Jump to content
JONEZY

Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson Documentary, HBO

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I don't think Stevie Wonder should be giving an opinion, he obviously hasn't seen the documentary.

That was bang out of order :lol:  Then again so was my 'turn the sound up' comment :lol:

Edited by Len Cnut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

That was bang out of order :lol:  Then again so was my 'turn the sound up' comment :lol:

Dang... I hadn't even read that yet... you were first!

I like this one more: Why can't Stevie Wonder drive a car? Because he's black.

 

 

I'll get my coat.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are many questionable elements in this case, that we are told to "accept", or else "we're putting our heads in the sand" and frankly, I think that is just outrageous:

- we just have to accept that these men lied (one of them under oath) in their earlier statements, because they were "too afraid" to tell the truth as a child. Not one of them, both of them.

- we just have to accept that martin bashir was telling bollox, when he claimed that he had never noticed anything suspicious while making his "living with MJ" doc, and that he was just being a prick and making things up on the go.

- we just have to accept that the witnesses who claim good things about michael like culkin and corey, "dont know the truth", even though they were in neverland by the time of the facts

- we just have to accept that, while there were countless children invited in his neverland, only very few were assaulted. No explanation is given for why he invited all these other children. But we have to accept this was all "part of the plan"

- we just have to accept the contradictions, even within this very documentary as irrelevant. I'm giving one example: one of them claimed to have never told his parents, because he could not grasp that michael would do something wrong. While also claiming that MJ has told him, back then, that if he went with his story to the authorities, that "he and him" would go to jail. There was also a mention of timelines that don't add up. My god is this case a trainwreck.

- we just have to accept that the claims by his own children, that MJ was the best dad ever, is somehow wrong and that his children"probably have never seen anything suspicious".

basically, every time "we" come up with contradictions and inconsistencies, we are told to "just accept" them, and oh by the way why do you support a pedo.

I'm ready to review genuine evidence, but I don't like the way how the "guilty" camp tries to convince the "not guilty" camp. I'm not putting my head in the sand, just because I look at the whole picture and I point out inconsistencies. This dismissing of a balanced viewpoint does not sit well with me. I think, this transcends the question wether MJ is guilty or not. This is about much more, it's about fairness of the debate and carefull overview of all the elements. I feel, the rules of fairness are being violated, with all the things that I'm being told to "just accept".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, action said:

- we just have to accept that, while there were countless children invited in his neverland, only very few were assaulted. No explanation is given for why he invited all these other children. But we have to accept this was all "part of the plan"

Isn't it possible that he was the way we all thought he was for most of the time? He genuinely liked being around kids for non sexual motives because he missed out on a childhood and he cared about kids? It's hard for me to comprehend that it was all a charade. Maybe that's the side of him that a lot of kids knew, like Feldman and Culkin, and probably many more and that is why this is so complicated. I don't know a lot about peadophilia, but I'm sure every case is different. There are serial killers who go years without killing, even if the opportunity is there.

Edited by EvanG
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, action said:

there are many questionable elements in this case, that we are told to "accept", or else "we're putting our heads in the sand" and frankly, I think that is just outrageous:

- we just have to accept that these men lied (one of them under oath) in their earlier statements, because they were "too afraid" to tell the truth as a child. Not one of them, both of them.

- we just have to accept that martin bashir was telling bollox, when he claimed that he had never noticed anything suspicious while making his "living with MJ" doc, and that he was just being a prick and making things up on the go.

- we just have to accept that the witnesses who claim good things about michael like culkin and corey, "dont know the truth", even though they were in neverland by the time of the facts

- we just have to accept that, while there were countless children invited in his neverland, only very few were assaulted. No explanation is given for why he invited all these other children. But we have to accept this was all "part of the plan"

- we just have to accept the contradictions, even within this very documentary as irrelevant. I'm giving one example: one of them claimed to have never told his parents, because he could not grasp that michael would do something wrong. While also claiming that MJ has told him, back then, that if he went with his story to the authorities, that "he and him" would go to jail. There was also a mention of timelines that don't add up. My god is this case a trainwreck.

- we just have to accept that the claims by his own children, that MJ was the best dad ever, is somehow wrong and that his children"probably have never seen anything suspicious".

basically, every time "we" come up with contradictions and inconsistencies, we are told to "just accept" them, and oh by the way why do you support a pedo.

I'm ready to review genuine evidence, but I don't like the way how the "guilty" camp tries to convince the "not guilty" camp. I'm not putting my head in the sand, just because I look at the whole picture and I point out inconsistencies. This dismissing of a balanced viewpoint does not sit well with me. I think, this transcends the question wether MJ is guilty or not. This is about much more, it's about fairness of the debate and carefull overview of all the elements. I feel, the rules of fairness are being violated, with all the things that I'm being told to "just accept".

I think you need to watch the documentary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Isn't it possible that he was the way we all thought he was for most of the time? He genuinely liked being around kids for non sexual motives because he missed out on a childhood and he cared about kids? It's hard for me to comprehend that it was all a charade. Maybe that's the side of him that a lot of kids knew, like Feldman and Culkin, and probably many more and that is why this is so complicated. I don't know a lot about peadophilia, but I'm sure every case is different. There are serial killers who go years without killing, even if the opportunity is there.

Perhaps the sexual aspect and the caring, in a twisted mental way, were inter-linked?  Like he did love kids, he did genuinely spend time with em but the boy was just wired wrong and being as how he is a human being and did have certain impulses that they were then acted upon with kids instead of adults like a normal human being? 

The fact is when you're a grown fuckin' man and you have this inclination to hang around with kids ALL the fuckin' time then where is there room for the normal adult behaviour, the shagging and all that?  A lot of pedos have that, the whole 'never grew up' thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I think you need to watch the documentary. 

You know what. Why the hell not. I'm going to do just that. it's being broadcast this evening where I live.

If my wife wants to watch it (this is the tricky part. Usually she only watches wedding and house decorating programs), we'll have a look.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, action said:

You know what. Why the hell not. I'm going to do just that. it's being broadcast this evening where I live.

If my wife wants to watch it (this is the tricky part. Usually she only watches wedding and house decorating programs), we'll have a look.

A lot of your queries are dealt with in the documentary. The Jackson portrayed didn't for instance pray on every child but selected a ''special'' child who would be switched at approximately yearly intervals, although sexual relations still seem to have persisted at a diminishing level as the child aged. There is no contradiction in that other kids, including his own children, saw nothing of what is alleged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The Jackson portrayed didn't for instance pray on every child

Pedos don't really work that way though do they?  I mean if you fuckin' done every kid you came in contact with you wouldn't be long at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

Pedos don't really work that way though do they?  I mean if you fuckin' done every kid you came in contact with you wouldn't be long at it.

You are going to have to watch it also as you're obviously interested. 4 hours. Throw in the Oprah thing (After Neverland) and that is another hour. That is five hours of noncing. 

The Oprah thing answered a couple more questions. She is good at relaying what child abuse is about, and even if this documentary is a pack of lies it - irrespective of Michael Jackson - successfully relays what the complexity of the issue. The child has no way, intellectually, morally, to comprehend it which they carry forth into adulthood. Their whole life is sort of built upon it, so they wonder whether it would collapse if they denounced the act?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Perhaps the sexual aspect and the caring, in a twisted mental way, were inter-linked?  Like he did love kids, he did genuinely spend time with em but the boy was just wired wrong and being as how he is a human being and did have certain impulses that they were then acted upon with kids instead of adults like a normal human being? 

The fact is when you're a grown fuckin' man and you have this inclination to hang around with kids ALL the fuckin' time then where is there room for the normal adult behaviour, the shagging and all that?  A lot of pedos have that, the whole 'never grew up' thing.

Perhaps, I really don't know, I haven't seen the documentary. I don't think everything is black or white, no pun intended. I think you can have a good soul and still really fuck up. For a lot of people that is incomprehensible, once you've overstepped the line you're nothing but a monster. That's why the fanbase reacts this way, they don't believe, and don't want to believe, that everything about the person they grew up with was fake... but even if this is true, that doesn't mean he didn't also have good intentions towards the world, mankind, and a lot of the things he stood for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One very important element of proof in this case, the best one if you ask me, is the house search that the authorities did in MJ's ranch.

What better proof could you possibly get?

criminals, wether they are murderers, thieves or pedo's, make mistakes. they leave traces of their crimes, however small they may be.

The ouctome of this search, all the items they have found, need to be reviewed in full by anyone who pretends to have an opinion on MJ's case. Yes, watch the docu, but also watch what the authorities have found during their search.

Bear in mind, all what they had found, has been put forward in court, all of it. And nothing has been legally found to be child porn. No underwear has been found, nothing that can remotely point to child abuse. I find this very strange. Another thing that I "just have to accept", I guess.

See more in detail about his house search, here:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-child-porn-found-at-neverland-thenor-now-the_us_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The documentary is airing tomorrow and the following day. I'll post my opinion on it after.

Currently my view is MJ is a creep regardless and more than likely a pedo and the fact that 'some' have lied about him and the media has an angle - doesn't change that.

P.S. I remember hearing on the news a while back sometime after his death they found animal torture porn on his computer...is that true? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

The documentary is airing tomorrow and the following day. I'll post my opinion on it after.

Currently my view is MJ is a creep regardless and more than likely a pedo and the fact that 'some' have lied about him and the media has an angle - doesn't change that.

P.S. I remember hearing on the news a while back sometime after his death they found animal torture porn on his computer...is that true? 

Thing about the lied thing, it doesn't necessarily negate instances where someone is telling the truth, its not actually hard and fast evidence that the person was then lying in another instance, its more or less a lawyer tactic to reflect on the persons character but even then bad character does not necessarily mean that you can't claim something and it be correct.

For example, Gerry Colon who was arrested for the IRA pub bombings in Guildford back in the 70s lied in court about his whereabouts and movements around the time of the blast because he had burgled someones house and in court it was used against him i.e. who are we to believe, you the scurvy little tea leaf or the reputable and highly decorated police officers of such and such many years experience who you claim tortured you in pursuit of a confession.  Gerry took drugs, Gerry was a vagrant and a thief and a liar...that don't mean to say that he's lying when he said he didn't bomb the pub in Guildford...and he wasn't it was The Balcombe Street Gang (great name eh?  Shame they were a bunch of murdering psychopaths).

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Thing about the lied thing, it doesn't necessarily negate instances where someone is telling the truth, its not actually hard and fast evidence that the person was then lying in another instance, its more or less a lawyer tactic to reflect on the persons character but even then bad character does not necessarily mean that you can't claim something and it be correct.

For example, Gerry Colon who was arrested for the IRA pub bombings in Guildford back in the 70s lied in court about his whereabouts and movements around the time of the blast because he had burgled someones house and in court it was used against him i.e. who are we to believe, you the scurvy little tea leaf or the reputable and highly decorated police officers of such and such many years experience who you claim tortured you in pursuit of a confession.  Gerry took drugs, Gerry was a vagrant and a thief and a liar...that don't mean to say that he's lying when he said he didn't bomb the pub in Guildford...and he wasn't it was The Balcombe Street Gang (great name eh?  Shame they were a bunch of murdering psychopaths).

the majority of people will believe the victim, because this is a natural instinct. you're just a bit short of being an asshole if you dare to look at the victim's confessions with a cautious mind.

that's the way it's always been, and is ever prevalent in our social media culture.

but the argument that "the victims are so believable, if they are lying they deserve an oscar" is flawed, in that I can say the same about jackson: "if jackson is really guilty, then he deserves an oscar for playing so innocent".

can't you people see, that either way, one of the parties has put on an oscar worthy act? don't matter who lies: the victims or jackson: at least one of them has put on a brilliant act.

so the sympathy card is played and the victims are believed.... because why would a victim lie. But MJ claimed to be a victim too, so we can turn circles to the end of days.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, action said:

the majority of people will believe the victim, because this is a natural instinct. you're just a bit short of being an asshole if you dare to look at the victim's confessions with a cautious mind.

that's the way it's always been, and is ever prevalent in our social media culture.

but the argument that "the victims are so believable, if they are lying they deserve an oscar" is flawed, in that I can say the same about jackson: "if jackson is really guilty, then he deserves an oscar for playing so innocent".

can't you people see, that either way, one of the parties has put on an oscar worthy act? don't matter who lies: the victims or jackson: at least one of them has put on a brilliant act.

so the sympathy card is played and the victims are believed.... because why would a victim lie. But MJ claimed to be a victim too, so we can turn circles to the end of days.

But I don't think MJ has put on an Oscar worthy act. Literally since I was a child I thought "Red alert! Danger! Psycho detected!"

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Oldest Goat said:

But I don't think MJ has put on an Oscar worthy act. Literally since I was a child I thought "Red alert! Danger! Psycho detected!"

I appreciate that, but millions and millions of people are positively shocked that he is accused of all of that. By your own admission, so many people still defend him.

if you can fool so many people, then either you deserve the biggest oscar in the history of the planet, or..... you're really innocent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, action said:

I appreciate that, but millions and millions of people are positively shocked that he is accused of all of that. By your own admission, so many people still defend him.

if you can fool so many people, then either you deserve the biggest oscar in the history of the planet, or..... you're really innocent

Wrong. I'm right about the Catholic church and 1billion are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, OmarBradley said:

That strikes me as a ridiculous figure, so I did some checking.

This page tries to address it, given the website name it's obviously biased and there are many problems in this author's argumentation. He basically says the media is complicit in promoting Jackson's guilt and they purposefully don't report the $1.62B (or $1.5B, depending on circumstances I don't really follow) figure because they don't want to publish anything to make Jackson seem innocent. This is the same sort of "the media is the enemy" strategy that Trump and conservatives pursue. I didn't read the entire article because it's an obvious opinion piece that omits sources and relies on assumptions.

This Forbes article (and another Forbes article posted only 4 weeks after the first article) are the only two legitimate sources I can see referencing the number, and neither note a source. Yet, they're not terribly legitimate because both are opinion pieces. And the author of the first article, Joe Vogel, has written two books on Jackson, not sure if they have a narrative of 'he was innocent' or if they're purely biographical. The second author doesn't seem to have previously published content about Jackson. 

Regardless, that as much Googling as I care to do on this, but it is troubling that there is no legitimate source for the figure "demanded" by Robson in 2013 (or 2015/2016 as some articles seem to claim).

Okay, I lied and I did some more Googling. I was troubled that some of the recent articles dispute each other regarding when the lawsuit was first initiated. It looks like they're all correct to a degree, in that the initial documentation was completed in 2013, but major events in the saga occurred in 2015/2016.

I found this article from 2013 - the article states toward the beginning the $ amount requested is not public (at the time at least, but I still can't find anything 2013 - 2019 that definitively says the amount).

This article talks about the circumstances surrounding the dismissals of lawsuits, I believe downzy already mentioned these points, but here they are.

Okay, I found a site hosting a bunch of court documents. I perused a few entries and didn't see a dollar amount, but I've already spent way more time on this than I intended and the conflicting information is messy enough that even I, enjoyer of details and argumentation, have no interest in hurdling through all of these articles and documents in some Pepe Silvia-esque investigation.

Thanks for digging all of this up. Yeah, it's difficult to say with any certainty what the actual numbers are.  It's why I'm hesitant to accept arguments that they're only doing this for the money.  Since we can't put a dollar figure and there's a wide range of reports as to how much is actually involved, I'm not sure it's something that should be given that much weight.

And at the end of the day, if they were truly victimized by MJ, why shouldn't they seek compensation.  I do understand why people would be skeptical, but seeking financial compensation doesn't invalidate their claims nor does it do anything for their poor mothers who have been made to feel and look like utter shit.  Everyone is different, but for the life of me I could never putting my mother or family through what they're putting theirs through for any sum of money.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they banned the work of people who did shitty things we'd likely not have any entertainment to enjoy. Hell, we wouldn't even be on this forum.

One of my favorite movie stars is Charlie Chaplin (who, coincidentally, MJ also loved)...Charlie wasn't that great of a guy off screen either. I'm still going to watch his movies and listen to MJ's music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Oldest Goat said:

Wrong. I'm right about the Catholic church and 1billion are wrong.

:lol:

I wholeheartily agree with you about the church.

  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, action said:

the majority of people will believe the victim, because this is a natural instinct. you're just a bit short of being an asshole if you dare to look at the victim's confessions with a cautious mind.

that's the way it's always been, and is ever prevalent in our social media culture.

I don't believe their's anything natural with respect to who to believe.  I do believe we're in a climate where victims are given more opportunity and less doubt as to their stories.  It wasn't too long ago that most victims would be largely dismissed.  So no, it's not the way it's always been.  There have been many people who have accused others of similar crimes who were largely dismissed.  Nature doesn't enter into it; it's more of a societal norms issue than anything.  

And no one, at least no one should, consider anyone else an asshole because they're suspicious of those who report to be victims.  I think at most people should be allowed to tell their stories.  What shouldn't happen is that they be dismissed even before they're heard, which is what many of MJ's defenders are doing with Robson and Safechuck.  That's what I don't want to understand.  You don't want to believe them because they once said one thing and now say something else.  Fine.  That there's a financial incentive.  Again, fully acknowledged.  But at least have the decency to listen to what they have to say first and see if it lands or makes sense before making up your mind.  

42 minutes ago, action said:

I appreciate that, but millions and millions of people are positively shocked that he is accused of all of that. By your own admission, so many people still defend him.

if you can fool so many people, then either you deserve the biggest oscar in the history of the planet, or..... you're really innocent

Really?  People are shocked that a guy who is as eccentric and strange as Michael Jackson, who slept with little boys in his bed is being accused of sexual abuse?  No offence, but I literally laughed out loud at this.  

People defend him for a variety of reasons.  Some because they don't believe the accusers.  Some because celebrity is sacrosanct.  Some because they want to still love the music.  It's wrong to lump all Jackson defenders into some sort of monolith.  People have their reasons.  

And I'm not sure the quantity of people one convinces is the kind of metric we should go by.  MJ is/was a celebrity; of course he speaks to a larger audience than your average joe who is accused of the same thing.  Celebrities have several home court advantages that you and I don't have.  Almost always, in every single case, the lawyers for celebrities claim it's a shakedown; that the accusers just want their money or notoriety.  A regular person being accused of sexual assault doesn't get that presumption.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m surprised anyone ever bought that childlike innocence routine of Jackos, I truly am, it makes me think what sheltered lives some people must lead or else they just REALLY want to believe that shit.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Crazyman said:

If they banned the work of people who did shitty things we'd likely not have any entertainment to enjoy. Hell, we wouldn't even be on this forum.

One of my favorite movie stars is Charlie Chaplin (who, coincidentally, MJ also loved)...Charlie wasn't that great of a guy off screen either. I'm still going to watch his movies and listen to MJ's music.

Yeah, I think it should be left up to the individual.  I don't fault corporations for making the choices they're making.  They're private companies and can do what they want.  If a radio station decides to no longer play MJ, well, people can get it elsewhere.  I don't think anyone is for societal bans where by the government confiscates all MJ songs.

There's also the issue of the crime itself as well as the medium involved.  Abusing small children ain't the same as domestic abuse; just as seeing the Mona Lisa isn't the same as hearing a Michael Jackson song.  I think it depends on each audience member to decide what they can accept and how far removed the artist is from their art.  I still love many of MJ's songs, but I can no longer hear him perform them.  I wouldn't be opposed to hearing someone else perform them.  And my standards are my own; i wouldn't expect others to adhere to what I think is right in this situation.  There's far too much judgement of others on matters that are highly personal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I’m surprised anyone ever bought that childlike innocence routine of Jackos, I truly am, it makes me think what sheltered lives some people must lead or else they just REALLY want to believe that shit.

Before 1993, before the first allegations, there were many people who appreciated this character of "grown up man with childlike voice who sleeps in an oxygen chamber and has a pet monkey named bubba" or something.

it's an outrageous character, it speaks to the imagination.

Not that anyone of his fans would go through real life like MJ, it's nothing about that. What it meant to them, is this persona of someone who was completely shut off from the big cruel world, living in his neverland pretending to be an eternal child...... that really spoke to a lot of people.

then came the shock and the illusion was shattered, and the madness began.

I wouldn't want to feed the people, people who are lost in life who are looking for a bit of dreams. some people follow the Queen and wonder at all the richess and the crown.... it's all bells and whistles and it speaks to the imagination. fairytales of kings and queens, peter pan and mickey mouse.... the feeble minded, the lost people (and there are many) eat it all up like hot cakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×