EmmaMcG said:

jaawwnn said:

Should just post this everytime anything Oprah related comes up. She's neither trustworthy nor untrustworthy, she's just a brand.


anyway, has the latest heat changed anyone's mind in MJ? I'd be curious as to how effective the campaign has been on the average punter rather than journalists looking to not be cancelled themselves. Suppose we'll have to wait for the actual doc to be aired.

[Edited 3/1/19 4:47am]

It doesn't change my opinion on him. I've always maintained that nobody knows for sure if he was a peado or not apart from himself and his alleged victims. This documentary won't change that fact. Without actual evidence, we'll never know.

Aye, I think most people made their mind up one way or the other years ago, the documentary is just a chance to talk about it again. I certainly grew up (i was 9/10 years old in 1993) in a culture that considered him 100% guilty from 1993-2009. I remember being very surprised at how ok it became to like him again after he died.

EmmaMcG said:

We do have actual evidence that Robson and Safechuck are liars. There is no way in hell that they would have made these claims if Michael was still alive. They wait until he is no longer here to defend himself and make the most horrible claims using the exact same words from Victor Guitterez’s book. Why is the media willing to go along with the words of two white men who have filed a billion dollar lawsuit against Michael’s estate? Would the media have done the same with two black men against a white entertainer without investigating all of the evidence against them?
Why didn’t the porn director, Dan Reed, want others in this fraudomentary who could rebut these liars and extortionists. Anyone who believes that Michael could do what these two liars claim, are mentally challenged. Of course, that’s what they are depending on-gullibility, laziness, ignorance, stupidity, and mob mentality. The media and others who believe these pieces of shit, WANT these things to be true. Robson and Safechuck fantasized about these things. They wanted these things to happen and they never did. Both were obsessed with Michael. They have changed their story three times, but the media doesn’t care. Before Michael died, he said there was a conspiracy against him, he was 100% correct, just as he is 100% innocent.

jaawwnn said:

All I know is that I was born in 1990 and I've been a fan of his music all my life. I'm too young to remember the first incident but I remember the case in 2004/2005 and even during that, my opinion on him never changed. And for what it's worth, a lot of my classmates at the time also never let the allegations dictate their opinion of him or his music.

jaawwnn said:

That’s interesting. The people around me were aware enough to look at the evidence. The article, “Was Michael Jackson Framed?” showed a lot of people that it was Evan Chandler,not Jordan Chandler, who came up with these allegations. It was obvious that Tom Sneddon was fabricating evidence with the Arvizo family. Every false allegation can be taken apart. The problem is that people are so damn lazy, they don’t want to read the evidence. The sheep mentality to believe anything you hear, without looking into it, are what these pieces of shit are depending on. I’m sure they are laughing at how the media and others are falling for their lies and extortion tactics. Will they be arrested for lying, as Jussie Smollett was? Highly unlikely, because the media is complicit in this conspiracy.It’s as obvious as the nose on your face.

Would Emanuel or Alfonso be given the platform that Robson and Safechuck, two proven perjurers, are being given. Hell no. Anyone who says that Emanuel and Alfonso, Would be given this platform against a white man is a liar. This conspiracy has as much to do with race as it does extortion and the attempt to destroy the legacy of most influential and famous star in the world-Michael Jackson, a black man. The media would never promote this shit against Elvis and that’s the bottom line. It’s a shame that I have to bring race into this contrived crap; but, anyone with even a semblance of intelligence can see what is happening.Being in denial is not going to change what the media and others involved are doing. Why is Harvey Weinstein and other other high profile predators being completely ignored while the “lynhcing” of Michael is being ALLOWED when,there is so much evidence that these extortionists are lying?

EmmaMcG said:

jaawwnn said:

Aye, I think most people made their mind up one way or the other years ago, the documentary is just a chance to talk about it again. I certainly grew up (i was 9/10 years old in 1993) in a culture that considered him 100% guilty from 1993-2009. I remember being very surprised at how ok it became to like him again after he died.

All I know is that I was born in 1990 and I've been a fan of his music all my life. I'm too young to remember the first incident but I remember the case in 2004/2005 and even during that, my opinion on him never changed. And for what it's worth, a lot of my classmates at the time also never let the allegations dictate their opinion of him or his music.

That makes sense, the generation younger than me were 12/13/14 around then and the full-on 80's revival was happening, I remember playing a lot of MJ in university around that time. You wouldn't have been caught dead listening to Thriller in 1998 though! I've found the people a decade older than me to be even more likely to consider him guilty, I suppose because they were around for the full-on Michael Jackson 80's fame so either already hated him or felt betrayed. All anecdotal I know...

[Edited 3/1/19 7:01am]

Free2BMe said:

jaawwnn said:

Aye, I think most people made their mind up one way or the other years ago, the documentary is just a chance to talk about it again. I certainly grew up (i was 9/10 years old in 1993) in a culture that considered him 100% guilty from 1993-2009. I remember being very surprised at how ok it became to like him again after he died.

That’s interesting. The people around me were aware enough to look at the evidence. The article, “Was Michael Jackson Framed?” showed a lot of people that it was Evan Chandler,not Jordan Chandler, who came up with these allegations. It was obvious that Tom Sneddon was fabricating evidence with the Arvizo family. Every false allegation can be taken apart. The problem is that people are so damn lazy, they don’t want to read the evidence. The sheep mentality to believe anything you hear, without looking into it, are what these pieces of shit are depending on. I’m sure they are laughing at how the media and others are falling for their lies and extortion tactics. Will they be arrested for lying, as Jussie Smollett was? Highly unlikely, because the media is complicit in this conspiracy.It’s as obvious as the nose on your face. Would Emanuel or Alfonso be given the platform that Robson and Safechuck, two proven perjurers, are being given. Hell no. Anyone who says that Emanuel and Alfonso, Would be given this platform against a white man is a liar. This conspiracy has as much to do with race as it does extortion and the attempt to destroy the legacy of most influential and famous star in the world-Michael Jackson, a black man. The media would never promote this shit against Elvis and that’s the bottom line. It’s a shame that I have to bring race into this contrived crap; but, anyone with even a semblance of intelligence can see what is happening.Being in denial is not going to change what the media and others involved are doing. Why is Harvey Weinstein and other other high profile predators being completely ignored while the “lynhcing” of Michael is being ALLOWED when,there is so much evidence that these extortionists are lying?

Harvey Weinstein has been charged. There's much less the media are allowed to say regarding on-going criminal procedings, although certainly plenty has already been said about it.

Here in the UK, most of the high profile predators that have been convicted have been white - Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris, Gary Glitter, Jimmy Saville (who was dead by the time it all came out - shocking stuff). This documentary has been in the headlines over here, and the BBC have interviewed the alleged victims - I don't think race has come into it, simply fame.

However, if you expect people to only make conclusions based on evidence, then why make allegations against Robson and Safechuck that are not based on evidence e.g. they are laughing at the media, or claim that there is a conspiracy?

Further, it is typical of any conspiracy theorist (moon landings, JFK, 9/11) to state that the evidence is 100% obvious and that anyone with a semblance of intelligence can see it, and if they can't they are "mentally challenged". This only makes the person saying that less credible and appear as some sort of fanaticist, who is, in fact, more close-minded than those he or she seeks to portray as close-minded.

Edit - why is Dan Reed a 'porn director'? He's respected, award-winning documentary maker.

[Edited 3/1/19 8:02am]

It’s odd that two of the least credible accusers have this documentary about them. The journalists are really being weak on the director and accusers when they are interviewed. The lurid accusations are the only thing new here - not one shred of evidence from any reviewer.

Unlike Cosby and R. Kelly, there is no admittance or tape, just claims. To this day, people still think Jackson wrote a check for $20 mil to pay his first accuser off, when his insurance stepped in and paid it. So it doesn’t surprise me that people believe these guys.

Once it airs, and more than just journalists and those already skeptical have seen it, I don’t think it will have the same effect as the Surviving R. Kelly docuseries. If you’re a casual fan or not a fan at all, and are unfamiliar with the finer details of the past accusations and accusers, it would make sense to believe the documentary.

Also, the director seems a bit creepy and obsessed with proving something whether there or not. I welcome a 4 hour documentary on victims, but not when there is no proof for the foundation.
[Edited 3/1/19 8:27am]

jaawwnn said:

I actually was listening to Thriller in 1998 :-D

Like I said, I've been a fan ALL my life.

Superstition said:

It’s odd that two of the least credible accusers have this documentary about them. The journalists are really being weak on the director and accusers when they are interviewed. The lurid accusations are the only thing new here - not one shred of evidence from any reviewer. Unlike Cosby and R. Kelly, there is no admittance or tape, just claims. To this day, people still think Jackson wrote a check for $20 mil to pay his first accuser off, when his insurance stepped in and paid it. So it doesn’t surprise me that people believe these guys. Once it airs, and more than just journalists and those already skeptical have seen it, I don’t think it will have the same effect as the Surviving R. Kelly docuseries. If you’re a casual fan or not a fan at all, and are unfamiliar with the finer details of the past accusations and accusers, it would make sense to believe the documentary. Also, the director seems a bit creepy and obsessed with proving something whether there or not. I welcome a 4 hour documentary on victims, but not when there is no proof for the foundation. [Edited 3/1/19 8:27am]

The lack of proof is the big stumbling block, but abuse victims frequently don't have proof. Take Christine Blasey Ford as an example. We can't conclude she was lying simply because she had no proof. So then we have to decide who gets to tell their story - only someone with proof? That doesn't seem fair to me.

Superstition said:

https://youtu.be/_z7JhohdZbk

EmmaMcG said:

jaawwnn said:

I actually was listening to Thriller in 1998 Like I said, I've been a fan ALL my life.

Ha! When I was eight I remember my entire family sitting around the tv to watch the premiere of the Black or White video on Top of the Pops. Different world...

RichardS said:

Superstition said:

It’s odd that two of the least credible accusers have this documentary about them. The journalists are really being weak on the director and accusers when they are interviewed. The lurid accusations are the only thing new here - not one shred of evidence from any reviewer. Unlike Cosby and R. Kelly, there is no admittance or tape, just claims. To this day, people still think Jackson wrote a check for $20 mil to pay his first accuser off, when his insurance stepped in and paid it. So it doesn’t surprise me that people believe these guys. Once it airs, and more than just journalists and those already skeptical have seen it, I don’t think it will have the same effect as the Surviving R. Kelly docuseries. If you’re a casual fan or not a fan at all, and are unfamiliar with the finer details of the past accusations and accusers, it would make sense to believe the documentary. Also, the director seems a bit creepy and obsessed with proving something whether there or not. I welcome a 4 hour documentary on victims, but not when there is no proof for the foundation. [Edited 3/1/19 8:27am]

The lack of proof is the big stumbling block, but abuse victims frequently don't have proof. Take Christine Blasey Ford as an example. We can't conclude she was lying simply because she had no proof. So then we have to decide who gets to tell their story - only someone with proof? That doesn't seem fair to me.

Well, one thing is they are also lying during the marketing. The director say Robson and Safechuck have similar stories despite not knowing each other until making the documentary. That is not true. They met before. They're sharing lawyers. They're both after the estate. It's just awful convenient this is coming out long after MJ's passing.

I don't want to come off as a blind fan, because I'm not. It's just odd that such a deviant, perverted serial abuser who allegedly abused kids for 30 years and was thoroughly vetted - sometimes by people frother at the mouth to catch him - has no actual proof. With Ford, we're talking about a drunken incident that may have happened once 35 years ago. Not a serial abuser.

In the 2005 trial, Sneddon had to throw evidence out - he let the kids handle evidence out of bags and then claimed their fingerprints were proof. He had to change filing dates. His witnesses were laughed at by jurors on the stand. Robson testified.

The whole argument for 26 years is that MJ is weird and acted innapropriately with kids. And maybe that's true, but there are exceptions to the norms, and until I see some proof, that's what I consider him to be.

Superstition said:

The problem with the Ford analogy is that supporters of Michael DO have proof, tons of proof, that Robson and Safechuck are not only liars, but extortionists as well. Dan Reed knows they are lying, but he is only involved in this conspiracy and scam for money, also.

Superstition said:

RichardS said:

The lack of proof is the big stumbling block, but abuse victims frequently don't have proof. Take Christine Blasey Ford as an example. We can't conclude she was lying simply because she had no proof. So then we have to decide who gets to tell their story - only someone with proof? That doesn't seem fair to me.

Well, one thing is they are also lying during the marketing. The director say Robson and Safechuck have similar stories despite not knowing each other until making the documentary. That is not true. They met before. They're sharing lawyers. They're both after the estate. It's just awful convenient this is coming out long after MJ's passing.

I don't want to come off as a blind fan, because I'm not. It's just odd that such a deviant, perverted serial abuser who allegedly abused kids for 30 years and was thoroughly vetted - sometimes by people frother at the mouth to catch him - has no actual proof. With Ford, we're talking about a drunken incident that may have happened once 35 years ago. Not a serial abuser.

In the 2005 trial, Sneddon had to throw evidence out - he let the kids handle evidence out of bags and then claimed their fingerprints were proof. He had to change filing dates. His witnesses were laughed at by jurors on the stand. Robson testified.

The whole argument for 26 years is that MJ is weird and acted innapropriately with kids. And maybe that's true, but there are exceptions to the norms, and until I see some proof, that's what I consider him to be.

Are they claiming that they never met - or that they never shared their stories with each other?

I agree that it is difficult to condemn anyone without proof, but the case of Jimmy Saville taught us a great deal about what can be kept secret in the world of celebrities.

Just wanted to add that being different(according to mainstream) standards does not make a person an abuser. In fact most molested look like me, and most of you. Most molesters are your fathers, mothers, uncles, friends, aunts, neighbor next door, teachers, priests, etc. I have never heard of a molestor saying to the WORLD:” I welcome children and their families to my home and I share by bedroom suite, a suite by the way with two bedrooms and three bathrooms,with children and their families.”

Wade was asked by a very aggressive prosecutor:
“Did Michael Jackson ever touch you inappropriately?”
Wade: “No.”
Prosecutor: “What if you were asleep when he touched you?”
Wade: “ I would think something like that would wake me up.”
[Edited 3/1/19 11:50am]

Free2BMe said:

Superstition said:

Well, one thing is they are also lying during the marketing. The director say Robson and Safechuck have similar stories despite not knowing each other until making the documentary. That is not true. They met before. They're sharing lawyers. They're both after the estate. It's just awful convenient this is coming out long after MJ's passing.

I don't want to come off as a blind fan, because I'm not. It's just odd that such a deviant, perverted serial abuser who allegedly abused kids for 30 years and was thoroughly vetted - sometimes by people frother at the mouth to catch him - has no actual proof. With Ford, we're talking about a drunken incident that may have happened once 35 years ago. Not a serial abuser.

In the 2005 trial, Sneddon had to throw evidence out - he let the kids handle evidence out of bags and then claimed their fingerprints were proof. He had to change filing dates. His witnesses were laughed at by jurors on the stand. Robson testified.

The whole argument for 26 years is that MJ is weird and acted innapropriately with kids. And maybe that's true, but there are exceptions to the norms, and until I see some proof, that's what I consider him to be.

The problem with the Ford analogy is that supporters of Michael DO have proof, tons of proof, that Robson and Safechuck are not only liars, but extortionists as well. Dan Reed knows they are lying, but he is only involved in this conspiracy and scam for money, also.

But you have absolutely no evidence for saying that about Dan Reed. You keep saying 'judge on the evidence' - which is a fair point - but then refuse to do so yourself. That's hypocritical. You are essentially making stuff up about Dan Reed. You refer to Dan Reed as a 'porn director' when in fact he is a well-established, award-winning documentaty maker, who takes his work very seriously.

RichardS said:

Superstition said:

Well, one thing is they are also lying during the marketing. The director say Robson and Safechuck have similar stories despite not knowing each other until making the documentary. That is not true. They met before. They're sharing lawyers. They're both after the estate. It's just awful convenient this is coming out long after MJ's passing.

I don't want to come off as a blind fan, because I'm not. It's just odd that such a deviant, perverted serial abuser who allegedly abused kids for 30 years and was thoroughly vetted - sometimes by people frother at the mouth to catch him - has no actual proof. With Ford, we're talking about a drunken incident that may have happened once 35 years ago. Not a serial abuser.

In the 2005 trial, Sneddon had to throw evidence out - he let the kids handle evidence out of bags and then claimed their fingerprints were proof. He had to change filing dates. His witnesses were laughed at by jurors on the stand. Robson testified.

The whole argument for 26 years is that MJ is weird and acted innapropriately with kids. And maybe that's true, but there are exceptions to the norms, and until I see some proof, that's what I consider him to be.

Are they claiming that they never met - or that they never shared their stories with each other?

I agree that it is difficult to condemn anyone without proof, but the case of Jimmy Saville taught us a great deal about what can be kept secret in the world of celebrities.

I don't think its the same here... not saying impossible, of course, just implausible to me. Saville had hundreds and hundreds of accusers, people said he bragged about his victims and abuse. MJ vehemently denied anything.

For a four-hour documentary, it's still just unverifiable allegations with no corroborating evidence. There are no new "findings" like there were in the Saville case. This is a director saying "I believe these guys, so lets make a documentary that MJ was a serial sexual abuser". The director says the story isn't "about Michael Jackson", but that's a bit of B.S.

Like they said, people have to make up their minds, but given the history here and the fact no new evidence/proof has come to light, I believe most already have their minds made up. I'll watch though.

Free2BMe said:

Just wanted to add that being different(according to mainstream) standards does not make a person an abuser. In fact most molested look like me, and most of you. Most molesters are your fathers, mothers, uncles, friends, aunts, neighbor next door, teachers, priests, etc. I have never heard of a moles got saying to the WORLD:” I welcome children an their families to my home and I share by bedroom suite with children and their families.” Wade was asked by a very aggressive prosecutor: “Did Michael Jackson ever touch you inappropriately?” Wade: “No.” Prosecutor: “What if you were asleep when he touched you?” Wade: “ I would think something like that would wake me up.”

Again - Jimmy Savile - who would visit children in hospital, then abuse them. Or have them sitting on his lap on his TV show, to help make their dreams come true, then abuse them. Their were rumours, but no-one beleived them - 'Jimmy loves children'.

None of that means Jackson is guilty, but it does invalidate your argument to some degree.

Superstition said:

RichardS said:

Are they claiming that they never met - or that they never shared their stories with each other?

I agree that it is difficult to condemn anyone without proof, but the case of Jimmy Saville taught us a great deal about what can be kept secret in the world of celebrities.

I don't think its the same here... not saying impossible, of course, just implausible to me. Saville had hundreds and hundreds of accusers, people said he bragged about his victims and abuse. MJ vehemently denied anything.

For a four-hour documentary, it's still just unverifiable allegations with no corroborating evidence. There are no new "findings" like there were in the Saville case. This is a director saying "I believe these guys, so lets make a documentary that MJ was a serial sexual abuser". The director says the story isn't "about Michael Jackson", but that's a bit of B.S.

Like they said, people have to make up their minds, but given the history here and the fact no new evidence/proof has come to light, I believe most already have their minds made up. I'll watch though.

I guess that to evaluate the dcoumentary, you have to watch it. The director seems to sincerely believe them, despite going into the process with reservations. Given his track record, it's not surprising that he would then make a documentary about it. That's what he does for his career, which so far seems to have been pretty successful.

RichardS said:

Superstition said:

I don't think its the same here... not saying impossible, of course, just implausible to me. Saville had hundreds and hundreds of accusers, people said he bragged about his victims and abuse. MJ vehemently denied anything.

For a four-hour documentary, it's still just unverifiable allegations with no corroborating evidence. There are no new "findings" like there were in the Saville case. This is a director saying "I believe these guys, so lets make a documentary that MJ was a serial sexual abuser". The director says the story isn't "about Michael Jackson", but that's a bit of B.S.

Like they said, people have to make up their minds, but given the history here and the fact no new evidence/proof has come to light, I believe most already have their minds made up. I'll watch though.

I guess that to evaluate the dcoumentary, you have to watch it. The director seems to sincerely believe them, despite going into the process with reservations. Given his track record, it's not surprising that he would then make a documentary about it. That's what he does for his career, which so far seems to have been pretty successful.

His success in documentaries has no bearing on whether there is truth to these guys' claims. Believing them is fine. Many people will believe them. He said he didn't really grow up listening to Jackson, just "knew who he was", and went in probably not knowing a lot about these guys. Which is fine, a documentarian need not know who these men are or anything about Jackson. But his research - by his own admission - is lacking. I would like to see him sit down for a longer, in-depth interview and be questioned. Even without seeing the documentary, by his own admission he admits he just believes these men and went in and did a documentary about Jackson as a true deviant. That's a bold claim with nothing to back up the lurid details. Literally nothing but the word of these men.

Superstition said:

RichardS said:

I guess that to evaluate the dcoumentary, you have to watch it. The director seems to sincerely believe them, despite going into the process with reservations. Given his track record, it's not surprising that he would then make a documentary about it. That's what he does for his career, which so far seems to have been pretty successful.

His success in documentaries has no bearing on whether there is truth to these guys' claims. Believing them is fine. Many people will believe them. He said he didn't really grow up listening to Jackson, just "knew who he was", and went in probably not knowing a lot about these guys. Which is fine, a documentarian need not know who these men are or anything about Jackson. But his research - by his own admission - is lacking. I would like to see him sit down for a longer, in-depth interview and be questioned. Even without seeing the documentary, by his own admission he admits he just believes these men and went in and did a documentary about Jackson as a true deviant. That's a bold claim with nothing to back up the lurid details. Literally nothing but the word of these men.

Did he say 'My research is lacking', or did he say what his research was, and you believe it to be lacking? When you say he 'admits', do you mean that he 'states'? Admission implies that he did something wrong.

Have you read or watched the interviews he's done? He doesn't seem to 'just' be doing anything - it's taken a lot of serious effort and consideration, from what I can gather.

RichardS said:

Free2BMe said:

Just wanted to add that being different(according to mainstream) standards does not make a person an abuser. In fact most molested look like me, and most of you. Most molesters are your fathers, mothers, uncles, friends, aunts, neighbor next door, teachers, priests, etc. I have never heard of a moles got saying to the WORLD:” I welcome children an their families to my home and I share by bedroom suite with children and their families.” Wade was asked by a very aggressive prosecutor: “Did Michael Jackson ever touch you inappropriately?” Wade: “No.” Prosecutor: “What if you were asleep when he touched you?” Wade: “ I would think something like that would wake me up.”

Again - Jimmy Savile - who would visit children in hospital, then abuse them. Or have them sitting on his lap on his TV show, to help make their dreams come true, then abuse them. Their were rumours, but no-one beleived them - 'Jimmy loves children'.

None of that means Jackson is guilty, but it does invalidate your argument to some degree.

I dunno man, from what i've heard people were complaining about Saville for years and years, very much an open secret, we're talking hundreds of victims. Possibly a Yewtree like investigation needs to be made into Jackson to clear or indict him properly, sure, but the cases aren't similar to my mind. Even if Michael was guilty it would be of abuse of two (to five?) victims he had a very close relationship with rather than hundreds of quick, impersonal assaults.

jaawwnn said:

RichardS said:

Again - Jimmy Savile - who would visit children in hospital, then abuse them. Or have them sitting on his lap on his TV show, to help make their dreams come true, then abuse them. Their were rumours, but no-one beleived them - 'Jimmy loves children'.

None of that means Jackson is guilty, but it does invalidate your argument to some degree.

I dunno man, from what i've heard people were complaining about Saville for years and years, very much an open secret, we're talking hundreds of victims. Possibly a Yewtree like investigation needs to be made into Jackson to clear or indict him properly, sure, but the cases aren't similar to my mind. Even if Michael was guilty it would be of abuse of two (to five?) victims he had a very close relationship with rather than hundreds of quick, impersonal assaults.

I wouldn't say it was an open secret - the public certainly didn't know about it, and there was never enough evidence to bring charges. There's that word again - 'evidence' - if you were to believe the evidence available in Savile's lifetime, you'd have had to conclude he wasn't guilty. If, however, you believed what some people were saying without proof, you'd probably have thought he was guilty. Sound familiar?

Most often in these types of cases, the truth of what happens behind closed doors is only really known by those in the room - the rest of us make our own conclusions, and should allow others to do the same without implying (or even stating) that if anyone differs from our opinion they must be mentally deficient or evil, or part of a conspiracy etc.

RichardS said:

Superstition said:

His success in documentaries has no bearing on whether there is truth to these guys' claims. Believing them is fine. Many people will believe them. He said he didn't really grow up listening to Jackson, just "knew who he was", and went in probably not knowing a lot about these guys. Which is fine, a documentarian need not know who these men are or anything about Jackson. But his research - by his own admission - is lacking. I would like to see him sit down for a longer, in-depth interview and be questioned. Even without seeing the documentary, by his own admission he admits he just believes these men and went in and did a documentary about Jackson as a true deviant. That's a bold claim with nothing to back up the lurid details. Literally nothing but the word of these men.

Did he say 'My research is lacking', or did he say what his research was, and you believe it to be lacking? When you say he 'admits', do you mean that he 'states'? Admission implies that he did something wrong.

Have you read or watched the interviews he's done? He doesn't seem to 'just' be doing anything - it's taken a lot of serious effort and consideration, from what I can gather.

We're arguing semantics. Bottom line, there is a lot this film doesn't delve into, we know that without even having seen it. "Admit" or "States"... how about "He says". Yes, I've seen the interviews... that's why I'm mentioning them...

I'm not saying he didn't do a lot of work. Whether that work was done in terms of the truth seems shoddy to me. It seems to me he listened to the men, concluded they were telling the truth, and then based his documentary on that. This is a testimonial, not an in-depth research project, which is what I would have liked to see, rather than the normal investigative pieces which have been done ad-nauseum in defense of or against Jackson.

jaawwnn said:

You're not even all that much older than me. It just goes to show how quickly times change.

Superstition said:

RichardS said:

Did he say 'My research is lacking', or did he say what his research was, and you believe it to be lacking? When you say he 'admits', do you mean that he 'states'? Admission implies that he did something wrong.

Have you read or watched the interviews he's done? He doesn't seem to 'just' be doing anything - it's taken a lot of serious effort and consideration, from what I can gather.

We're arguing semantics. Bottom line, there is a lot this film doesn't delve into, we know that without even having seen it. "Admit" or "States"... how about "He says". Yes, I've seen the interviews... that's why I'm mentioning them...

I'm not saying he didn't do a lot of work. Whether that work was done in terms of the truth seems shoddy to me. It seems to me he listened to the men, concluded they were telling the truth, and then based his documentary on that. This is a testimonial, not an in-depth research project, which is what I would have liked to see, rather than the normal investigative pieces which have been done ad-nauseum in defense of or against Jackson.

From independent.co.uk, as an example - Reed says he approached Leaving Neverland with “all the scepticism and rigour that I would approach a story about a terrorist attack”. He went deep into the archives of various criminal investigations, interviewed detectives, and read files and statements, “a lot of which directly corroborated Wade and James’s story. I didn’t include that material in the film, because I felt the family accounts had a power all of their own.

From rolling stone - Because obviously, as a journalist, I approached the interviews and reserved judgment until I heard more. I was looking for credibility and coherence. Things I could identify as the way people behave, which I already knew in my 30 years of making films.

I don't see why, after a career of respected documentary making, he would suddenly be shoddy on his approach to the truth with this one.

RichardS said:

Superstition said:

We're arguing semantics. Bottom line, there is a lot this film doesn't delve into, we know that without even having seen it. "Admit" or "States"... how about "He says". Yes, I've seen the interviews... that's why I'm mentioning them...

I'm not saying he didn't do a lot of work. Whether that work was done in terms of the truth seems shoddy to me. It seems to me he listened to the men, concluded they were telling the truth, and then based his documentary on that. This is a testimonial, not an in-depth research project, which is what I would have liked to see, rather than the normal investigative pieces which have been done ad-nauseum in defense of or against Jackson.

From independent.co.uk, as an example - Reed says he approached Leaving Neverland with “all the scepticism and rigour that I would approach a story about a terrorist attack”. He went deep into the archives of various criminal investigations, interviewed detectives, and read files and statements, “a lot of which directly corroborated Wade and James’s story. I didn’t include that material in the film, because I felt the family accounts had a power all of their own.

From rolling stone - Because obviously, as a journalist, I approached the interviews and reserved judgment until I heard more. I was looking for credibility and coherence. Things I could identify as the way people behave, which I already knew in my 30 years of making films.

I don't see why, after a career of respected documentary making, he would suddenly be shoddy on his approach to the truth with this one.

Yes.. I read all of that. And it may very well be 100% true and he could have went into this with the best of intentions. But he also says:

They also criticize your film for not reaching out to anyone for a counterpoint to Robson and Safechuck’s story.
We included plenty of critics of Wade from Jackson’s fans, statements from Jackson while he was alive where he denied all child sexual abuse allegations, and statements from the lawyers during both investigations. I think we comprehensively represented the positions of Michael Jackson and his lawyers.

Right. There just weren’t any contemporary interviews done for the film.
Yeah, but the Jackson estate’s position, to my knowledge, hasn’t changed. They maintain that Jackson is innocent.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/43znmj/he-was-a-sexual-predator-says-director-of-new-michael-jackson-doc-leaving-neverland-hbo

There's no evidence presented, and he used archival footage of rebuttals. There's also an interview when he was asked why he didn't interview those who could defend Jackson, and he shrugged it off as "why would I ask people who weren't abused?"

Bottom line, he's taking their word - there is no evidence - and building a documentary on that. And that's ok, I suppose, but really, the only thing new we're getting are lurid allegations in graphic detail. For those unfamiliar, I suppose this is fascinating, but its going to be a chore to watch 4 hours of allegations we already know of with nothing new offered.

[Edited 3/1/19 13:12pm]

Superstition said:

RichardS said:

From independent.co.uk, as an example - Reed says he approached Leaving Neverland with “all the scepticism and rigour that I would approach a story about a terrorist attack”. He went deep into the archives of various criminal investigations, interviewed detectives, and read files and statements, “a lot of which directly corroborated Wade and James’s story. I didn’t include that material in the film, because I felt the family accounts had a power all of their own.

From rolling stone - Because obviously, as a journalist, I approached the interviews and reserved judgment until I heard more. I was looking for credibility and coherence. Things I could identify as the way people behave, which I already knew in my 30 years of making films.

I don't see why, after a career of respected documentary making, he would suddenly be shoddy on his approach to the truth with this one.

Yes.. I read all of that. And it may very well be 100% true and he could have went into this with the best of intentions. But he also says:

They also criticize your film for not reaching out to anyone for a counterpoint to Robson and Safechuck’s story.
We included plenty of critics of Wade from Jackson’s fans, statements from Jackson while he was alive where he denied all child sexual abuse allegations, and statements from the lawyers during both investigations. I think we comprehensively represented the positions of Michael Jackson and his lawyers.

Right. There just weren’t any contemporary interviews done for the film.
Yeah, but the Jackson estate’s position, to my knowledge, hasn’t changed. They maintain that Jackson is innocent.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/43znmj/he-was-a-sexual-predator-says-director-of-new-michael-jackson-doc-leaving-neverland-hbo

There's no evidence presented, and he used archival footage of rebuttals. There's also an interview when he was asked why he didn't interview those who could defend Jackson, and he shrugged it off as "why would I ask people who weren't abused?"

Bottom line, he's taking their word - there is no evidence - and building a documentary on that. And that's ok, I suppose, but really, the only thing new we're getting are lurid allegations in graphic detail. For those unfamiliar, I suppose this is fascinating, but its going to be a chore to watch 4 hours of allegations we already know of with nothing new offered.

[Edited 3/1/19 13:12pm]

I agree he's taking their word - but from what he says he also investigated it and found corroboration, albeit not presented in the documentary. Certainly I don't think it can be dismissed without watching it. At the very least it seems to be a serious attempt to deal with a serious subject.

Superstition said:

Why didn’t he include the extortion attempts by Safechuck and Robson that were thrown out by a judge? Why didn’t Reed include the part where Robson publicly praised Michael for two decades, even writing a glowing tribute to him after his death? Why didn’t these two make these claims when Michael was still alive. They could have gotten him arrested.Why didn’t Reed include the part where Robson was still talking about the goodness and kindness of Michael, up until he was not chosen as director of Michael’s “One”? Why didn’t Reed ask Robson why he would invite his so called abuser and his kids into his home for a BarBQ? I don’t know any “victim” who would do that! He is not a victim and neither is Safechuck. Real victims will suffer because of fake accusers like Robson and Safechuck. I am becoming wary of people who claim to be victims, because of liars like these two. The Metoo movement who supports scam artists like Wade Robson and Jsmes Safechuck are doing a disservice to real victims and I am nauseated and disgusted with Tarana Burke because of her accepting these liars allegations, without doing any research. Their intention and motive is documented for all to see. Oprah and her friend, Gayle King are equally disgusting in their acceptance of these liars.
Safechuck is a hanger on who jumped on the bandwagon. BOtH are desperate and broke. These allegations are ONLY about $$$$.

RichardS said:

jaawwnn said:

I dunno man, from what i've heard people were complaining about Saville for years and years, very much an open secret, we're talking hundreds of victims. Possibly a Yewtree like investigation needs to be made into Jackson to clear or indict him properly, sure, but the cases aren't similar to my mind. Even if Michael was guilty it would be of abuse of two (to five?) victims he had a very close relationship with rather than hundreds of quick, impersonal assaults.

I wouldn't say it was an open secret - the public certainly didn't know about it, and there was never enough evidence to bring charges. There's that word again - 'evidence' - if you were to believe the evidence available in Savile's lifetime, you'd have had to conclude he wasn't guilty. If, however, you believed what some people were saying without proof, you'd probably have thought he was guilty. Sound familiar?

Naw, he was protected when he was alive, Michael Jackson was brought to court wasn't he? Now, i'm well aware that both sides in this case paint themselves as the victims and the other side as going after money but i'm waiting for a more credible person (in my view) to come after Jackson before I start believing them straight out.

Most often in these types of cases, the truth of what happens behind closed doors is only really known by those in the room - the rest of us make our own conclusions, and should allow others to do the same without implying (or even stating) that if anyone differs from our opinion they must be mentally deficient or evil, or part of a conspiracy etc.

Well once again what actually happened, even if they are both guilty, was quite different except in the broadest terms.

[Edited 3/1/19 14:07pm]