Free2BMe said:

bonatoc said:

The more discomforting the thought he found solace in the company of kids.
You're either Peter Pan, or you're not. It doesn't match with the performance-obsessed guy
who wrote 100 millions on his mirror to motivate himself. That's not an innocent or pure intent.

What I find disconcerting is that people are either too ignorant, lazy or unaware that Michael didn’t just find solace in the company of kids. Michael hung out with Chris Tucker, Steve Harvey, Elizabeth Taylor, Gregory Peck and his wife, Jane Fonda, Sophia Loren, Teddy Riley, Nelson Mandela, etc. Just because you don’t know about these ADULTS, doesn’t mean that he only hung out kids and their FAMILIES. Let me emphasize to you again, that the kids who came to Neverland were their with their FAMILIES. His nieces and nephews were their all the time. HUNDREDS of inner city kids were invited to NEVERLAND with their parents, chaperones and sponsors. Everything that I am saying is easily verified by video footage. Seriously, you and other skeptical people need to do your research before you accuse or ASSUME that you know something. I can guaranteed you thst you really don’t know anything. It would like me assuming something about you,when I know nothing.

Well calm down, Honey. I'm here to learn. You can school me without yelling.
I'm playing the devil's advocate to find out some truth.
The web being the junkyard it has become, pardon me for searching in here. It's quicker.

Free2BMe said:

mechanicalemotion17 said:

Did he really handle it...WELL? Michael was clearly detached from reality

Yes, he handled it well. Bullshit on the assertion that MicHael was detached from reality. I would bet money that he was attached to reality as much or more than you are anyone else. Btw, what is your so-called “reality”? Michael was kind and generous; but he was highly intelligent and an astute businessman. I don’t know anyone who spoke or dealt with this man who thought he was detached from realty. I emphasize NO ONE. It is sad that you and a few others, base YOUR perception of normal as what you believe is “standard”. The ironic thing is that someone could think that of you or me.

Like settling out of court for 23 millions,
starting a depression that lasted for years and ended up taking his life away,
when he should have give them the sparkling finger?

You should remove those Carrera glasses from time to time.
Your worship is beautiful and honors you,
but is a little too fervent to be considered "standard".

Free2BMe said:

bonatoc said:

The more discomforting the thought he found solace in the company of kids.
You're either Peter Pan, or you're not. It doesn't match with the performance-obsessed guy
who wrote 100 millions on his mirror to motivate himself. That's not an innocent or pure intent.

What I find disconcerting is that people are either too ignorant, lazy or unaware that Michael didn’t just find solace in the company of kids. Michael hung out with Chris Tucker, Steve Harvey, Elizabeth Taylor, Gregory Peck and his wife, Jane Fonda, Sophia Loren, Teddy Riley, Nelson Mandela, etc. Just because you don’t know about these ADULTS, doesn’t mean that he only hung out kids and their FAMILIES. Let me emphasize to you again, that the kids who came to Neverland were their with their FAMILIES. His nieces and nephews were their all the time. HUNDREDS of inner city kids were invited to NEVERLAND with their parents, chaperones and sponsors. Everything that I am saying is easily verified by video footage. Seriously, you and other skeptical people need to do your research before you accuse or ASSUME that you know something. I can guaranteed you thst you really don’t know anything. It would like me assuming something about you,when I know nothing.

Unless it's CCTV, you do realize that video footage is like a 1000th of real life
(which is not "real" anyway, the very presence of a camera distorting it).
But OK, the very, very small number of plaintiffs compared to the many Neverland visitors
seem to indicate that the ones who got in court were actual blackmail gold diggers.

But you know that naysayers will conspire anyways and say he bought them all.
Either that, or he wasn't that astute of a businessman.

[Edited 1/18/19 2:41am]

bonatoc said:

Like settling out of court for 23 millions,
starting a depression that lasted for years and ended up taking his life away,
when he should have give them the sparkling finger?

First of all. It was not his money. It was his insurance company's money. Second of all. It made the shit go away. It made the Chandler's go away, because they got what they wanted. It made the threat of having to sit in court for a year, putting his life on hold, having his live dissected in public and maybe losing, which would have resulted in costing him much more and would have compromised any criminal trial that might have followed, go away. It was a short term, easy and quick solution (brought on by his lawyers and advisors). He sucessfully carried on with his life. So it was a good business desicion at the time, because, really, people believe what they want to believe, regardless of the outcome of a trial, see the '05 trial. So it didn't matter. Until another set of low lifes entered his life and tried the same shit again. But who's to say that wouldn't have happened either way? In hindsight (almost) everyone is wiser and knows it better.

[Edited 1/18/19 7:45am]

mechanicalemotion17 said:

Why repeatedly put yourself in a position where things can be misconstrued? Especially after the first accusation.

Why give a shit what other people think?? And to be fearful of everything? Is that really a way to live your life? He had nothing to hide, so that's why he was open in his admission that he enjoys the company of kids and continued to enjoy their company. In itself there is nothing wrong with that. It's just a shame that among the many people he surrounded himself with, there were some fucked up people, who have no morals or shame at all.

mechanicalemotion17 said:

bboy87 said:

a) in the group, yes he was the youngest of the 5. He was 5 when they added him to the group and 9 when they signed to Motown.

Jackie was 16
Tito was 14

Jermaine was 13
Marlon was 11.

b) to the fans, press and those at Motown. People at the label like Suzanne DePasse have said Michael was the main focus, Jermaine was 2nd in attention, and Jackie, Tito, and Marlon were kinda, "just there". He had the most responsibility and had to the most work.

at 9:35

[Edited 1/15/19 14:01pm]

Michael was 11 when their first song was released on Motown

And 9 when their first single "Big Boy" was released and even younger when they began touring in night clubs and talent shows. He always was the youngest and maybe too young for all of that.

EmmaMcG said:

ChocolateBox3121 said:

I just don't understand why this trend of bringing back up old accusations of VERY successful black artist is coming from?The fans are still going to buy their muziq & keep them close to their hearts

Either way IT NEEDS TO STOP! The press BETTER NOT bring this up to Janet at her induction either.

[Edited 1/17/19 21:05pm]

I actually agree with you there about the new trend of bringing up old accusations but it's not just black folks that this is done to. It's everyone. Nobody is allowed to make a mistake anymore. The media, or to be more specific, social media, won't allow it. Which is especially worrying when you consider that Michael Jackson was found not guilty and this shit still gets brought up. It's not like he was caught on camera actually doing it, like R Kelly. I don't see this documentary having much, if any, impact on Janet's Hall of fame induction though. Her career is not defined by the success of her brother.

[Edited 2/9/19 19:52pm]

EmmaMcG said:

MotownSubdivision said:

EmmaMcG said:

I actually agree with you there about the new trend of bringing up old accusations but it's not just black folks that this is done to. It's everyone. Nobody is allowed to make a mistake anymore. The media, or to be more specific, social media, won't allow it. Which is especially worrying when you consider that Michael Jackson was found not guilty and this shit still gets brought up. It's not like he was caught on camera actually doing it, like R Kelly. I don't see this documentary having much, if any, impact on Janet's Hall of fame induction though. Her career is not defined by the success of her brother.

True, it's not just black celebs on the receiving end of this outrage culture. However,it's usually black celebs who are quick to be taken down and made an example of (i.e. Bill Cosby VS Harvey Weinstein).

Are we going to use this in the race wars now, as if they weren't bad enough to start with?

What makes you say Cosby got a worse treatment than Weinstein? Cosby had decades left alone making tons of money before he got in trouble. So had Weinstein. It looks to me like the Weinstein case had much more press coverage: the guy was pulverized, and so were Louis C.K. and Spacey. I don't see a discrepancy here.

Remember Dominique Strauss-Kahn? Even if Nafissatou Diallo fucked up afterwards, the man destined to become France's next president was handcuffed on the spot and lost the country (and his political career). If we were living in a world where white men have a pass at whatever they want to do, we would never have heard about it. There are no conspiracies, just silences (or false testimonies) that you can buy (if you have enough cash/power).

PatrickS77 said:

bonatoc said:

mechanicalemotion17 said:

Free2BMe said:

Surely, you know that these kids played on the amusement rides, train, swimming pool, went to the movie theater that were all on the property at Neverland. They weren’t in Michael’s room 24/7. You seem to be saying that a man can’t play with kids without something sexual going on. Least you forget, Michael’s three children were also at Neverland at one time. Are you saying that a 30 or 40 year man can’t have a pillow fight or play with his kids, his nieces/ nephews and other kids without being sexually attracted to them. How sad if you or anyone else thinks that way.I don’t know if you have children, if you do, I would hope that people wouldn’t think you playing with them means that you are attracted to them sexually. Can you imagine how that would completely destroy you? Think about what you just posted and put yourself in Michael’s place. Being innocent and people accusing you of a heinous act, when you know that you are 1000% innocent.

Why repeatedly put yourself in a position where things can be misconstrued? Especially after the first accusation.

mechanicalemotion17 said:

bonatoc said:

mechanicalemotion17 said:

bboy87 said:

a) in the group, yes he was the youngest of the 5. He was 5 when they added him to the group and 9 when they signed to Motown.

Jackie was 16
Tito was 14

Jermaine was 13
Marlon was 11.

b) to the fans, press and those at Motown. People at the label like Suzanne DePasse have said Michael was the main focus, Jermaine was 2nd in attention, and Jackie, Tito, and Marlon were kinda, "just there". He had the most responsibility and had to the most work.

at 9:35

[Edited 1/15/19 14:01pm]

Michael was 11 when their first song was released on Motown

Yes but they auditioned in July 1968 and signed to the label shortly after

MotownSubdivision said:

I'll say, Jimmy Safechuck has a pretty sad story. I don't think a lot of fans are aware of it and many (not all) seem to be focusing in on Wade Robson since his credibility is shot after testifying that nothing happened.

I certainly hope he didn't do it, but MJ's behavior did him no favors in the court of public opnion. (not his fans, but the public) Nobody has even seen the documentary yet.

I think reasonable adults should keep an open mind about the accusations and at least watch to discern what they may believe to be the truth. A possible victim claiming sexual abuse deserves at least that.

For instance, I've never been sure of what happened with the first boy, whether or not a line was crossed. So I won't say he did or didn't do it, whereas I believe justice was served in the

2005 trial. But that has no bearing on what may or may not have happened in 1993 or with Safechuck and Robson.

Michael Jackson And Wade Robson: The Real Story

HAPPYPERSON said:

Michael Jackson Leaving Neverland documentary and why we shouldn't be free to destroy the reputations of the dead https://www.cornwalllive....ry-2438824

Even without evidence we are free to say whatever we want about those who have passed away - and that isn't right

When anguished pop superstar Michael Jackson died some ten years ago there was hope in many quarters that he had found peace at last.

But even in death, scandal continues to torment him. First came the ongoing controversy over the legitimacy of three songs on a posthumous album.

Then, in May 2013, a choreographer who Jackson befriended in the late 1980s went on television to allege that he had been sexually abused by Jackson when he was a child.

The man, Wade Robson, had previously testified under oath in defence of Jackson in the 2005 child molestation trial, claiming Jackson had “never” touched him.

But when Jackson was no longer around to defend himself, Robson changed his mind, citing a repressed memory. He was later joined in his accusations by another young Jackson friend, James Safechuck.

Robson and Safechuck sued Michael Jackson's Estate and then the companies it controlled. But in December 2017 a judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that they had filed it too late.

The Michael Jackson Estate claimed it was “always about the money rather than a search for the truth".

But Robson and Safechuck weren’t done there. Last week, news broke that HBO and Channel 4 had produced a documentary accusing Jackson of sexually abusing pair of young boys.

Titled Leaving Neverland, the two-part film will debut at the famed Sundance Film Festival in Utah, USA, later this month and then air on the respective networks this spring.

“Two boys, now in their 30s, tell the story of how they were sexually abused by Jackson, and how they came to terms with it years later,” the synopsis said.

Anyone reading this who has no knowledge of these accusers and their case would assume this abuse happened as a matter of fact.

But there is zero evidence that it did, these are merely claims.

Jackson can’t defend himself and his estate and family possess no powers to stop the documentary from being released.

Everything under the sun can be said by the media about dead individuals like Jackson and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

So why is it that we are free to destroy the reputations of those who are no longer with us?

Under law in the UK and the US, the dead cannot be defamed. This is because the view is that reputation is a personal right which ceases to exist when a person dies and it can no longer be damaged.

Defamation is also deemed to be a personal legal action which cannot be assigned or brought on someone’s behalf.

But while Jackson might be dead there’s still a huge amount at stake.

Most importantly the impact of such heinous allegations on his children, who will be profoundly affected by more assertions that their father was a child abuser.

Jackson’s reputation around the globe also made a steady recovery since that damaging trial in 2005 which saw him acquitted of all charges.

When Jackson announced his mega comeback in early 2009 he was viewed as the King of Pop once more and his death only enhanced that notion further. Now people speak more of Jackson’s music and legacy than the circus that was his personal life.

But this documentary will undo much of that progress.

So is there any hope for the family? As relatives of Jackson do they have

Interestingly, when ruling on a case in 2014 ( Putitstin v Ukraine ) in which the applicant complained that his dead father had been defamed in an article, the European Court of Human Rights accepted that the reputation of a deceased member of a person’s family may come within the scope of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This is because the reputation may, in certain circumstances, affect a living relative’s right to respect for a private and family life.

In the case of Putitstin v Ukraine the applicant lost the case on the grounds that the impact on him was very little.

While rejecting the case the court said that a claim on the basis of breaching a person’s rights to a private and family life could have succeeded.

But although the European Court has considered a number of cases that related to the reputations of deceased individuals, as yet, none have succeeded.

I can hear the chorus of cries - what about Jimmy Savile? Yes, it was only in death that his horrific crimes were truly uncovered and that his victims felt able to come forward

But there’s a marked difference.

After Savile’s death police launched a criminal investigation into allegations of child sex abuse spanning six decades.

Officers pursued more than 400 lines of inquiry based on the testimony of 300 potential victims from 14 police forces across the UK.

If the authorities were investigating Jackson post-death, if there was evidence of wrongdoing this would be an entirely different scenario. There could be no complaints.

But the media have a responsibility to ensure that what is published or broadcast is true.

Without the evidence how can HBO and Channel 4 be sure that Robson and Safechuck were indeed abused?

Of course the grievances of relatives, and fans in this case, should not have an impact on the uncovering of uncomfortable truths through investigative journalism.

But therein lies the problem - no investigative journalism or police investigation has uncovered any wrongdoing by Jackson.

So even in the absence of evidence, the media has the power to make the world believe that people like Jackson are sinister characters. That doesn’t sit right with me.

bonatoc said:

Free2BMe said:

bonatoc said: Man, you really have been brainwashed by tabloid/media lies!What awkard body language with Brooke Shields? Every single photo of Michael and Brooke Shields together, they were smiling and happy. It was also obvious that Michael and Lisa Marie were a couple and happy. In fact, one of Elvis associates said that he had never seen Lisa Marie happier than when she was with Michael. After she and Michael divorced, Lisa did everything she could to get him back, and it didn’t work. Michael did an interview with TVGuide and admitted that Lisa told him, she wished that she had given birth to his son, Prince. Michael didn’t pay Debbie to have his children, she offered to have his children when Lisa decided that she wasn’t ready.Btw, Lisa publicly declared that she was ready to start a family with Michael. Lisa knew that Michael wanted to have children.She deceived Michael and he turned to Debbie, who was with him BEFORE Lisa Marie. Debbie loved Michael and wanted to have his children. Debbie had a miscarriage with her and Michael’s first child. This is before she and Michael married. Let’s not forget that she was Michael’s WIFE when his first son,Prince Michael,was born. Of course, the tabloids lied and said that he paid her to have his children. He didn’t have to pay Debbie, she wanted him to have children and she has always been vocal about that. When they divorced, she received a divorce settlement, just as every other spouse does. This had crap to do with him paying her to have his children.Why try to act as if Michael and Debbie were different with their divorce any other couple?

Calm down, no one is brainwashed. You seem to know your subject and I am listening to you.
I just point out how easy it is for the general public and opinion to join the angry crowd.
Usually, an adult only sleeps with children when there's just one room available, and circumstances force the situation.

I personally do not deny Michael's the possiblity of purity of intention, but as a sane (define "sane") adult
with kids I would frown, and that's an euphemism, upon another adult sleeping repeatedly with one of my children.
Sexual relationships or not, it just doesn't compute, and provide a justifiable basis for documentaries such as this one.

If Joe and Katherine fucked with his mind to such extent he felt compelled to regress into childhood or adolescent behaviours,
any entourage not perverted by money and prestige would have advised a long-term pyschoanalysis and therapy.
But here we seem to have the usual yes-men and enablers, and, while we are very far from the R. Kelly's situation,
it's still disturbing to think many people didn't blink at a grown-up adult going to bed with kids, clothed or not,
playing innocently or not. There is clearly a huge distortion caused by fame and power here.

I hear you, Botanic. It really does make him more vulnerable to speculation, guilty or not.

gandorb said:

bonatoc said:

Calm down, no one is brainwashed. You seem to know your subject and I am listening to you.
I just point out how easy it is for the general public and opinion to join the angry crowd.
Usually, an adult only sleeps with children when there's just one room available, and circumstances force the situation.

I personally do not deny Michael's the possiblity of purity of intention, but as a sane (define "sane") adult
with kids I would frown, and that's an euphemism, upon another adult sleeping repeatedly with one of my children.
Sexual relationships or not, it just doesn't compute, and provide a justifiable basis for documentaries such as this one.

If Joe and Katherine fucked with his mind to such extent he felt compelled to regress into childhood or adolescent behaviours,
any entourage not perverted by money and prestige would have advised a long-term pyschoanalysis and therapy.
But here we seem to have the usual yes-men and enablers, and, while we are very far from the R. Kelly's situation,
it's still disturbing to think many people didn't blink at a grown-up adult going to bed with kids, clothed or not,
playing innocently or not. There is clearly a huge distortion caused by fame and power here.

I hear you, Botanic. It really does make him more vulnerable to speculation, guilty or not.

I'm sorry for laughing.

A nice idea about MJ"s nephew (Taj Jackson) trying to raise $770,000 for a rebuttal docuseries on the false allegations......however, why do the fans have to fund this, when the Jacksons and the MJ estate is loaded with $$$$$$ Also if this doesn't get made will there refunds? https://www.gofundme.com/...ary-series

Untitled Michael Jackson Documentary Series

[Edited 1/22/19 22:17pm]

^^Part of me thinks, this is cool. Part of me thinks, his family are fucking millionaires. Why don't they just finance it themselves? Or get some celebrity friends to chip in. Another part of me (no pun intended) thinks, every critic or "hater" will dismiss this documentary as being biased, since Michael's nephew is behind it.

[Edited 1/23/19 15:57pm]

PatrickS77 said:

Hudson said:

This documentary is going to be supported by metoo/timesup, and the fans need to prepare.

And it will be another nail in their coffins like the Aziz fiasco.

Its too bad that organizations put together to help real cases have been overrun by Hollywood fakes and frauds trying to become victim famous.

There are people who have really been molested and raped who will have their stories questioned because of these charlatans.

EmmaMcG said:

PatrickS77 said:

^^Part of me thinks, this is cool. Part of me thinks, his family are fucking millionaires. Why don't they just finance it themselves? Or get some celebrity friends to chip in. Another part of me thinks, every critic or "hater" will dismiss this documentary as being biased, since Michael's nephew is behind it.

All parts of you are correct.

Also by the time this doco is released (if it ever gets completed), the damage will be done. Over the years the Jackson family and the MJ estate have had no problem promoting themselves and their products, surely they can defend MJ now, especially since both Janet (The MTV tribute in 2009) and Jermaine (You Are Not Alone in 2011) have worked with Rob$on since MJ's death. Because being silent doesn't work anymore, especially in this #MeToo climate, which Rob$on and co are so banking on, in order to make some $$$$$ and trash MJ's legacy once and for all.

[Edited 1/23/19 20:15pm]

Goddess4Real said:

EmmaMcG said:

PatrickS77 said: All parts of you are correct.

Also by the time this doco is released (if it ever gets completed), the damage will be done. Over the years the Jackson family and the MJ estate have had no problem promoting themselves and their products, surely they can defend MJ now, especially since both Janet (The MTV tribute in 2009) and Jermaine (You Are Not Alone in 2011) have worked with Rob$on since MJ's death. Because being silent doesn't work anymore, especially in this #MeToo climate, which Rob$on and co are so banking on, in order to make some $$$$$ and trash MJ's legacy once and for all.

[Edited 1/23/19 20:15pm]

Literally

PatrickS77 said: