Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson Documentary, HBO

[DieselDaisy]

23 minutes ago, Jw224 said:

They directly contradict their own testimony in the documentary and the time line of events does not add up at all. One of their mothers celebrating when he died but then her son claims he never told her until 2013? Safechuck was in a lawsuit before he suddenly "realised" he was abused and joined Wade's lawsuit for millions and Wade got rejected from an MJ tribute show and then "realised" he was abused and tried to quietly sue for money under seal and run. Wade's whole family caught lying in the doc about a dinner they had with mj saying it was used to convince wade to testify, turns out the dinner was actually after wade had already backed mj in the trial. Safechuck saying mj had sex with him all over the ranch when there are security camera in almost every room. Safechuck also said there was one way glass in a room that MJ used to conceal them having sex, turns out there's no one way glass in the ranch at all. The claims of wade and Safechuck about MJ abandoning them are bullshit as they remained friends for years and Safechuck even worked on mjs ill fated comeback tour. I'm just saying this is propaganda and you need to be aware it is designed to make you feel a certain way, it will make you feel uneasy about mj but that is the intent. It is incredibly one sided, not one person who has defended MJ was interviewed or anyone else who knows the accusers other than their families. (Many people who know Wade have since came out and said he's lying). 

Yes, and the fact the Arvizo case, the one time Jackson was sentenced in a court of law for paedophilia, collapsed was dispensed with all a bit too quickly in the film for my tastes, and attributed solely to Culkin's intervention and not so much that it was a pack of lies and contradictions. 

Still, how much money would anyone accept for admitting on television that you have had your arsecrack fingered by the king of pop? And if these two are lying they're literally the best two actors in the world.

I don't know. Off the Wall will gather a bit of dust - that is all I'll say.

PS

Cory Feldman, Brett Barnes and Mark Lester have spoken in defence of Jackson, but this needn't be a contradiction as the modus operandi in the allegations is that he groomed one child then moved onto another one. It doesn't mean other kids visited Neverland who were oblivious to all this. There needn't be a contradictions. I mean there were girls who visited Neverland also and none of the allegations include girls - and even in his regular life he wasn't exactly a lady's man. 

Edited March 7, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[downzy]

18 minutes ago, Jw224 said:

They directly contradict their own testimony in the documentary and the time line of events does not add up at all. One of their mothers celebrating when he died but then her son claims he never told her until 2013? Safechuck was in a lawsuit before he suddenly "realised" he was abused and joined Wade's lawsuit for millions and Wade got rejected from an MJ tribute show and shopped about for a book deal (which he tried to hide from the court and his lawyers and the allegations changed massively in each draft of the book, then "realised" he was abused and tried to quietly sue for money under seal and run. Wade's whole family caught lying in the doc about a dinner they had with mj saying it was used to convince wade to testify, turns out the dinner was actually after wade had already backed mj in the trial. Safechuck saying mj had sex with him all over the ranch when there are security camera in almost every room. Safechuck also said there was one way glass in a room that MJ used to conceal them having sex, turns out there's no one way glass in the ranch at all. The claims of wade and Safechuck about MJ abandoning them are bullshit as they remained friends for years and Safechuck even worked on mjs ill fated comeback tour. I'm just saying this is propaganda and you need to be aware it is designed to make you feel a certain way, it will make you feel uneasy about mj but that is the intent. It is incredibly one sided, not one person who has defended MJ was interviewed or anyone else who knows the accusers other than their families. (Many people who know Wade have since came out and said he's lying). 

Can you provide links to what you are arguing here.  I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but I haven't found anything that substantiates some of what you claim.

Particularly, the dollar amount associated with the lawsuits filed by Robson.  There's nothing official that states that Robson has sued for millions.

How do you know that the allegations changed drastically with each draft?  Are there copies of various drafts out there?

Where is it proven that the dinner with MJ occurred after Robson already testified.  

Can't security cameras be turned off? 

And you do realize that coming to terms with sexual assault doesn't happen over night for all people.  There have been numerous instances of people taking decades to accept what happened to them.  

The film isn't really a documentary.  It's non-fictional film.  It doesn't pretend to be fair.  It doesn't suggest there are two sides to the story.  The power of the film is the accounts by Robson and Safechuck.  If a few details are out of place is enough to discount what they say, then that's cool.  But I think it does a disservice to their stories to dismiss them outright because not everything is consistent.  

 

[action]

I still haven't watched the documentary, for reasons I've already stated.

this policy is reinforced by the continued doubts and reservations by some people that have watched it.

If something can be proven, you don't need 4 hours.

the best proof is the short kind. Spit it all out in 5 short sentences. What is your proof, and what are the facts? preferrably in a coherent manner

This is true for science, it's true at your work (time is money, less is more) and basically in every situation where you're in an argument or you want to persuade a listener:

4 hours is too much. Instinctively, when someone needs 4 DAMN HOURS to explain a point, to persuade, then something fishy is going on. 

I have spent my whole life going through situations and being sceptical of people who talk too much, too long. Smooth talkers, I'm sceptical.

I'm not the emotional kind of guy. I'm being told "watch the docu, it's emotional, you'll be convinced by the way they tell their story"... it's all smoke and mirrors. Cut to the chase, show your proof and say the facts in a coherent resume. 4 hours? not a snowball's chance in hell I'm going to sit through that.

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, action said:

I still haven't watched the documentary, for reasons I've already stated.

this policy is reinforced by the continued doubts and reservations by some people that have watched it.

If something can be proven, you don't need 4 hours.

the best proof is the short kind. Spit it all out in 5 short sentences. What is your proof, and what are the facts? preferrably in a coherent manner

This is true for science, it's true at your work (time is money, less is more) and basically in every situation where you're in an argument or you want to persuade a listener:

4 hours is too much. Instinctively, when someone needs 4 DAMN HOURS to explain a point, to persuade, then something fishy is going on. 

I have spent my whole life going through situations and being sceptical of people who talk too much, too long. Smooth talkers, I'm sceptical.

I'm not the emotional kind of guy. I'm being told "watch the docu, it's emotional, you'll be convinced by the way they tell their story"... it's all smoke and mirrors. Cut to the chase, show your proof and say the facts in a coherent resume. 4 hours? not a snowball's chance in hell I'm going to sit through that.

In actual fact they could have boiled the allegations down to 90 mins quite easily, but the film goes into their lives a lot. Not all of it is surprisingly about the Jackson thing. Wade's family collapsed and his father committed suicide for instance. 

[action]

I'm a simple guy. If they ever find proof, I'm sure it'll be all on the front pages of every newspaper, and it will be convincing, it will stand the test of any reasonable doubt.

it will fit on a single page.

I'm just going to let all of this hysteria pass me by and in a couple of weeks, I'll see what remains of it. the core, the proven facts will eventually come forward.

today, we have a long documentary which calls on our "belief", to make up our mind, but that's just not how I gather information. Someone else (the producer of the movie) has already created a feeling, and he wants to transport it to the viewer. they call this propaganda. You know those scam sessions where people are invited for free coffee and drinks, and you'll need to listen for three hours to a speaker and at the end of it all you can invest in castles made of sand? the room is full of feeble minded, and the scammer goes home with a lot of cash. It's a bit like that with this movie. I'm supposed to sit in this room, let it all sink in and be manipulated, and go home numb and angry. Again, I'm not having any of it. They have a saying here in belgium: "What a farmer doesn't know, he doesn't eat." ain't that the truth.

[downzy]

9 minutes ago, action said:

I still haven't watched the documentary, for reasons I've already stated.

this policy is reinforced by the continued doubts and reservations by some people that have watched it.

If something can be proven, you don't need 4 hours.

the best proof is the short kind. Spit it all out in 5 short sentences. What is your proof, and what are the facts? preferrably in a coherent manner

This is true for science, it's true at your work (time is money, less is more) and basically in every situation where you're in an argument or you want to persuade a listener:

4 hours is too much. Instinctively, when someone needs 4 DAMN HOURS to explain a point, to persuade, then something fishy is going on. 

I have spent my whole life going through situations and being sceptical of people who talk too much, too long. Smooth talkers, I'm sceptical.

I'm not the emotional kind of guy. I'm being told "watch the docu, it's emotional, you'll be convinced by the way they tell their story"... it's all smoke and mirrors. Cut to the chase, show your proof and say the facts in a coherent resume. 4 hours? not a snowball's chance in hell I'm going to sit through that.

As DD said, it's not just about the allegations, and it's not about just one person.  

Crimes such as sexual abuse don't necessarily have clear cut, direct, and non-circumstantial evidence.  The reality is that a lot of times it comes down to the the accounts made by the accusers.

But I do find it funny you keep coming back to this topic despite having no interest in watching the film.  I ask this in earnest, are you afraid to watch it?  

With respect to some of the questions I raised two posts earlier, I found a Forbes article where a dollar amount of $1.5 billion is attached to the litigation filed by Robson and Safechuck.  But I'm not sure where the author of the article, which isn't a review of the film but a critique of the accusers, got that dollar figure.  Usually civil actions, especially ones that were dismissed, can usually be reviewed in a public file.  Any other reference to the $1.5 billion amount, such as in the wikipedia page, is linked back to this Forbes article.  Not saying the author is wrong, but curious where he got this information and how come no one else is reporting on it.  

[action]

1 minute ago, downzy said:

As DD said, it's not just about the allegations, and it's not about just one person.  

Crimes such as sexual abuse don't necessarily have clear cut, direct, and non-circumstantial evidence.  The reality is that a lot of times it comes down to the the accounts made by the accusers.

But I do find it funny you keep coming back to this topic despite having no interest in watching the film.  I ask this in earnest, are you afraid to watch it?  

With respect to some of the questions I raised two posts earlier, I found a Forbes article where a dollar amount of $1.5 billion is attached to the litigation filed by Robson and Safechuck.  But I'm not sure where the author of the article, which isn't a review of the film but a critique of the accusers, got that dollar figure.  Usually civil actions, especially ones that were dismissed, can usually be reviewed in a public file.  Any other reference to the $1.5 billion amount, such as in the wikipedia page, is linked back to this Forbes article.  Not saying the author is wrong, but curious where he got this information and how come no one else is reporting on it.  

it's not that I'm afraid of watching it.

Like I said, it's about how I gather information.

We live in the information age. The internet and social media cause an overflow of information, and any fool can post whatever he wants on the internet, and pass it as a fact.

I am therefore extremely cautious when gathering information.

Again, when they find proof it will be all over the place. Then, and then alone, will I have made up my mind. 

But today, I'm confused and undecided.

[downzy]

7 minutes ago, action said:

I'm a simple guy. If they ever find proof, I'm sure it'll be all on the front pages of every newspaper, and it will be convincing, it will stand the test of any reasonable doubt.

it will fit on a single page.

I'm just going to let all of this hysteria pass me by and in a couple of weeks, I'll see what remains of it. the core, the proven facts will eventually come forward.

today, we have a long documentary which calls on our "belief", to make up our mind, but that's just not how I gather information. Someone else (the producer of the movie) has already created a feeling, and he wants to transport it to the viewer. they call this propaganda. You know those scam sessions where people are invited for free coffee and drinks, and you'll need to listen for three hours to a speaker and at the end of it all you can invest in castles made of sand? the room is full of feeble minded, and the scammer goes home with a lot of cash. It's a bit like that with this movie. I'm supposed to sit in this room, let it all sink in and be manipulated, and go home numb and angry. Again, I'm not having any of it. They have a saying here in belgium: "What a farmer doesn't know, he doesn't eat." ain't that the truth.

Every person holds a belief about this situation.  Nobody knows.  

And again, that's now how many cases of sexual assault are decided.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but there wasn't much hard evidence in Cosby's trial other than the accusers account.  It's all about who you believe and whether the accusation seems credible and can be substantiated or undermined by others.  

Propaganda is the promotion of a viewpoint on misleading information.  I wouldn't call this film propaganda.  It's simply two people's accounts of what happened to them.  

Again, you keep making judgements about this movie without actually seeing it.  Nobody is making you do anything.  You don't have to accept what Robson and Safechuck have to say.  But to make up your mind before even hearing their stories is rather ignorant.  

2 minutes ago, action said:

it's not that I'm afraid of watching it.

Like I said, it's about how I gather information.

We live in the information age. The internet and social media cause an overflow of information, and any fool can post whatever he wants on the internet, and pass it as a fact.

I am therefore extremely cautious when gathering information.

Again, when they find proof it will be all over the place. Then, and then alone, will I have made up my mind. 

But today, I'm confused and undecided.

How do you find proof of something that happened 25-30 years ago?  

[action]

1 minute ago, downzy said:

Every person with holds a belief about this situation.  Nobody knows.  

And again, that's now how many cases of sexual assault are decided.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but there wasn't much hard evidence in Cosby's trial other than the accusers account.  It's all about who you believe and whether the accusation seems credible and can be substantiated or undermined by others.  

Propaganda is the promotion of a viewpoint on misleading information.  I wouldn't call this film propaganda.  It's simply two people's accounts of what happened to them.  

Again, you keep making judgements about this movie without actually seeing it.  Nobody is making you do anything.  You don't have to accept what Robson and Safechuck have to say.  But to make up your mind before even hearing their stories is rather ignorant.  

lots of people have posted their impressions of the movie on the internet and in this thread. Most of them say, it made them more sceptical on MJ's innocense, but that ultimately it didnt offer conclusive proof. I believe (correct me if i'm wrong), that is your opinion too.

So I fail to see what relevancy this movie has. 4 hours is a lot (and besides, there are good resumes of the movie in this thread), and in the end the verdict is still undecided.

 

[EvanG]

It's on tv tomorrow but I don't know if I'm going to watch it, I could be doing something productive in those four hours instead of watching something that's not going to make me think differently about it anyway. I don't know what happened, and unless there is undisputed proof, I will never know what happened, and no documentary will change that. Plus I'm not sure if I really care, it won't change anything for me personally.

[downzy]

3 minutes ago, action said:

lots of people have posted their impressions of the movie on the internet and in this thread. Most of them say, it made them more sceptical on MJ's innocense, but that ultimately it didnt offer conclusive proof. I believe (correct me if i'm wrong), that is your opinion too.

So I fail to see what relevancy this movie has. 4 hours is a lot (and besides, there are good resumes of the movie in this thread), and in the end the verdict is still undecided.

I've always said I don't know.  Again, nobody knows.  But I do believe, particularly after watching this film, that Michael Jackson abused Robson and Safechuck when they were children.  

Kind of strange you're going to make up your mind based on what other people are writing on the internet.  In the amount of time you have posted about this film you likely could have watched the first half.  Just saying... 

[downzy]

5 minutes ago, EvanG said:

It's on tv tomorrow but I don't know if I'm going to watch it, I could be doing something productive in those four hours instead of watching something that's not going to make me think differently about it anyway. I don't know what happened, and unless there is undisputed proof, I will never know what happened, and no documentary will change that. Plus I'm not sure if I really care, it won't change anything for me personally.

Yeah, in the greater scheme of things it really doesn't matter.   I've got my wife, my kid, my cat, my work, my family and friends.  Whether Jackson abused these boys decades ago really doesn't have an affect on my life.  I stopped listening to Jackson's music years ago (actually most music, as I've grown tired of hearing the same songs over and over again).  I wasn't itching to see it myself but had several hours of image editing that needed to be done and prefer to have something playing on the side of my computer screen while I worked.  So I figured I'd give it a shot since nothing on Netflix seemed of interest at the time.  But I'm glad I did.  It's not limited to the allegations.  There's a lot more to the movie than just what Robson and Safechuck have to say.  It's a very fascinating four hours even outside of the allegations.  But yeah, i get the apprehension.  

[action]

1 minute ago, downzy said:

I've always said I don't know.  Again, nobody knows.  But I do believe, particularly after watching this film, that Michael Jackson abused Robson and Safechuck when they were children.  

Kind of strange you're going to make up your mind based on what other people are writing on the internet.  In the amount of time you have posted about this film you likely could have watched the first half.  Just saying... 

and it's your good right of course, to watch it and make up your mind. Who am I to criticise you? 

But it's not "my" way of gathering information.

I haven't really made up my mind either. As I said, I'm confused and undecided. I have a "gut feeling", but I accept that I "don't know" and I say it is very possible that MJ "did" commit these facts.

you make a good point about the time of me posting here could be used to watch the docu. But since I already argued why I find watching it completely pointless at this point, I won't. I chose to spend my time in this thread, and thus helping to get traffic to your site 

[DieselDaisy]

It isn't proof. You'll never find factual proof proving he is guilty unless they discover this pair of bloodstained underpants mentioned in the film or some footage maybe. Similarly you'll never find proof he is innocent; although in Jackson's defence he was found innocent in a court of law, and these two men defended him in that court. Legally then Jackson is innocent which is probably the most persuasive argument you can make pertaining to his innocence. Legally, the law found Michael Jackson not guilty.

It is two testimonies, and the testimonies of their families. It is up to you whether you believe them or not. I'm aware of a negative history involving them and the Estate regarding lawsuits and money but all I will say is they're incredible actors if they're lying on this film. Their families would either have to be lying about the exposure also, or recipients of the lie themselves; some of the family members seem especially well-grounded and normal. Wade's family especially who were a typical Aussie family, completely outside that Hollywood bubble.

Edited March 7, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[action]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It isn't proof. You'll never find factual proof proving he is guilty unless they discover this pair of bloodstained underpants mentioned in the film or some footage maybe. Similarly you'll never find proof he is innocent; although in Jackson's defence he was found innocent in a court of law, and these two defended him in that court. Legally then Jackson is innocent which is probably the most persuasive argument you can make pertaining to his innocence. Legally, the law found Michael Jackson not guilty.

It is two testimonies, and the testimonies of their families. It is up to you whether you believe them or not. I'm aware of a negative history involving them and the Estate regarding lawsuits and money but all I will say is they're incredible actors if they're lying on this film. Their families would either have to be lying about the exposure also, or recipients of the lie themselves; some of the family members seem especially well-grounded and normal. Wade's family especially who were a typical Aussie family, completely outside that Hollywood bubble.

I'm betting my money on his children, blanket, paris and the other one whose name escapes me.

Give it another 10 years, and I'm curious to hear what could come forward from them. They, who have seen MJ in person for the best parts of their lives.

I think we've not heard the last of this saga...

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, action said:

I'm betting my money on his children, blanket, paris and the other one whose name escapes me.

Give it another 10 years, and I'm curious to hear what could come forward from them. They, who have seen MJ in person for the best parts of their lives.

I think we've not heard the last of this saga...

It is only going to be testimonies though. The people who defend him defend him with great zeal, and the people who crucify him crucify him with great passion also. This post is evident of this. But you are never going to find out that it was Professor Plum in the Study with a Candlestick. Ultimately we'll never truly know (unless some footage turns up).

[action]

17 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

It is only going to be testimonies though. The people who defend him defend him with great zeal, and the people who crucify him crucify him with great passion also. This post is evident of this. But you are never going to find out that it was Professor Plum in the Study with a Candlestick. Ultimately we'll never truly know (unless some footage turns up).

scientists will tell you that nothing is ever sure. quantum physics and stuff, but I digress.

but in law and even in science, there is something called "progressive insight".

What I mean is, there will be other testimonies. Some negative, some positive. His children are still young. maybe they will do their story in detail. They could also make a 4 hours documentary, and it could be the complete opposite of leaving neverland. Then what? How is everyone going to feel then? A 180 degree turn, like when paris did his funeral speech and his albums flew off the shelves in the weeks after? I don't know.

"progressive insight". That's my way to approach difficult subjects. You can never be sure, but you can always get that little bit closer to the truth.

Edited March 7, 2019 by action

[OmarBradley]

14 minutes ago, downzy said:

As DD said, it's not just about the allegations, and it's not about just one person.  

Crimes such as sexual abuse don't necessarily have clear cut, direct, and non-circumstantial evidence.  The reality is that a lot of times it comes down to the the accounts made by the accusers.

But I do find it funny you keep coming back to this topic despite having no interest in watching the film.  I ask this in earnest, are you afraid to watch it?  

With respect to some of the questions I raised two posts earlier, I found a Forbes article where a dollar amount of $1.5 billion is attached to the litigation filed by Robson and Safechuck.  But I'm not sure where the author of the article, which isn't a review of the film but a critique of the accusers, got that dollar figure.  Usually civil actions, especially ones that were dismissed, can usually be reviewed in a public file.  Any other reference to the $1.5 billion amount, such as in the wikipedia page, is linked back to this Forbes article.  Not saying the author is wrong, but curious where he got this information and how come no one else is reporting on it.  

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.

[OmarBradley]

38 minutes ago, downzy said:

Yeah, in the greater scheme of things it really doesn't matter.   I've got my wife, my kid, my cat, my work, my family and friends.  Whether Jackson abused these boys decades ago really doesn't have an affect on my life.  I stopped listening to Jackson's music years ago (actually most music, as I've grown tired of hearing the same songs over and over again).  I wasn't itching to see it myself but had several hours of image editing that needed to be done and prefer to have something playing on the side of my computer screen while I worked.  So I figured I'd give it a shot since nothing on Netflix seemed of interest at the time.  But I'm glad I did.  It's not limited to the allegations.  There's a lot more to the movie than just what Robson and Safechuck have to say.  It's a very fascinating four hours even outside of the allegations.  But yeah, i get the apprehension.  

In the morality of the artist thread I typed up a reply to one of action's posts and I went a bit off topic and asserted in Western popular music there are not as many available melodies as one may think. Basically, the possibilities in music are near infinite depending on length of melody and rhythmic decisions, BUT popular Western music tends to utilize the same several hundred combinations because that's what sounds best. Yeah, you could have a melody that's 9 notes long and starts with a whole note that then goes into 4 sixteenth notes and then ends with all quarter notes in 7/4, but it would be a jarring experience to listen to and I don't think any popular artist would pursue something like that. 

I ended up not posting because it was a bit off topic (which I am now doing to this thread ) and the conversation had moved on, but I will check if the forum editor saved it.

[ZoSoRose]

Fuck it, I caved and watched it all. I always hoped nothing happened. I didn't know the full details of the allegations. I thought it was always "he touched them a bit while they were in bed" (which is heinous enough). Nope, nope, nope, nope. I had no idea how far reaching the allegations were. Now, I definitely think stuff happened. =/

Really rough watch, of course we will never truly know or have absolute proof, but that was really enough for me to see. All the family members, the stories, their behavior, etc. God damn

Edited March 8, 2019 by ZoSoRose

[Crazyman]

The Simpsons are going to pull his episode from all future broadcasts/streaming services

[ZoSoRose]

As bad as the documentary is, I think its sort of silly for radio stations and TV to ban him now. These aren't new stories and evidence.

[DieselDaisy]

Yes. As persuasive as the documentary is I find all of the banning stuff to be part of a very modern internet engineered knee-jerk reaction thing.

PS

Paris is a thorough hippy haha. Her response to this documentary is to ''keep calm and smoke weed''. Looks like she is dating some waste of space,

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-6782851/Paris-Jackson-refuses-answer-questions-explosive-claims-Leaving-Neverland.html

Edited March 8, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[Kittiara]

Okay, so I have watched the documentary as well as the Oprah interview. Earlier in this thread I said that I had questions. I still do. As others have said, the documentary doesn't offer any actual evidence of sexual abuse. That would have been impossible. It did, however, lead me to draw some conclusions:

- The documentary showed video footage, pictures, recordings etc of just how close Michael Jackson was to these boys. Some of it was pretty creepy, like that interview on the plane, and those faxes, and one of those answer machine messages. The relationship he had with the boys seemed very... intense. Overwhelming. It's easy to see how he made them feel special, and loved, and then he replaced them with the next boy, and the hurt that caused is easily understood. Regardless of whether or not any sexual abuse took place, I would class that as emotional abuse.

- I still stand firm that regardless of whether or not any sexual abuse took place, it was wrong of Jackson to share a bedroom, let alone a bed, with unrelated children.

- The parents, and especially the mothers, came across terribly in the documentary. Their reputation is in pieces forever. I am not sure why they would participate in the documentary if the allegations aren't true. No amount of money would surely make up for being seen as a terrible person, globally, for the rest of your life...

- Like @downzy it was the second half of part 2 that I found the most convincing. If there isn't something to these allegations then the brother and sister especially deserve an Oscar.

- The same goes for James Safechuck towards the end of the Oprah interview. If he isn't being genuine the guy deserves some kind of acting award.

I can't, of course, be 100 percent certain that these guys are telling the truth. On balance, however, I find it difficult to believe they and their families could lie like that. I also find it difficult to understand why they would. They didn't seek to make this documentary. In the Oprah interview, the producer says he was the one who approached them. They, nor their families, received any monetary reward for it. The doors to any monetary reward are pretty much closed. They've made themselves hate figures in the eyes of many, and the same goes for their families and especially their mothers.

Even if they are liars, though, as I mentioned above, it is clear that Jackson wasn't a nice person. As someone who was once a fan, that's not pleasant to admit, but enough evidence was presented for me to conclude that much...

[soon]

I have no opinion on delisting his tracks. But to play devils advocate, what if removing his tracks from rotation is as much to do with the radio station employees who have to sit with these written playlists and hear the music all day everyday - maybe they find that really unpleasant?

Like during Christmas season some shopping mall employees rage against all the Christmas music (especially if they hate christmas). 

Or I heard a labour law researcher on the radio talking about how cafes with high table-turnovers ofter have a 10 song playlist that the owner feels is the exact perfect songs for the average duration of a costumers stay. The staff listen to the same 10 songs on repeat for a minimum of 8 hours a day. The staff hate it and theres even research into making it a health and safety concern and forcing a longer playlist.

Maybe the radio station staff themselves dont wanna have to be confronted with this person when the doc is still so raw?

Edited March 8, 2019 by soon