Michael Jackson

[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

 

[AladdinSane]

Or maybe the updates from the trial of 2005?... you can find online where he was tried in a court of law as any living American citizen is-you know, with a jury, a judge, evidence against him, evidence on his defence, victims testimony, eye witnesses. Not a documentary that is purely one sided with no defence, how is that fair in any way? Its like saying go and watch a documentary that is purely fan fiction of his innocence. I understand we need to hear what the accusations are, but at the same time it's hardly balanced. I hope you aren't called for jury service any time soon.
I can't stand the fans that protest his innocence all the time, completely blind sided and romanticising his music and legacy, but equally i think its unfair to believe every accusation sent his way when we don't have any evidence. This is why we have a justice system in place.

This is the most balanced view I've seen. I dont know what happened and I'll never claim to think he's innocent or guilty. I'd like to think he's innocent but where there is smoke there is often fire.
I do often wonder about a couple of things though. One, surely if there was any proof, a jury would have convicted him? But also aware that is only relating to the 2005 accusations.
Two, these current lawsuits and the issues from Robson and Safechuck... they have admit they lied under oath. Surely that makes them not credible or there is a legal issue there?

Again I'm not saying whether I believe him innocent or guilty.

 

[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.

 

[Harlot O'Scara]

The Cascio's have filed a lawsuit. I think this is the first time a girl has accused him.

Michael Jackson accused of child sex trafficking in new lawsuit

Edward, Dominic and Aldo Cascio and their sister Marie-Nicole Porte called Jackson a "serial child predator."

www.nbcnews.com

I believe there was a settlement paid regarding a young girl in the past. Her identity is not known, though.

 

[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.

 

[ShowMeYourFeline]

It’s often the case in trials and indeed in the court of public opinion, there are “good” victims and “bad” victims. It happens a lot in rape cases (hence why it’s effectively been decriminalised in the U.K. at least), also in everything from child abuse to murder. Look what happened to Joanne Lees in the Peter Falconio murder trial. Or the recent-ish rape case in Ireland where the victim’s knickers were passed around and her sex life openly raked through. Happens every day.

Reading this, for example, does not put Wade Robson in the best light. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....chael-Jackson-sex-abuse-claims-tell-book.html

However. Your character and actions don’t need to be above reproach for the things you claim to have happened to be the truth.

Perhaps neither of the men are textbook “good” victims.. with Wade possibly less so out of the two. Nevertheless I believe both of them. There’s little doubt in my mind that MJ was pedophile and used his money, fame and power to get his way.

I agree. Bad people can be victimised. It doesn’t make it less of a crime.

Also, so what if they’re after money? Who wouldn’t take up the opportunity to earn millions? If I was telling the truth about a terrible crime, I would still try to milk it for every last penny. I would feel like I deserved compensation, and it would be a reward for sharing sordid and painful details.

 

[Web30]

I make one comment recommending people watch Square one to get a better view of the 93 allegations and I get banned

 

[andromeda17]

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.

 

[Tangerine Dream]

They left out all the scandal so it's not a real life biography. It's telling Paris won't go to any of the premieres.

They were never going to include it so it was always going to be a money spinner project.

I don't know about watching it, I find myself not really listening to/watching his stuff just now because it doesn't feel right. The trailer looked good but that's easy to do. Wonder Woman 1984 looked great and that's one of the worst films I've ever seen.

Maybe when enough time has passed and his estate aren't still so powerful someone could tell the real story of MJ on film, much as it would be hard to watch.

 

[annanuttall]

I don't think the Peter Pan theory holds any weight either when MJ clearly at least understood adult matters and sexuality and used them in his music and videos. Besides, if he was mentally a child then his fans were supporting the exploitation of him. Can't have it both ways - if he was so mentally impaired then why was he touring, doing business etc.

It's more likely that he had trauma from being groomed and SAd himself as a child in the industry and perpetuated the cycle as is often the case.

That all said, I still don't know how I feel specifically about Wade Robson. His story doesn't ring true to me.

There are stories where the 'Peter Pan' image was just a smoke screen - basically behind the scenes he wasn't like that at all.

 

[Justjonie]

Just putting my tuppence in. I watched the documentary the first night and read up on it afterwards. I watched the second half last night. The first night I was convinced they were telling the truth. Then I read up that they had raised a multi-million dollar lawsuit against MJ's estate in 2016 or 2017 and weren't successful. That is now up on appeal apparently and all of sudden, they come out with their stories. Their stories are very graphic but I wonder if they have done it that way to bring the shock factor and make people believe them. Their stories are almost identical too, which contrary to what most believe, can actually be a sign of lying as most people will have their own individual experiences rather than just a blanket approach that matches all other victims experiences (from what I've heard and read on FBI true crime articles/podcasts etc).

So I'm still in two minds. I find it very strange how it was always little boys MJ befriended but his life was very very messed up. If he did molest kids, how come no hard evidence was ever round in Neverland? Yes he paid off Jordy Chandler but with the Gavin Arvizo case, the FBI turned over Neverland and didn't find concrete evidence. I also find it strange that Wade testified in his favour at the 2005 trial, at this stage he was an adult and fully aware of what had happened to him (if it did happen) so why didn't he speak out then? It wasn't as if it was just his small voice against MJ's, if anything he would have been corroborating his experiences with those of Gavin Arvizo and adding clout to his testimony and more likely to have been believed. I just don't know and I guess we'll never know 100%.

 

[AllSeeingEye123]

Both brothers WERE at the premiere.

Michael Jackson’s sons, siblings attend movie premiere — while three important family members notably skip

The brothers each honored their late father with outfits that paid homage to the King of Pop.

pagesix.com

My mistake it was his sisters Janet and LaToya missing with Paris.

Hardly a family vote of confidence.

 

[Dotty Merton]

I've never seen this before. Latoya always knew.

 

[AladdinSane]

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 literally took this as a tongue in cheek comment as a lot of people say she looks like her mum