Michael Jackson

[Upintheair83]

My issue is that when you start pulling at the threads of ‘things may have been forgotten/confused’ of Leaving Neverland more starts to unravel.

For example, the case of the neverland train station mentioned above. James swore under oath he was abused up until 1992 and after that we was ‘dropped and then replaced by a younger boy once he’d hit puberty’ and that was apparently Michael’s pattern. He says in LN he was abused ‘hundreds’ of times, specifically in the Neverland train station. But the station was not built until 1994, this is a proven fact that can be verified through planning permission documents and video footage from helicopters etc.

Dan reed the director of LN said when asked about this discrepancy on a talk show that ‘the place of abuse is not being disputed but the dates of the abuse are’. However, if we then shift to this timeline where he was abused in the station in 1994 onwards, that means the abuse not only happened 2 years later than previously said in his sworn declaration (so he’s perjured himself) but also James would now be aged 16/17 not a young pre-pubescent when the abuse allegedly happened.

This invalidates their narrative of ‘Michal abused them until they hit puberty and then replaced them with a younger boy’. There are also photos of James with Michael from the set of the teaser for the History album in 1995/96, where James in holding a pink umbrella over Michael. This is years after the alleged abuse yet he is still hanging around with Michael which again questions the narrative getting ’dropped’ after he hit puberty. He’s actually taller than Michael in the photo so definitely is post puberty and in 1995 he would be 17/18 years old.

Wades story likewise has similar issues. In his sworn deposition in 2016 (so after he went public with his accusations) both he and his mom claim on their first trip to neverland the family left the ranch for a couple of days to visit the Grand Canyon before going back to neverland for a few more days then going back to Australia. But in LN, he claims his whole family went to the Canyon without him and left him at neverland on his own and it was then he was first abused. So why has the story changed?

Also, the fact LN doesn’t mention Wade dated Michaels niece for years (during the years of his alleged abuse too) is crazy. The reason it wasn’t mentioned is clearly because it ruins the story of ‘Michael kept them away from girls’ but in reality he was dating the daughter of Jackie Jackson for years.

Wade has always been a grifter and always used his connection to MJ for financial gains. I really don't trust anything Wade Robson says.

 

[Web30]

I can only see the marriage as an absolute sham. Married in May 94, Presley filed for divorce in January 96.
I have scented diffusers that lasted longer.

There is nothing to suggest that the marriage was authentic in any way, but then it looked very orchestrated - following allegations against him.

She had said positive things in interviews years later but it definitely seemed like a Pr stunt given the timing.

 

[Rockin' Robin]

these two accusers have literally millions of dollars to gain by saying this now.

they may well not have been paid for the documentary but they are suing MJs estate for millions in the civil courts

I personally found the documentary really believable at first but the more I’ve read about the accusers the more their credibility is brought into question and I’ve realised how biased that tv programme actually is. I think MJ is a total weirdo but even a dead weirdo deserves a fair hearing and he’s not been given that.

Both of the accusers have money troubles and one of the accusers (James Saffechuck) happened to remember he was abused by MJ just a few days after his family business was sued for millions. He also says he was abused daily in a building which categorically has been shown not to have existed until years after the abuse ended.

the judge in the civil case has reprimanded one of the accusers for lying about certain technical matters (existence of the estate) and also fabricating evidence. If some of what they are saying is clearly lies in just not sure it’s fair to say we must believe them unquestionably about the alleged abuse

one final thing. I know all too well from personal experience that abuse victims can be in all sorts of denial and shame about their abuse for many years. But Wade Robson stood in the dock of the criminal court in 2005 *AS AN ADULT* and denied he had ever been abused by MJ. He was asked if MJ had ever touched him inappropriately and all sorts of specific questions. Wade said no. But now (2020), Wade claims that in 2005 (when he was already an adult) he didn’t know what abuse was (he has to say this because of statute of limitations and because he wants max financial
Compensation ). I feel like there’s some really obvious questions here that aren’t being asked. The whole thing with Saville is that it was always covered up when Saville was alive and victims were not given a chance to come forward. Many were silenced when they tried to talk. With MJ these questions were asking in a courtroom when MJ was alive. Total opposite . MJ stuff makes no sense.

I think MJ might well be innocent here


im sort of in the same camp as you in that I used to love MJs music but was never a fan

I completely believed the documentary at first

after a couple of weeks of feeling disgusted by it all, I decided to do some research. At the very least what I would say is that “documentary” is ridiculously biased and I’m actually angry as a viewer that I was misled like that. It made it seem as if both accusers would have no reason to lie but actually both Have denied abuse while lives but claimed abuse when facing financial difficulty (that doesn’t mean they’re lying but it should have been mentioned). Also these accusers conduct in the civil court case has actually been a disgrace. They’ve been reprimanded by judge for lying about various issues (not the abuse, other matters) and for Deliberately concealing evidence.Whole thing is actually shocking and has made me really distrust TV programmes and journalists as they just go with a story and run with it and don’t give their audience all the information. If you’re interested in reading more about this it’s actually fascinating but remember not to rely on tabloid sources and instead rely on court documents and transcripts

Michael Jackson was wealthy enough to have a public relations team to protect his reputation. One of the biggest PR stunts was when Jackson married Lisa Marie Presley. This happened around about the time of the Jordy Chandler court case.
Is it not possible that Jackson was also wealthy enough to hire people to lean on witnesses, so they would be too afraid to speak the truth during a court case. I know it sounds far fetched, but these things happen.

 

[Prince fan 1999]

Safechuck wanted his wedding at Neverland. Weird to want to get married at a place you were allegedly abused at isn't it?

 

[KINGAA]

I absolutely believe that Michael Jackson was a victim of abuse as a child and I feel huge compassion for little Michael. I also think that adult Michael was a predatory serial abuser who groomed and abused lots of kids. He can be both a victim and a perpetrator. If this was Joe Bloggs from the local pub nobody would be suggesting his bad childhood made him childlike so it was ok to sleep naked with young boys.

I think the abuse he had a lack of childhood effected his mental capacity and he saw children like him, like I think he thought like a child, completely stunted except he was a grown man and even his brothers said had a very healthy appetite, sexually - he was infatuated with children and was surrounded by yes men who helped him do this and get away with this for money. Most of his songs weren’t even written by him, he was given credits he was a money making machine for the music industry and I think there are many many people who are also to blame. Like Epstein this is way way bigger than just him. I know it is.

 

[Hepaticus]

I just watched it and urgh, it was sickening. I believe Safechuck and Robson. I think (in Robson’s case) just because he’s a known liar doesn’t mean he can’t tell the truth, and in Safechuck’s case he is just hollowed. I watched bits of the Oprah interview before the documentary and looking back it again after hearing his testimony you can visibly see he’s curled in on himself.

They talk of the conflict of deeply loving and wanting to protect Jackson and not recognising their abuse for what it was until they could put it into context as an adult and parent. Robson also talks about the 2014 lawsuit as wanting the same forum to replay the 2003 one to put it “right” - that makes sense in terms of what we know about survivor guilt and wanting to reinact rescue scenarios. In 2003 he was trying to rescue Jackson and in 2014 he was trying to rescue other victims. It just all seems psychologically plausible.

I the case of chandler saying Jackson was circumcised when he wasn’t, without wanting to be too graphic I guess it’s possible for a 13 year old to understand that to be the case when seeing an erect adult penis with the foreskin pulled back and glans exposed.

I can understand people having difficulty believing Jackson would carry out such things, though. It’s a huge thing to reconcile.

Yes and there were a few things they said which it would unlikely for them to conjure up from their own imaginations, although I suppose they could have spoken to child abuse victims and read reflective writings of victims. That ability to still love your abuser deeply, to envy their current victims in a way. The way their lives spiralled particularly after having children and that inner battle as to why they feel horror at the thought of their own child being abused but not feeling that about themselves. Then their feelings towards their own mothers. And the fallout among each family.

If they’ve faked it they’ve done some deep, deep research. But I guess you might if you wanted huge amounts of money.

 

[Prince fan 1999]

Just back from seeing the film for the second time. Cinema was full

 

[Horatio]

Actually that vanity fair article is a little different and very interesting. Really shows how much protection his money gave him. So sad too, those poor boys and their fathers.

This is the article I was referring to
https://www.vulture.com/2019/03/lea..._campaign=vulture&utm_medium=s1&utm_source=tw

 

[Dexy]

Hang on, does she really mean cloning? As opposed to ivf or surrogacy etc. And why does she say they. Not he. Who are this nefarious cloning crowd?

I didn’t see it but pretty sure it was a joke. She has a very dry SOH and is quite sarky at times. It’s probably a dig at those who say she’s the spit of Debbie.

 

[KINGAA]

There's a sequel to Surviving Neverland if anyone is interested.


It on channel 4 on 18th March


Trailer:

Is this one actually factually correct this time? The timelines of events made me not buy completely into the last one.

 

[KINGAA]

Either way,I really can't bring myself to listen to any of his songs anymore,which is a huge shame. It just feels so wrong...

See I’m so fine with listening to music from some questionable people as I like the music not them. I can almost remove my opinion and what they did from my brain and enjoy the songs.

 

[loolabelle]

I’m still perched on the fence, I think he had severe issues, some caused largely by his upbringing and that absolutely batshit family, but others I think were already there. He was also surrounded by yes people, do I think if old
Man Peter down the road had little boys sleeping in his bed it would be viewed the same? Absolutely not. But do I think there were some exploitative parents? Absolutely

 

[Sindra Montelle]

Remember Chandle the first accuser back in the day...The Mother had a list of people she tried to sue,including a security guard she claims tried it on with her out of the bue for no reason in a changing room...its the next step up from spilling water in Tescos and pretending to slip

 

[KINGAA]

to me it felt more like the Jacksons movie than him, most songs they played were Jackson 5, they rushed though his solo career to focus on the Jacksons even during those periods and still played Jackson 5 songs in the off the wall and thriller eras which made no sense like why are you playing Rockin Robin and Ben over Man in the Mirror etc.

As soon as Latoya came up as a producer I rolled my eyes, she inserted herself has much as possible throughout for no reason. It to me felt like a money grab from the Jacksons and that they’ve put so much of them into it to get their royalties rather than it be just Michael’s estate.

I know Paris had issues with the inaccuracies and I do think she has a massive issue with how the Jacksons exploit him for money she always seemed very protective of that would love to know what went on with her and Janet and this movie.

 

[shellie]

I actually don't think he did abuse the celebrity kids, or at least not all of them, because then he had credible people to defend him.

A lot of his supporters use Culkin's defence of him as "proof" he never did anything.

Same. He cherry picked those who were poor so he could throw money at the parents to get them out of the way.

As for Macaulay, he was one of those who let slip about the extra security in his hallway which would warn him if anyone was near his bedroom. Unsurprisingly, that is one thing they don't believe.

 

[Prince fan 1999]

Iv said on here before, there wasn't a bigger MJ fan than me- I even named my son after him. When I was little I never believed the allegations, however since I became a mum and iv got older I have changed my view on some things. I now look at his need and desire to hang around with so many kids as really concerning and unhealthy. But then I do stop and think about his own upbringing. He was born in Gary Indiana, and the house he shared with all his brothers and sisters only had 2 bedrooms. They shared beds and so his memories of his 'normal' childhood would have held this core memory, hence his insistence on sharing a bed being 'normal' I feel sorry for Michael as a little boy because he was a little boy that should have been protected, like most children stars. But instead he was beaten by his dad, forced to be the perfect performer, dragged around sketchy clubs and then sold to the highest bidders. He didnt have peers around him to have a benchmark for social development, he was around older men in the music business. Men with money and power, who promised him 'i can make you the biggest star' ...He was a little black boy in a country and time that was still dealing with racism quite heavily. Iv always believed that he most probably was sexually abused as a child- and I think as he entered his later teenage years his hormones and trauma of that caused him to be withdrawn and developed his 'weirdness' that we see in later life. He obviously never dealt with the trauma and because he became so powerful and wealthy he did what he wanted and there was no one there for him to answer to. And because of his success from an early age I really don't think we can compare him to a normal person. He was the most famous man on earth, reclusive and surrounded by sycophants. Can you imagine how this develops your personality? He would have been a raging narcissist for a start. And I think that unfortunately, all of these issues and his arrested development were displayed in his weirdness.i also think his skin disorder and his plastic surgery made his outer appearance seem just as bizzare as his personality which didn't help the public to understand him. We couldn't understand him because he was so far removed from our own lives.
But my heart breaks for that little boy that he once was. If we can have sympathy for his alleged victims, surely we must extend our sympathy to him as a little boy. They were all victims.
Do I think he was a PDF? I think he always displayed red flags, you would be silly to think he didn't. There's no way I'd have allowed my son around him. Did he act on his PDF feelings? Again, who knows. I wasnt there. I don't find many of his accusers credible- there are too many holes jn their testimony and they always seem to go after the money. If someone came out who didn't have anything to gain financially then I would find that more concerning. I never liked his protestations that he 'never hurt a child' I'd have much preferred him to say 'I never sexually abused a child' and I always felt it quite telling that he was so emphatic with that statement 'I would kill myself before I hurt a child' because I believe he was being truthful here, he wouldn't ever physically hurt a child. It's almost like an admission of guilt in his denial. Because he doesn't actually address the sexual allegations does he? I'd love to see a statement analysis on his denials.
I think he made terrible decisions and had no emotional intelligence, he just acted like a grown toddler who demanded everything his own way. He didn't like to be told no.
If he was a PDF I dont think he ever believed he was one, I think he was in denial of a lot of things in his life. I find it sad that the most famous black man in the world, who paved the way for so many black artists ended up drug addicted and died as a result of it. Its the same story all over the world now....look at skid row...thousands upon thousands of men and women, who had abuse in childhood, who live and die for their next fix....Michael was just the same. Joe Jackson wanted so much more for his son, but look where he ended up.

I agree with everything you've posted apart from the pdf part. I honestly don't believe it. Every single accuser has been out for money in my honest opinion. None have been credible. Again,my opinion.

 

[Tuesdaysdoll14]

How about you watch some of the other documentaries instead of the Netflix one?

I have done. I’ve also done extensive journalism. Rewatch the clip, he never says he sleeps on the floor, and Gavin himself says Michael asks him to get in the bed with him and Michael laughs. How about you revise the content correctly before you defend a paedophile?

 

[White rose]

Well I'm glad they think that and that they're happy. If they want to recognise him as their dad in whichever way they like they have every right. Just as we have the right to comment on a forum what we think about it all. He was maybe a great dad, the best dad anyone had ever had and that's all that matters to them. However I don't think he was, as you wouldn't dangle a baby from a high window if you were and even less so if that was your biological child, it would go against your maternal/paternal instincts. As for the biological point yes ofc you can be a parent without being related to your children.

So if he was the best dad as they have claimed what is it of your or my business if they are biologically his. Honestly the crap people write in papers and it just escalates.

Imagine living a life where you have to prove every move in life to everyone. Even in death people are still wanting to invade his private life

 

[Upintheair83]

I was actually more interested in his upbringing/general life story etc, but totally understand what you’re getting at and I’ll look it up too
Thanks everyone for the recs too

Awww I know that I just feel like someone suggesting the channel 4 documentary wasn't being particularly helpful for you.
As I say, the most balanced one, I found, is the BBC one.
I just felt it did bring up the allegations in a fair way, and is left for you to make your mind up. But it also shows you about his life, craft and subsequent fame, which is part of his story too.
Unfortunately for camp Jackson, the two do go hand in hand.... the BBC one l doesn't try to sway you either way. To me, that's fair.
There's a lot of documentaries out there, some are too much in Mjs favour where they paint him like a God and talk like all the allegations are totally unfounded....and there are others that are totally based around an allegation, with no way for us to actually know or prove it was true.

 

[Miss Havisham]

surely the trial shouldnt have been allowed then
this is what google said when i asked if a celeb in trial should have jurys who like their music acting etc

Legally, no; a celebrity should not have a jury composed of people who like them. The goal of a jury trial is to provide an impartial trier of fact, and having a jury packed with fans would create an inherent bias that undermines the core principles of the justice system

It shouldn’t happen, but then I would expect it would be impossible to check / confirm either way.

I imagine they could be asked if they are a fan (but then how do they decide what makes someone a “fan”)?
All they have to do, is say no.