I've heard people say that the HBO film was made to bolster their chances on the appeal, but that's kind of nonsense if you understand how the appeals process works.  Unless they can prove that the judge incorrectly applied the law with respect to statute of limitations (they won't), or argue that such limitations is violation of their constitutional rights (which is a long shot and would likely require a decision by the Supreme Court), they're not likely to prevail on the appeal.  The merits of the case won't decide the basis of the appeal.  Hence nothing in the HBO film will matter one bit.  

[EvanG]

4 hours ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

Now Corey Feldman is giving his opinion on this show. He said Michael never molested or said anything inappropriate to him when he stayed there as a child.

I read his message, but I don't think that's a good argument. There have been many kids running around for many years, it's indeed hard to believe he molested all of them, but that doesn't mean nothing ever could have happened with just a few. Years ago Feldman admitted that Jackson showed him nude pictures, and that's not the same as molesting someone, but it's already dubious behaviour when a grown man shows a kid nude pictures.

Edited March 7, 2019 by EvanG

[Crazyman]

I believe the MJ estate, or at least one of his nephews or cousins or something is making a counter documentary. 

I don't belive he did it, but I'd be willing to keep an open mind until hearing both sides of the story. Regardless, his relationship with kids was fucked up even if these allegations aren't true. 

I hope at some point in the future we can finally find out whether or not the allegations against him were true, but for now I'm gonna enjoy his talent with caution. 

[Ratam]

I'm don't understand why the people not seem suspicious at least, that a grown man sleep with kids in his bed❓ don't think this is normal thing....

[Crazyman]

1 hour ago, Ratam said:

I'm don't understand why the people not seem suspicious at least, that a grown man sleep with kids in his bed❓ don't think this is normal thing....

One of his fans defended this one reddit by saying "lots of stars do that for creative inspiration"

...no the fuck they don't 

[DieselDaisy]

Supposed I better watch the bugger then in the interests of fairness? Four whole hours of descriptions of Jackson slipping his todger into kids, this will be a Herculean Labour.

[OmarBradley]

19 hours ago, action said:

I'm trying to compose a coherent hypothesis about what happened, given the pertinent facts, but I just can't.

let's suppose MJ sexually assaulted these kids. If MJ was a sexual predator, there will be lots of victims. Right? If the 4 hour documentary is to be believed, MJ's created a whole enterprise around him with the sole purpose of luring children in and raping them. So the claim is, MJ made lots and lots of victims. Inevitably then, some of these kids had told their parents worrying things in the early '90s. Remember, these kids are sexually assaulted in our hypothesis.

The logical thing to do then for most of these parents, is to go to the authorities. Now you will always have parents who will have refrained from telling the cops for whatever reason, but not nearly every one of them. This is something, that I'm not willing to accept.

Well it turns out, the parents didn't go to the authorities. Other than the jordy case, I dont remember others. That's a fact that is clear and it needs to be reviewed with a clear mind.

the question needs to be asked: why? why didn't they go to the authorities?

-> Ockhams razor tells you: because there weren't any more. 

-> Another hypothesis is, these parents were deliberately putting their children with MJ in the hope to set him back a few millions of bucks. This, notwithstanding the cries of distress of their children. In other words; these parents were absolute scumbags. What I find peculiar then, is why don't these children sue their parents nowadays? There are no reported cases of some of these children having a major fallout with their parents, over the horrible things they put them through.

-> So what do we have left? suppose these kids told their parents (as they most certainly will have done), but these parents didn't react accordingly, MJ continued his gruesome activity, but no cases were filed by these parents, AND the authorities didn't find conclusive proof during multiple investigations. This hypothesis is full of inconsistency and doesn't make fucking sense.

So in short, I fail to come up with a reasonable explanation on why there were so little reported cases, "in tempero non suspecto".

 

 

 

10 hours ago, action said:

MJ's children are obviously going through a lot of suffering, and it's in part because of this docu.

it's cause (the docu) and effect (trauma). The causality is evident, and the causal action was deliberate.

they could also have foreseen that their docu would cause distress to his children. No one wants to hear all those accusations about their dad.

There were other ways, for those two "victims" to somehow get reckognition and find some kind of healing or closure. Plenty of ways, it's not up to me to sum them all up, but they chose this way and it causes harm to innocent children.

Victims have every right at reckognition. They don't however, by their status as a victim, have the right to cause trauma themselves.

Even if they are victims, they still need to act carefully, like you me and everyone else. they don't have the right to cause the suffering that they do.

also, suing MJ's estate is beyond pointless. MJ is dead. How could they possibly find closure by suing the MJ estate? How? does it make them feel better in any way? I'd like to know the psychological processes behind that one.

 

7 hours ago, action said:

I'm not going to watch the documentary downzy, for the sole reason that they have already proven to be skilled liars, before court and under oath.

they kept on lying in court, they answered all these questions, but they kept a straight face and didn't gave away their lies. they fooled everyone in that room. lawyers, judge and jury.

case closed, as far as I'm concerned.

it is a fact, that these two people know how to put on an act. don't give them money, give them an oscar I say.

if they can do it in court, they can also do it in a 4 hour documentary

I'm sure the documentary is brimmed with emotion and makes for a damn good propaganda movie. It takes two great actors to pull this off, but again, they already did in court.

I'm not of bad will, I'm just putting things in context. I'm not watching 4 hours of lies, because other than a fine case of acting this proves absolutely nothing.

I know you mean well Downzy. I feel your confusion, I'm there too. Me too wants to know the truth but for me, these two individuals are highly skilled liars. 

I wasn't going to post because I'm not really invested in this. Just watching from the sidelines, and I haven't researched the details.

But I've been compelled to post because you're relying on some faulty assumptions.

The first bolded sentence is an assumption with little evidence behind it. And then you proceed to base your entire post on that assumption! You discuss the 4 hour documentary, but also admit to having not watched it... so maybe you should? Don't mean to sound condescending, but you'd be in a much better position to discredit it if you listened to its arguments and provided valid reasoning for why you find them false.

The second bolded sentence is another assumption. Like downzy said, experiencing trauma as a child (or adult tbh) is not as straightforward as you are assuming. And you don't know how many children were (or were not, I'm open to him being innocent) assaulted. It's quite possible it was just the 2 people featured in the documentary - I don't know for sure, but neither do you and you can't base argumentation on "fact: many were assaulted, so why have only a few come forward?" And again, given the circumstances surrounding reporting assault, it's completely unsurprising there are only a handful of accusations and not an armada.

Third bolded sentence, this is some insane victim blaming. The truth is uncomfortable for some people? Big fucking deal. Jackson's kids are likely financially set for their lives (and X amount of generations of the family) - some bad press and a tainted legacy (which is already semi-tainted) is not likely to lead to significant distress. They may feel it's significant, with everyone "attacking" or "ganging up" on their father, but things will cool down in the public sphere again and they can go back to being ridiculously rich and secured using a fortune their father earned. I maybe feel a tiny bit sorry for them, but not enough for it to affect how I'd conduct the accusations.

Fourth sentence, okay what is your suggestion to the victims on how to get recognition of this issue and closure? Obviously it is far too late to go to the police, for actionable steps at least. Even civil proceedings seem out of reach. So instead of a documentary they should have, what? Written a song? Developed an app? Performed a play? Done a 60 Minutes special? I don't see how any of the alternatives to a documentary are more effective for recognition and closure and.

Fifth sentence, no, victims do not need to be careful. Victims of illegal acts need to come forward in whatever manner they are comfortable with, so long as it's legal and doesn't cause genuine harm (genuine harm: something like former drug cartel captives publicly disclosing info which results in retaliatory acts, NOT temporarily injured feelings within very well-off individuals). If victims feel the police/legal system won't address abuse properly (which is widely documented to be the case), I understand why they take to other means. Do they have a right to cause suffering? I'd rephrase that and say they have a right to come forward and if the truth causes suffering, sorry that's the truth and the record must show it.

Sixth sentence, I don't know the answer to this for sure, but my assumption is it's because: what else would you sue? The record labels? Jackson's tour manager? Those may not be bad ideas if they were complicit in the abuse, but the estate is obviously the most direct entity to address the situation.

I can't comment too much on your final post. I haven't seen the interviews or watched the court proceedings. All of what you say in that post may be true, but it does not justify the previous errors in argumentation. And apparently, the documentary addresses why their stories have shifted. You can't convincingly say "case closed" when you haven't heard the latest entry of evidence. 

Again, I don't really lean one way or the other. The guy was a weirdo, but I've seen no decisive evidence either, partially because I haven't looked into any of the accusations/data myself. But I also don't approve of spotty argumentation when defending him. And I'd say the same if someone was accusing in a manner bereft of reason, but I haven't seen that in this thread.

And I would add, I don't blame the children/family for defending MJ or noting discrepancies or even saying they've been negatively affected by the accusations. They have a right to speak and I don't know many humans who would turn against their loving parent without decisive evidence. That being said, you are neutral, you are not a Jackson child. So while they may have some valid reasons to complain, your complaints on their behalf are misplaced, IMO.

5 hours ago, adamsapple said:

On a sidenote...I don't think people like Eddie Van Halen, Mick Jagger, Bruce Springsteen, Stevie Wonder, Paul McCartney, Slash and many more grade a world class superstars would have worked and performed with him in public if they would have heard or noticed anything disturbing regarding his relation to children. If anyone's interested, look up what Macauley Culkin and Corey Feldman had to say about Jackson. As for conspiracy theories, listen to the "History" album from 1995 and pay attention to the lyrics.

Eh. Harvey Weinstein thrived in Hollywood even though his abusiveness was an open secret. When you know someone personally, you don't want to believe the accusations. I'm actually watching something similar happen right now. There is a known scammer operating in some Discord servers I'm in. Despite the repeated attempts of people trying to unmask his scams (which can be done pretty much indisputably), some people are flocking to his defense because they know him and they haven't personally seen the side of him others have. 

Humans seem to want to defend those they see as part of their 'tribe/network,' regardless of the validity of the assertions or accusations.

[DieselDaisy]

Watched part one. He is one sick fucker if even some of this is true. Michael reminds me of the Emperor Tiberius in the film Caligula. 

Oh well - roll on part two: more penal rubbing, anal probing and nipple rubbing!!

Edited March 7, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[Len Cnut]

5 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Supposed I better watch the bugger then in the interests of fairness? Four whole hours of descriptions of Jackson slipping his todger into kids, this will be a Herculean Labour.

Fuck that man, you're better off watching your kraut films, at least you learn something.

[RNRS]

We all know Michael Jackson was weird. Sure, even some of his friendships might've been inappropriate. But a child molester? Nah...

There's so many details out there from the case in court that's neglected in the documentary just to make sure these 2 can make their case with accusations they just can't prove. It's a shame the Estate can't get its shit together and release an in depth documentary about the allegations just so everything's out there and all these supposedly molested people will shut up.

[DieselDaisy]

28 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Fuck that man, you're better off watching your kraut films, at least you learn something.

They have done a number on him. That is basically the end of any vestige of Jackson's reputation. He is in Glitter/Saville territory now. 

PS

There are still some issues though. Culkin? He was basically the kid who followed Wade Robson and preceded Jordan Chandler. He is staunch in his defence. In fact it is remarkable how many kids passed through Neverland and only 4 I suppose have revealed this, although that is the premise of how Jackson operated. He seems to have selected a ''special'' kid, and changed this kid every 12 months. All the other kids running around in some Spielbergian paradise were just ''extras'' (pardon the flawed description).

Pertaining to Jackson's actions extending to them, Jackson was this perfect Peter Pan ''Heal the World'' do-gooder.

Edited March 7, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[action]

it's a crazy world out there...

At least one of the parties involved in this whole saga (MJ or the accusers), are pathological liars. That is all that I know. I can then tell you my gut feeling on who I "think" is lying (in fact, I already did), but my gut feeling doesn't matter.

Either MJ or the accusers lie. In both cases, the lie is colossal. 

"Someone" in this story has a lot to answer for, if there is any justice under the sky.

I'm guilty myself, of judging people. I've judged the accusers. That was wrong. In the absence of proof, any proof, I can't judge. And even if there is, it's still not right to judge. If there is a god in the sky, he'll judge. That is enough for me. I'll leave it at that.

[Len Cnut]

55 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

They have done a number on him. That is basically the end of any vestige of Jackson's reputation. He is in Glitter/Saville territory now. 

PS

There are still some issues though. Culkin? He was basically the kid who followed Wade Robson and preceded Jordan Chandler. He is staunch in his defence. In fact it is remarkable how many kids passed through Neverland and only 4 I suppose have revealed this, although that is the premise of how Jackson operated. He seems to have selected a ''special'' kid, and changed this kid every 12 months. All the other kids running around in some Spielbergian paradise were just ''extras'' (pardon the flawed description).

Pertaining to Jackson's actions extending to them, Jackson was this perfect Peter Pan ''Heal the World'' do-gooder.

I suppose noncing Corey Feldman and Culkin would be a bad idea because they are famous so there'd be more chance of it coming out and it'd have more credence and inspire more sympathy than ones with less behind them?  Predators tend to go for the more vulnerable don't they?

Edited March 7, 2019 by Len Cnut

[Angelica]

53 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

They have done a number on him. That is basically the end of any vestige of Jackson's reputation. He is in Glitter/Saville territory now. 

PS

There are still some issues though. Culkin? He was basically the kid who followed Wade Robson and preceded Jordan Chandler. He is staunch in his defence. In fact it is remarkable how many kids passed through Neverland and only 4 I suppose have revealed this, although that is the premise of how Jackson operated. He seems to have selected a ''special'' kid, and changed this kid every 12 months. All the other kids running around in some Spielbergian paradise were just ''extras'' (pardon the flawed description).

Pertaining to Jackson's actions extending to them, Jackson was this perfect Peter Pan ''Heal the World'' do-gooder.

Corey Feldman says the same thing. But nether of them are the type the accusers are (that Chandler, Arvazio, Robson and Safechuck were all similar looking as kids is one of biggest red flags for me) Maybe  MJ was the John Derek of pedos?  

Edited March 7, 2019 by Angelica

[Angelica]

3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I suppose noncing Corey Feldman and Culkin would be a bad idea because they are famous so there'd be more chance of it coming out and it'd have more credence and inspire more sympathy than ones with less behind them?  Predators tend to go for the more vulnerable don't they?

Yes. Although both were exploited and ripped off by their parents as kids, so they were vulnerable. But as I attempted to delicately suggest above...possibly not pretty enough.

[Len Cnut]

15 minutes ago, Angelica said:

Yes. Although both were exploited and ripped off by their parents as kids, so they were vulnerable. But as I attempted to delicately suggest above...possibly not pretty enough.

Oh they were vulnerable to some degree as all kids are but like, you're a pedo (there's an unsettling thought!), who looks a softer touch, some random kid from nowhere or the famous kid, which one would seem more likely to fuck you up?