I was a huge fan of MJs. Stuck up for him over the years re allegations. Thought they were all after his money,he was like a child himself,he never had a childhood etc. Then saw the documentary in Feb. Something inside me switched. I can't look at him now. His music is tainted.
Yes it was a very well done documentary. I believed every word at first too. I'm actually now shocked that channel 4 convicted a dead black man FOR PROFIT with no evidence. I'm not saying Jackson is innocent- obviously I can't say that I wasn't there and Jackson's behaviour with children and obsession with childhood has always been troubling and his family and friends should have intervened as it left all parties so vulnerable.
BUT there's some serious holes in that documentary. In the documentary Safechuck claims to have been abused daily in a trainstation at Jackson's ranch (In the "honeymoon phase"
of his abuse as he called it). It has subsequently transpired was train station was not built until 4 years after Safechuck claims his abuse ended. I've rewatched that scene again from the documentary and now I know that element of it cannot be true the whole thing just doesn't sit right.
The other accuser, Robson, says in the documentary that Jackson "turned him against women" and that Jackson only wanted him as his special friend. Well it now transpires Jackson introduced Robson to his Neice, Brandi Jackson. And Robson and Brandi dated for 8/9 years! Something Robson himself verifies in court documents but this part of the story has been left out of the documentary. Surely it would have been worth Robson mentioning once during a 4 hour documentary that he was dating his abusers niece the whole time he was being abused and apparently being turned against women?
Both these two new accusers got into serious financial difficulty just weeks before claiming to remember abuse. That is suspect. Doesn't mean they're lying but it is suspect.
Robson also claims Jackson's hair felt like a "Brillo Pad" and as many black people on Twitter have pointed out, there can have been no black people involved in the making of this "documentary" as this immediately stands out. Black hair in a jerecho curl doesn't feel like a Brillo pad. Again, that doesn't mean Robson is lying (he could have misremembered this), but it needs to be factored in.
Another element not included in the documentary but that is included in the court documents: Robson's email to his mum asking her for details of his meetings with Jackson. Robson emailed his mum attaching a newspaper article and says in the email "mum is this article true, I don't remember" and Robson's mum replies "wow no none of this is true". Yet Robson goes on to include all the details from the article in his multi million dollar lawsuit anyway!! It's definitely worth reading the court documents - it's fascinating.
Same with Gavin who accused Jackson in 2005. He claimed Jackson tried to kidnap his family in a hot air balloon. The claims got so ridiculous the jury were openly laughing at points.
I just get the feeling that if Gary Glitter had been the one with the money and fame, we’d be here reading about his accusers being liars and wondering if any of the rumours were true. It just seems so easy to cover stuff up if you have the money and are making big dollars for influential people too. If any of us had kids sleeping in our beds for ANY “reasons” we would expect to get locked up and have nobody trust us again
Aside from the OJ Simpson case, I don't know much about any of these other cases that always seem to get put into the mix. Just because Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter are guilty,it doesn't mean every weird famous guy who gets accused must be to too.
I actually don't really want to make simplistic comparisons but if forced... for a start, Glitter and Saville's accusers all went to the police in the first instance. Indeed with Saville the police and BBC covered it up for years. Contrast this with Jackson where the FBI were investigating Jackson over a ten year period and the police nearly bankrupted the state of Santa Barbara in trying to convict Jackson. They even sent officers to Australia to try and find new accusers. They found no
All of Jackson's accusers have gone to civil lawyers first to seek money. All Jackson accusers have had financial problems. This is the opposite of Saville and Glitter.
If your son had been abused would you want money or justice first? Which would be more important?
I know it doesn't mean these accusers are lying but again it's part of the picture.
Again, personally I want to get away from comparison. Look at each case and each accuser individually. Just because OJ got found "not guilty" doesn't mean all rich people with good lawyers get off. Each case is separate and it's too simplistic to just use a broad brush approach. I know it takes more time but individual research is needed.
