[iRyan]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Sorry, but if we're condemning a dead man for accusations he can't defend himself against on the basis that said man was weird and eccentric then the entire frigging world has gone stark raving mad.

Yes, he was strange (the whole bloody family are rather weird) but that itself is not evidence of anything.

If you actually took the time to watch the documentary you’d see it’s more than just “weird and eccentric behavior” It’s textbook grooming, to both the children and the parents. I don’t see how anyone could watch the documentary and still feel compelled to claim the victims are lying or it’s not true.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by iRyan

If you actually took the time to watch the documentary you’d see it’s more than just “weird and eccentric behavior” It’s textbook grooming, to both the children and the parents. I don’t see how anyone could watch the documentary and still feel compelled to claim the victims are lying or it’s not true.

Except my response wasn't aimed at people who had watched the documentary and were discussing reasons why they did or did not believe the allegations but those saying "Well Jacko is weird!" That's not evidence of anything and to start talking like it is, is stupid.

[iRyan]

I understand the emotional attachment people have to Michael and his image and his music, but if this was any other man there would be no way question that these accusations have merit. And in fact, the documentary does provide a plethora of evidence. Lavish gifts used as manipulation tactics, obsessive letters, distancing the children from their parents, moving from one young boy to the next once they hit puberty, sharing a bed with young boys he has no relation to. Despite there not being hard evidence that molestation took place, I think the story from these two men who spent many years extremely close to Michael speak for themselves.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

would i let him babysit

NO

Well he is dead, so he would be a bad baby sitter.

[Maxxie.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I disagree that the documentary is pointless. It's well made and actually very balanced. It's not a smear piece or a "portrait of a villain" and for the mostpart portrays Jackson as just being a deeply flawed human, which is actually very risky for a documentary like this, given that the public (understandably, I admit) prefer paedophiles to be portrayed as evil / monstrous.

Also, I do personally believe the claims made by the men in the documentary, and I think both have done an outstanding job of highlighting and explaining the very real, very complex emotional attachment that many abused children have with their abuser, the complicated reasons that they might feel the need to defend that person, and the long struggle that abuse victims have in comprehending what happened to them.

That alone is HUGELY important and valuable.

Specifically; Wade Robson talks about not processing any of it and not feeling that he had been hurt or wronged until he had a child of his own, and then he found himself imagining someone doing what Michael did with him but it being his kid, and the idea made him furious and disgusted. But when he remembered it happening to himself, he didnt feel that way. And that sent him down the path of understanding why and coming to the realisation that even though it hadn't felt like abuse to him at the time, he had been a child and it indeed was abuse.

This is VERY common for childhood abuse survivors. A lot of it comes to the surface when they become parents themselves.


I guess all I would say is don't make assumptions and reserve judgement until you've watched the docu and done a bit of reading around it.

You've made some interesting points so as your someone who's already seen the documentary I wanna ask you a few questions.

First of all, I'd never want to straight out not believe a claim simply because I don't want to, that's a horrible thing to do.

Although after doing research on the situation I feel that you can't prove either side of the argument, but there is a lot more evidence in Michael Jackson's defence imo.

Obviously there's the point that Robson testified against him under oath which is strange but understandable I suppose if your afraid of speaking out or the influence MJ had over him, despite Robson being a grown man at this point.

- If the above scenario was true, I would assume either of the men would have been quick to come forward with the story after he died, it's been TEN YEARS, I'd understand if wade Robson stayed silent but for YEARS after his death he went out of his way to commemorate him, and even tried to be apart of MJ: Cirque du Solei around 2011/2012, he got rejected for that.

Is that issue acknowledged in the film? Surely if a man abused you in the way Robson said mj did to him, you wouldn't wanna be an active part of his tributes and would surely want to distance him from your life now your trauma is over and MJ is long and gone? I find that extremely odd.

It seems that wade has only come forward with the making of this movie as it seems he has become a bit of a has been in the dance world, and this is after he attempted to sue the Jackson estate for ONE BILLION dollars in 2013 (which makes this clearly financially motivated) and this movie is now only being made after the court dismissed the claims for a lack of credibility.

[Maxxie.]

To be honest, this is the sole reason why I am HESITANT to watch this documentary. Films and documentaries especially have the power to be emotionally suggestive and to fit a certain agenda. At the end of the day, I'm only human and I'm a sucker for my emotions and opinions to be easily persuaded through the medium of film.

It's probably a very well constructed and well edited film, which is the exact reason I don't want to watch it as it will probably influence my opinion through emotion over fact.

I compare these allegations with R Kelly, which I do believe those to be true, based on the fact that even his family and ex wife are speaking out against him, and there are a far greater number of allegations from different woman than there are with Michael Jackson.

MJ had two ex wives, surely either of them would speak out if they had any suspicions at all of any sinister behaviour, I mean they were married to him for gods sake!

Lisa Marie Presley said he was amazing in bed btw, don't exactly think he'd be amazing if he was really into shagging little boys.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by iRyan

if this was any other man there would be no way question that these accusations have merit.

[iRyan]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I’m saying that the only reason people are questioning the victims and the evidence presented is because Michael Jackson was a superstar and a deity in the eyes of his fans. If the person in question was not Michael Jackson, nobody would be running to defend him when the signs of his child abuse are so blatantly clear.

[iRyan]

Just finished the second part. It is equally as important, if not more, than the first part. Hearing how the abuse affected these young men and their families growing into adulthood, and coming to terms with the realization what actually took place was abuse rather than ‘love’ that they were brainwashed to believe from Michael as children. I urge people to watch both parts of this documentary before making a judgment or coming to a conclusion. It’s clear that these men have no agenda other than speaking their truth, and it’s heart breaking to watch. Oprah also asks all the tough questions and addresses residual skepticism in her after special which is also a powerful watch.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I disagree that the documentary is pointless. It's well made and actually very balanced. It's not a smear piece or a "portrait of a villain" and for the mostpart portrays Jackson as just being a deeply flawed human, which is actually very risky for a documentary like this, given that the public (understandably, I admit) prefer paedophiles to be portrayed as evil / monstrous.

Also, I do personally believe the claims made by the men in the documentary, and I think both have done an outstanding job of highlighting and explaining the very real, very complex emotional attachment that many abused children have with their abuser, the complicated reasons that they might feel the need to defend that person, and the long struggle that abuse victims have in comprehending what happened to them.

That alone is HUGELY important and valuable.

Specifically; Wade Robson talks about not processing any of it and not feeling that he had been hurt or wronged until he had a child of his own, and then he found himself imagining someone doing what Michael did with him but it being his kid, and the idea made him furious and disgusted. But when he remembered it happening to himself, he didnt feel that way. And that sent him down the path of understanding why and coming to the realisation that even though it hadn't felt like abuse to him at the time, he had been a child and it indeed was abuse.

This is VERY common for childhood abuse survivors. A lot of it comes to the surface when they become parents themselves.


I guess all I would say is don't make assumptions and reserve judgement until you've watched the docu and done a bit of reading around it.

Did it cover the fact those two actually defended MJ when he was tried and found not guilty, what did they say about that ?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Maxxie-D

You've made some interesting points so as your someone who's already seen the documentary I wanna ask you a few questions.



First of all, I'd never want to straight out not believe a claim simply because I don't want to, that's a horrible thing to do.



Although after doing research on the situation I feel that you can't prove either side of the argument, but there is a lot more evidence in Michael Jackson's defence imo.



Obviously there's the point that Robson testified against him under oath which is strange but understandable I suppose if your afraid of speaking out or the influence MJ had over him, despite Robson being a grown man at this point.



- If the above scenario was true, I would assume either of the men would have been quick to come forward with the story after he died, it's been TEN YEARS, I'd understand if wade Robson stayed silent but for YEARS after his death he went out of his way to commemorate him, and even tried to be apart of MJ: Cirque du Solei around 2011/2012, he got rejected for that.



Is that issue acknowledged in the film? Surely if a man abused you in the way Robson said mj did to him, you wouldn't wanna be an active part of his tributes and would surely want to distance him from your life now your trauma is over and MJ is long and gone? I find that extremely odd.



It seems that wade has only come forward with the making of this movie as it seems he has become a bit of a has been in the dance world, and this is after he attempted to sue the Jackson estate for ONE BILLION dollars in 2013 (which makes this clearly financially motivated) and this movie is now only being made after the court dismissed the claims for a lack of credibility.

Honestly, the way Wade Roberts talks about him is one of the MOST convincing things about it. He doesn't demonise him or call him a monster or say that he was scared of him; it's actually quite evident that he deeply loved MJ and on many levels still deeply loves him... And is still talking about how he was also a great person, saying how hard it is to get his head around the fact that he WAS the "kind, creative, generous person" that other people say he was, "but also abused him for 7 years as a child". Both men felt like they were in a real, loving, special relationship with him. They didn't feel abused at the time, they were happy and excited to be around him. He wasn't violently abusing them or threatening them.

The trigger for speaking up was apparently having a child of his own and realising how angry he would be if someone had that relationship with his child, and thus realising how l wrong what was done to him was. The time frame totally matches up with that.

Also (and this can be verified separately) ; the lawsuit he raised was NOT dismissed on the basis that the claims weren't credible, it was thrown out before the claims were evaluated for credibility on the grounds that a claim couldn't be made against the estate of a deceased person / the management company, only against the accused individual (who in this case is obviously dead). The idea that the claims had not been found credible was tabloid speculation.

James Safechuck on the other hand came forward because Robson had and he hadn't felt like he could do it alone and honestly... If that man isn't suffering from genuine trauma, then he's one of the best actors I've ever seen. It only takes one look at him to see that he's suffering from a serious anxiety disorder and finds the MJ stuff extremely hard to talk about.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Well he is dead, so he would be a bad baby sitter.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Honestly, the way Wade Roberts talks about him is one of the MOST convincing things about it. He doesn't demonise him or call him a monster or say that he was scared of him; it's actually quite evident that he deeply loved MJ and on many levels still deeply loves him... And is still talking about how he was also a great person, saying how hard it is to get his head around the fact that he WAS the "kind, creative, generous person" that other people say he was, "but also abused him for 7 years as a child". Both men felt like they were in a real, loving, special relationship with him. They didn't feel abused at the time, they were happy and excited to be around him. He wasn't violently abusing them or threatening them.

The trigger for speaking up was apparently having a child of his own and realising how angry he would be if someone had that relationship with his child, and thus realising how l wrong what was done to him was. The time frame totally matches up with that.

Also (and this can be verified separately) ; the lawsuit he raised was NOT dismissed on the basis that the claims weren't credible, it was thrown out before the claims were evaluated for credibility on the grounds that a claim couldn't be made against the estate of a deceased person / the management company, only against the accused individual (who in this case is obviously dead). The idea that the claims had not been found credible was tabloid speculation.

James Safechuck on the other hand came forward because Robson had and he hadn't felt like he could do it alone and honestly... If that man isn't suffering from genuine trauma, then he's one of the best actors I've ever seen. It only takes one look at him to see that he's suffering from a serious anxiety disorder and finds the MJ stuff extremely hard to talk about.

Quick question are they both sueing the Estate or they just want to get this off their chests?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Did it cover the fact those two actually defended MJ when he was tried and found not guilty, what did they say about that ?

Extensively, it's basically the focus of the entire documentary so not easy to sum up. They loved him and they wanted to protect him.

I think that's why people find it so hard to get their heads around because the automatic assumption is that someone who was abused would hate or be scared of their abuser... But it's actually VERY common for abused people - especially groomed children - to have a deep rooted affection for their abuser.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Honestly, the way Wade Roberts talks about him is one of the MOST convincing things about it. He doesn't demonise him or call him a monster or say that he was scared of him; it's actually quite evident that he deeply loved MJ and on many levels still deeply loves him... And is still talking about how he was also a great person, saying how hard it is to get his head around the fact that he WAS the "kind, creative, generous person" that other people say he was, "but also abused him for 7 years as a child". Both men felt like they were in a real, loving, special relationship with him. They didn't feel abused at the time, they were happy and excited to be around him. He wasn't violently abusing them or threatening them.

The trigger for speaking up was apparently having a child of his own and realising how angry he would be if someone had that relationship with his child, and thus realising how l wrong what was done to him was. The time frame totally matches up with that.

Also (and this can be verified separately) ; the lawsuit he raised was NOT dismissed on the basis that the claims weren't credible, it was thrown out before the claims were evaluated for credibility on the grounds that a claim couldn't be made against the estate of a deceased person / the management company, only against the accused individual (who in this case is obviously dead). The idea that the claims had not been found credible was tabloid speculation.

James Safechuck on the other hand came forward because Robson had and he hadn't felt like he could do it alone and honestly... If that man isn't suffering from genuine trauma, then he's one of the best actors I've ever seen. It only takes one look at him to see that he's suffering from a serious anxiety disorder and finds the MJ stuff extremely hard to talk about.

I am sure the money they will reap from this will dry those 'tears' very quickly

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Quick question are they both sueing the Estate or they just want to get this off their chests?

It's already been legally established (several before the documentary was made) that it's not legally possible to sue the estate, only MJ as an individual (and that's obviously not possible either)

[Toy Soldier]

Also regarding MJ's wives / children being unaware, the time frame wasn't conveyed brilliantly but I got the impression that all of this was occurring in the 90's when he was single, and had stopped by the time he was married for the first time.

[iRyan]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

Did it cover the fact those two actually defended MJ when he was tried and found not guilty, what did they say about that ?

Nope, they address it fully in the documentary. It’s a bit hard to explain if you haven’t seen it for yourself, but basically they were brainwashed by Michael from a very young age to conceal the truth, and before recognizing what had happened to them was “abuse” they were still in a sense in love with Michael and were emotionally hardwired to defend him at any cost. He was aggressively involved in their lives throughout the court proceedings and they were coached prior to testifying. This is more nuanced and complex than I can explain in my own words. They don’t paint Michael as some violent monster, it was someone they genuinely felt love for, but were far too young to understand what was really happening to them - and it wasn’t until later in life that the damage that was done to their subconscious began to surface. As children they didn’t have any concept of sex other than what Michael groomed them for under the guise of love and admiration. Often people associate sexual abuse with being violent but that is not always, and in fact not often the case. In short: they were essentially experiencing a form of Stockholm syndrome.

[bitontheslide]

not wishing to throw cold water over those that got something from the documentary, but it seems to me it has reinforced beliefs already established in the viewers. I mean, these people changing their stories have been round the block, they will have been given advice on what to say to explain themselves. I personally don't subscribe to the notion that Jackson or those associated with him deserve any more time.

Jackson is long gone, and still people want to profit from association with him, from whatever angle one chooses. I also think that Jackson through his unique position is not even worth the time understanding or whatever, as it is a circumstance unlikely to ever happen again so there is really nothing to be gained from giving him further publicity/notoriety other than generating more cash for those associated with him.

[iRyan]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I am sure the money they will reap from this will dry those 'tears' very quickly

The director confirmed they did not receive or seek any financial compensation for their participation in this film.

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by iRyan

The director confirmed they did not receive or seek any financial compensation for their participation in this film.

not all income is generated by direct means

[iRyan]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

not wishing to throw cold water over those that got something from the documentary, but it seems to me it has reinforced beliefs already established in the viewers. I mean, these people changing their stories have been round the block, they will have been given advice on what to say to explain themselves. I personally don't subscribe to the notion that Jackson or those associated with him deserve any more time.

Jackson is long gone, and still people want to profit from association with him, from whatever angle one chooses. I also think that Jackson through his unique position is not even worth the time understanding or whatever, as it is a circumstance unlikely to ever happen again so there is really nothing to be gained from giving him further publicity/notoriety other than generating more cash for those associated with him.

The purpose of the film is not to slander Michael Jackson, it’s presented as the experiences of two men who were victims sexual abuse as children, which happened to be at the hands of Michael Jackson. It is to bring awareness to sexual abuse of children and the warning signs of grooming. The film doesn’t present any biased negativity towards Jackson other than facts, and how the lives of the victims and their families were affected by their relationship with Jackson. People who peg this as a sensationalized money grab without having even seen it have completely got it all wrong. Watch both parts and then come to your own conclusion.

[iRyan]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

not all income is generated by direct means

I’m aware of this, I’m simply stating a fact to consider. As I said, watch for yourself before you judge and see if you still believe it’s a money grab.

[iRyan]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Also regarding MJ's wives / children being unaware, the time frame wasn't conveyed brilliantly but I got the impression that all of this was occurring in the 90's when he was single, and had stopped by the time he was married for the first time.

Correct, Michael married after the allegations were first made by another boy, which we can only assume was to draw attention away from the public perception that he is a pedophile.

[Amy Jade]

Originally Posted by iRyan

I’m saying that the only reason people are questioning the victims and the evidence presented is because Michael Jackson was a superstar and a deity in the eyes of his fans. If the person in question was not Michael Jackson, nobody would be running to defend him when the signs of his child abuse are so blatantly clear.

I don't stan him but I still don't think he abused any kids. I think the parents were just opertunists who knew he had money.