jungleluv said:

EmmaMcG said:

NorthC said:

That also works the other way around: if you're a fan, you don't want this to be true, so you will look for whatever you can find to "prove" these two men wrong and then you come up with little details, like the time when Disneyland in Paris was built, anything to blow holes into their story.
For the record: I neither like nor hate Michael Jackson. I'm not here to accuse or defend anybody. I watched the doc because I was curious after all the hype. I don't think we should believe everything these two men said, but there is too much to their story to just dismiss it as lies. If Michael Jackson's relationship with young boys was "kinda weird", as ThatWhiteDude put it, then that's the understatement of the year.

That's also true. A lot of people who love Michael Jackson will dismiss any and all criticism. And, for the record, I don't like or dislike Michael Jackson, the person. I like his music (well, most of it) but that's as far as my feelings go regarding him. I do, however, require actual proof of any wrongdoing. Also, I don't automatically believe accusers in this or any other case. Based on what I've heard from several people who both knew Michael Jackson and/or worked with Michael Jackson, he was mentally ill. Now, a lot of what he said and did was part of the act. He played up to his own oddness for the cameras because as much as he disliked the press, he loved the publicity. But he was also not quite sane and unfortunately for him, he didn't listen to critical feedback from those he worked with. Which is why he surrounded himself with Yes Men. He also liked hanging around with children. Some people who knew him think he liked hanging around with children because they never told him "no" or ever criticised him the way adults did. I don't know how true that is but it definitely fits with the stories of him firing anyone who disagreed with him. And it definitely sounds more plausible to me than the stories this "documentary" would like you to believe. So, realistically, yes, Michael Jackson had his problems. He was petty, childish, arrogant and completely unable to accept criticism or acknowledge his own failures. But that doesn't mean he was a child molester. It's because of these reasons that I don't believe he was guilty of that particular crime. But if any actual evidence or proof is ever found that he was, then I'll agree that he was scum. I'll still listen to his music though but Baby Be Mine might take on a different meaning in my mind.

modified said:

OperatingThetan said:

I never watched the doc because either way it's f***ed if it's true, it's f***ed if it's a lie, and there is no way to honestly know. There's no justice to be had. For me it's not even a cautionary tale because as a parent, never in a million years would I have put my child all up in any adult's face especially without boundaries and supervision, it was how I was raised. I have absolutely no idea what to do with the information, so I prefer to stay in limbo about it for my own purposes. I don't have the time or energy to go around searching out all the details anyway. I don't sink further in emotionally about MJ, he was a great performer who played throughout a significant part of my life. There will always be that maybe hanging around though. I guess that's sad but the truth for me is I was already at this place before he passed so I'm letting it be.

Free2BMe said:

EmmaMcG said:

That's also true. A lot of people who love Michael Jackson will dismiss any and all criticism. And, for the record, I don't like or dislike Michael Jackson, the person. I like his music (well, most of it) but that's as far as my feelings go regarding him. I do, however, require actual proof of any wrongdoing. Also, I don't automatically believe accusers in this or any other case. Based on what I've heard from several people who both knew Michael Jackson and/or worked with Michael Jackson, he was mentally ill. Now, a lot of what he said and did was part of the act. He played up to his own oddness for the cameras because as much as he disliked the press, he loved the publicity. But he was also not quite sane and unfortunately for him, he didn't listen to critical feedback from those he worked with. Which is why he surrounded himself with Yes Men. He also liked hanging around with children. Some people who knew him think he liked hanging around with children because they never told him "no" or ever criticised him the way adults did. I don't know how true that is but it definitely fits with the stories of him firing anyone who disagreed with him. And it definitely sounds more plausible to me than the stories this "documentary" would like you to believe. So, realistically, yes, Michael Jackson had his problems. He was petty, childish, arrogant and completely unable to accept criticism or acknowledge his own failures. But that doesn't mean he was a child molester. It's because of these reasons that I don't believe he was guilty of that particular crime. But if any actual evidence or proof is ever found that he was, then I'll agree that he was scum. I'll still listen to his music though but Baby Be Mine might take on a different meaning in my mind.

Wow, I wonder who you talked to. FTR, I have never heard ANYONE say Michael was mentally ill. That sounds like something a mentally ill person themselves would say. Credible people who have worked with MichAel or been around him say he was business savvy, kind, generous, trusting to a fault, great entertainer, etc. I’m wondering where you heard the mentally ill vrap, unless it was from a tabloid or some other person who didn’t know shit about him
Of course, he had problems, EVERYONE does. Don’t try and act as if this is exclusive to Michael. I don’t want to name the other celebrities that I could say have the exact same “problems” that you claim MichAel has. Let’s not be hypocrital just because it’s Michael.

MotownSubdivision said:

I'm a make this one comment regarding this issue and I'm leaving it alone

Everything starts from the source, and the source dictates how things are going to evolve in their life from the actions they take the majority of the time outside of unforeseen forces.

Do I believe Michael Jackson molested children,

I don't and never believed he committed those acts and he was acquitted of all those charges 13-14 years ago, BUT at the end of the day, no matter who you are, and what your status is in life, or whether you're a world reknowned entertainer, it's totally inappropriate to be an adult, much less a grown man to allow non-related children to sleep in your bedroom........it don't fly, and it wasn't right no matter how fans try to slice it.......it does not fly

His choice to allow that led to all the allegations he was confronted with in life, there's no question about that.......and led to this documentary which I will never watch....

Cause and affect, actions and reactions

Should Oprah had participated in this documentary, no she should not have

Does his family have a right to be angry about this documentary, yes they should

BUT none of this would be happening now if Michael Jackson had maintained proper boundaries when it comes to how he relates to non-related children......no doubt about it.

Do I believe children naturally gravitated towards Michael Jackson, yes I do.

that rapport extended back to his days of OTW, the way children gravitated towards him was genuine. It was real.....that was an inate quality he had that's rare for a person who reaches adulthood BUT

BUT as his image changed and he chose to project an evovling image that centered around surrounding himself with children and projected that to the public, as early as the late 80s, it was apparent that he was going to be accused of something somewhere down the line and 4 years later, that's when all this turmoil started when it didn't have to be

That's what this all comes down to.

Caring for children is great, MJ should not be knocked for his concern for the plight many of our children face

but everyone involved, including fans and followers just need to accept he acted inappropriately by allowing kids to sleep in his bedroom, which has led the greater public to believe to be cynical towards him.

I don't get upset when people feel something may have happened.....I understand it as an adult and fans need to understand that too

if he had maintained the natural boundaries when it comes to this issue, those allegatiosn would not have happened and this documentary wouldn't exist..........bottom line

darlingnikkkki said:

NorthC said:

There was a scène early in the film where Jackson took one of the boys (I forgot which one) to Hawaii and he did an interview with Jackson. -What do you like about Hawaii? -Being with you. -Do you like being on stage? -I like it because I can be with you. I do this from memory, so it's not the exact quotes, but the film had Jackson's voice on tape saying these things, so that's not made up. And a grown man saying this to a young boy, that's not healthy. Also, the stories about Jackson wooing the boys away from their families so he could be alone with them, that's creepy to say the least. Of course you can wonder what parent would leave their kid with a man who is after all still a stranger, but they were probably blinded by fortune and fame and nobody is as blind as somebody who doesn't want to see. All in all, even if only half of the things Wade & Safechuck are saying is true, then Michael Jackson still had an unhealthy obsession with young boys.

Should the parents then be tried and guilty? Should the parents benefit financially at all from the alleged abuse of the children the 'pimped out'?

Scorp said:

Free2BMe said:

jungleluv said:

I watched Leaving Neverland and was disgusted and upset for James and Wade. I believe them. You seriously think that they would lie about being sexually abused? There were too many specific details for it to be untrue - like when Michael phoned James and instructed him to put his underpants in the bin after he had tried to rape him. Michael fooled us all with his 'I'm innocent' act.

There is not one utterance from these liars/perjurers that is believable. Everything that they regurgitated was from the book by Victor Guitterez. Of course, their SCRIPT was graphic, because that is what Guitterez had in his book. Since Guitterez is an advocate for man/boy sex and a supporter of NAMBLA, is there any wonder that these two and Dan Used Guitterez’s book for reference. Of course, people who WANT Michael to be guilty are eithertoo stupid to look at where these liars got their graphic details from OR simply want to support the NAMBLA doctrine, as Dan Reed does.

Michael Jackson fans can't handle the fact that he may have had sexual relations with boys. The clues were there - having slumber parties with kids, always touching his crotch whilst performing onstage in the prescence of children. He had an unnatural interest in boys. If Wade and James are lying then they both deserve an oscar. Reading their facial expressions and body language I think they are telling the truth. To those people who say that they have not watched Leaving Neverland, I would say watch it before u post your comments.

More and more facts are coming out that if any abuse happened, It could not have happend when they said it did. Some of those buildings that they say abuse happened in didn't exist until the accusers were over 16, and MJ wasn't even in the country for some of the times that they say the abuse happened. If is comes out that these dudes are lying, how will the people on here that think that he is guilty gonna react?

For the people that think MJ is guilty, do you think that Wade would have ever "remembered" the abuse if he had gotten the Vegas MG Cirque show that he was expecting to get? Do you honestly think that we would even be having this conversation?

Scorp said:

I just read on on a news page the dorector of that documentary admitted their are holes and doubts in the credibilty of the accusers stories Hopefully someone can post the link

The facts about the train station not even being in existence until 2 years AFTER Safechuck said the abuse stopped can be found on the Vindicating Michael site that I posted earlier. Luv 4U also posted it.

Scorp said:

I just read on on a news page the dorector of that documentary admitted their are holes and doubts in the credibilty of the accusers stories Hopefully someone can post the link They need to yank that thing off the air [Edited 4/2/19 12:49pm]

See my reply #23

https://www.hotnewhiphop....76181.html

luv4u said:

Have Safechuck and Robson taken lie detector tests?

Mintchip said:

Okay, I'll bite.

I chalk factual inaccuracies up to the abuse being 30 years ago, the victim being 7, and the trauma being...well, traumatic. It's easy to imagine being confused about locations and dates, something that goes down at Disneyland in 1988, and something else goes down at Eurodisney in 1992, or Disneyland Paris, and I get them confused. That's human. Especially if I'm jet setting around the world, and Disney trips are a common event.

Put another way, in my late thirties, if I had to describe to you a situation of abuse that happened to me in 1988, I would hate it if you didn't believe me because I got some specific details wrong. I was 8 in 1988, and those years seem like a dream of another life.

On the flip side, what convinces me is the uncomfortable emotional truth of their testimony; the small details no one would come up with, the conflicting nature of their emotions toward Michael Jackson to this day. There's a depth, a messiness, and an honesty there, which I don't think can be faked, or anticipated.

So...yeah. That's me.

This is pretty much where I'm at. Going into this I figured if anything convinced me he was guilty it would be the details of the actual acts of abuse that occurred but that wasn't the case for me. Like you, it was the finer details that got me, little things I never would've anticipated. I also never considered how closely these two relationships would mirror actual romantic relationships that two adults would have. Often times when they spoke about MJ it felt as if they were speaking of an ex lover. It's subtleties like that I feel like would be difficult to fake. Either these guys are telling the truth or they're sociopaths that could give Streep a run for her money with their acting chops.

NorthC said:

EmmaMcG said:

That, right there, is a major contributing factor to why these allegations were taken seriously. As popular as he was, many people just didn't like him. Perhaps, in part, BECAUSE he was so popular. If you already don't like someone, it's easier to believe that they're guilty of whatever crime they're accused of.

That also works the other way around: if you're a fan, you don't want this to be true, so you will look for whatever you can find to "prove" these two men wrong and then you come up with little details,

I am not sure if I can totally agree with this.

For example, I actually grew up liking a lot of R.Kelly's music. I didn't think any ill of him, but then I heard that he had married Aaliyah. Being young and ignorant of the details. I didn't think too much if of it and continued listening to his music. Later the pee tape came out. Ignorant of the details of that case so I withheld judgment. Then I read a really long article from a journalist who had been investigating R.Kelly for years in hopes of bringing him to justice. Considering the pee tape and the fact that he married a 15 year old it had became very obvious to me that R.Kelly was a predator. I deleted his music and any other songs I knew he wrote off of any off of my streaming services. People on Twitter were sharing similar stories to what I had read in that article. The more I looked into it the more I was convinced of R.Kelly's guilt. The Surviving R.Kelly series was just the final nail in the coffin. What really stuck out to me was when Sparkle told of her experience working with him and how controlling of her was as well as the stories from his ex-wife. In fact, all of their shared stories showed that he was controlling and manipulative predator. The fact that he tried to pose himself as the victim in the interview with Gayle and he was willing to claim it was his brother on the pee tape certified to me that Robert Kelly is 1000% GUILTY (and probably a narcissist).

With Michael Jackson, I don't recall what I really thought, but when the 1993 allegations came out, I was on the fence. I did like his music and videos, but I wasn't a big fan or anything. I do remember knowing that the kid holding his hand in the Martin Bashir documentary was going to be the next accuser. My friend and I called each other to share our predictions. Then the trial happened and even though I felt like it was all a ruse the media outlets made it seem as if he was guilty. When he died I looked more into the allegations against him and the court documents. I read stories about him from the people who knew or worked with him. I even began to do more research on pedophiles, child molesters, and their victims. The more I looked into Michael Jackson the more I was convinced he was NOT a predator or a child molestor, which was the complete opposite of R.Kelly. So watching Leaving Neverland...I felt as if I didn't know who Wade and James was talking about. The Michael they explained in their stories didn't match the one I had read about. Their personalities didn't match up. There was no common thread in the behavior to indicate someone who was manipulative v. as in the Surviving R.Kelly series and the Gayle interview. Granted that everyone is different, but for predators there's always a pattern of behavior that shows up. ALWAYS.

So while I do agree that having an extreme positive or negative reaction to a person can color your judgment about them, I think it's unfair when people assume that if you are defending MJ that you must be a stan. That's not always the case. Some of us are not prone to emotional fueled reactions from emotionally manipulative films. Some of us like to fully research vetted sources before we come to an opinion. Some of us really dislike seeing injustice. To call him an 'angel' is a little too much for me, because he was a human being with flaws just like anyone else. Yet, to fully believe Wade and James because of a confirmation bias due to a sloppily researched and highly manipulative film that amounts to pure propaganda is just as bad, if not even worse. It just a goes to show you how easy it is to brainwash and manipulate people. It's important to read beyond clickbaity headlines and find out the true story.

Tuls101 said:

This is pretty much where I'm at. Going into this I figured if anything convinced me he was guilty it would be the details of the actual acts of abuse that occurred but that wasn't the case for me. Like you, it was the finer details that got me, little things I never would've anticipated. I also never considered how closely these two relationships would mirror actual romantic relationships that two adults would have. Often times when they spoke about MJ it felt as if they were speaking of an ex lover. It's subtleties like that I feel like would be difficult to fake. Either these guys are telling the truth or they're sociopaths that could give Streep a run for her money with their acting chops.

Funny, that is what convinced me even more that they weren't telling the truth. Children aren't capable of adult love. They were describing the relationship as if they were two adults. The fact that one of them shrugged off spreading their buttcheeks for someone at the age of 7 years old of as if it was nothing was a clear red flag. At 7 years old you are not young enough to shrug that off. He was old enough to know that was not right. Both of them also grew up in somewhat functional homes so it's not as if they grew up doing that on a regular basis.

Also, to see how emotionalless they were when explaining the abuse was really off-putting. It made it seem as if they were romanticizing it and that made me very uncomfortable. It was as if someone reading some Michael Jackson pedo slash fic. They displayed and described more emotion meeting MJ than they did being abused by MJ. That was too big of a red flag in my book.

why0302 said:

My native language is not English. Many people have forgotten that MJ paid two settlements for alleged sexual harassment. He paid settlement more than $ 25 million to settle the sexual harassment. At least eight times the cost of OJ Simpson's attorney. Two articles are recommended. 1. A story about 1993 http://www.nbcnews.com/id...i1space%7C There is a story about the evidence that the authorities found and the deletion of records. How will MJ fans bring evidence to excuse this? 2. Talk about 2004 https://www.vanityfair.co...orth200403 If he was not Michael Jackson, he would have thought he was guilty. Because he created a thriller, many people are giving indulgences, but history will be considered the greatest artist in history and a dark pedophile. Fans who support MJ's innocence are also ignorant about the nature of child sexual crimes. MJ advocacy comes from this ignorance. [Edited 4/2/19 14:17pm] [Edited 4/2/19 14:19pm]

Wow, so you just joined just to post this?

luv4u said:

Have Safechuck and Robson taken lie detector tests?

What would be the point? Lie detectors can be beaten. Woody Allen took one, and passed, but still some people assume he is guilty.

What they actually do want is to be cross-examined in court. I would have thought MJ fans and his estate would also want that. But as things stand that won't happen.

why0302 said:

My native language is not English. Many people have forgotten that MJ paid two settlements for alleged sexual harassment. He paid settlement more than $ 25 million to settle the sexual harassment. At least eight times the cost of OJ Simpson's attorney. Two articles are recommended. 1. A story about 1993 http://www.nbcnews.com/id...i1space%7C There is a story about the evidence that the authorities found and the deletion of records. How will MJ fans bring evidence to excuse this? 2. Talk about 2004 https://www.vanityfair.co...orth200403 If he was not Michael Jackson, he would have thought he was guilty. Because he created a thriller, many people are giving indulgences, but history will be considered the greatest artist in history and a dark pedophile. Fans who support MJ's innocence are also ignorant about the nature of child sexual crimes. MJ advocacy comes from this ignorance. [Edited 4/2/19 14:17pm] [Edited 4/2/19 14:19pm]

I might be wrong in making this assumption, but I assume that you are not from the US and may not have an understanding of how the US legal system works.

To clear up any misunderstandings:

1. MJ did NOT pay 2 settlements to two accusers. He paid a $21 million settlement to ONE accuser back in relation to the 1993 allegations and that was for negligence to which Michael Jackson declared no wrong doing. He was advised to do this by his lawyers, because any evidence he would have presented in the civil case could have been unjustly used against him in the criminal one. California has since changed this law, because it is unfair and does not give the defendant access to a fair trial. Also, Maureen Orth has made her anti-MJ bias pretty clear so please take that into consideration when you come across her MJ related writings. I think it's funny, because Maureen Orth was sued for defamation and then settled her lawsuit. Does her settling also mean an admission of guilt from her? Michael Jackson could have paid the Chandlers the original amount they were asking for in order to avoid going to trial all together, but that would have been even more suspicious.

2. In the US settling a civil suit has no bearing on a criminal case. While its true you can buy justice in the US once you are on trial, you can't buy your way out of a trial. If there was damning evidence in the 1993 investigation MJ would have been arrested on the spot, an example being the supposed Jordan describing MJ's genitals. If MJ's genitals had conclusively matched Jordan's description the state of California would have had MJ in handcuffs and put on trial shortly there afterwards. The man heading the investigation, Tom Sneddon worked very hard to get an indictment to go to trial, but the grand jury did not indict due to lack of evidence. So Tom Sneddon had no choice, but to beg the Chandlers to press criminal charges. Yet, once they got their money Jordan Chandler, the alleged victim, declined to cooperate with the investigation and all charges were dropped.

I hope that helped clear some of the misinformation you had. People can believe whatever they want to believe, but I think it's essential to, at least, have the basic facts right. You can read about more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/...il_lawsuit

I believe the memories are real but if they are recalled with timeline errors, that could have something to do with TRAUMA and the brain working to block them, or something stupid like movie editing error.

It also sounds like their current relationships with their moms wouldn't allow them to get help in putting years to the vacations.

The fact is, I used to calm my mind as a fan who was aware of Jimmy Safechuck and Wade Robson, like "well if they say it was all cool, then it was". So, I knew I was in for a rude awakening when those exact dudes came out with their story.

I am the same age as these dudes and remember seeing them going to Disney and shit and thinking it was so cool. I know I wouldn't have been ready to stand trial against Michael Jackson in 2004. His power and their internalized fear is what kept them silent. It must have felt even more shameful as emerging heterosexuals. And just as confusing with their adoration of him AS YOU FANS IN DENIAL YOURSELVES.

RichardS said:

luv4u said:

Have Safechuck and Robson taken lie detector tests?

What would be the point? Lie detectors can be beaten. Woody Allen took one, and passed, but still some people assume he is guilty.

What they actually do want is to be cross-examined in court. I would have thought MJ fans and his estate would also want that. But as things stand that won't happen.

The do ask the same questions in different ways. I would have them take that polygraph.