[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Josy

I don't like his music, never been a fan tbh, still don't believe his accusers.

but you would believe him when he says he isnt a paedo?

[Josy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

but you would believe him when he says he isnt a paedo?

I believe that the 2 accusers in the documentary I watched last night are liars, I believe both them and the parents are/were fame and money hungry.

I believe Wade had soured all of professional relationships on the Hollywood scene due to his behaviour so this is his last chance at bagging himself some big money.

I believe the court that found MJ not guilty of all charges.

I don't believe that someone that was sexually abused as a child would then as an adult practically beg that abusers family to allow him and his mother to go to the funeral.

I can't answer the specific question you just put to me because he's dead and I can't ask him?

If he's said in the past 'He isn't a pedo' then yeah I guess so.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I'm kinda surprised at the support for him tbh: combine everything - all the things he definitely said and did, all the reports of people about what they saw and all the testimonies of those who were abused - and it's obvious that the most likely conclusion is that he did abuse young boys

One of those boys at least was a proven liar,so for me once a liar always a liar,you don't like him,fair enough but it will cloud your perception of him, he was trialled and found innocent, some just seem so desperate for fame and money they can say anything about him now.I'm not buying any of it.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

One of those boys at least was a proven liar,so for me once a liar always a liar,you don't like him,fair enough but it will cloud your perception of him, he was trialled and found innocent, some just seem so desperate for fame and money they can say anything about him now.I'm not buying any of it.

Oj Simpson was found not guilty of murder when we all know he did it, I see this case in the same light.

[caprimint]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I'm kinda surprised at the support for him tbh: combine everything - all the things he definitely said and did, all the reports of people about what they saw and all the testimonies of those who were abused - and it's obvious that the most likely conclusion is that he did abuse young boys

Agree with this

[GoldHeart]

And i hate how people use the excuse of "ohh well paedophiles don't abuse all kids" and "culkin was already famous" , if he was soo close to Maculay Culkin & Brett Barnes then surely something inappropriate would of happened?? .

I know predators don't abuse all kids , but surely they'd still be signs of grooming ?? and Culkin & Barnes spent ALOT of time with MJ so surely they would of seen evidence themselves that something very weird & wrong is going on??? .

wade robson and james safechuck claim he "moved onto other boys" aka Culkin & Barnes which implies MJ was abusing Culkin & Barnes yet Culkin & Barnes was never abused and they've always stood by MJ , there wasn't anything inappropriate going on with either of them . So why are we suppose to take Robson & Safechuck's word as gospel? and why do Culkin & Barne's words not matter anymore ?? .

Culkin has had alot of issues regarding addiction and family life , he pretty much stated his own dad was abusive to him . So why would he say his dad is abusive but cover for MJ ?. I don't think Culkin would protect MJ unless he genuinely knew & felt he was innocent .

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

And i hate how people use the excuse of "ohh well paedophiles don't abuse all kids" and "culkin was already famous" , if he was soo close to Maculay Culkin & Brett Barnes then surely something inappropriate would of happened?? .

I know predators don't abuse all kids , but surely they'd still be signs of grooming ?? and Culkin & Barnes spent ALOT of time with MJ so surely they would of seen evidence themselves that something very weird & wrong is going on??? .

wade robson and james safechuck claim he "moved onto other boys" aka Culkin & Barnes which implies MJ was abusing Culkin & Barnes yet Culkin & Barnes was never abused and they've always stood by MJ , there wasn't anything inappropriate going on with either of them . So why are we suppose to take Robson & Safechuck's word as gospel? and why do Culkin & Barne's words not matter anymore ?? .

Culkin has had alot of issues regarding addiction and family life , he pretty much stated his own dad was abusive to him . So why would he say his dad is abusive but cover for MJ ?. I don't think Culkin would protect MJ unless he genuinely knew & felt he was innocent .

Women that have been clearly beaten up by their partners, when the police asked will they make a statement they say no.


There is a clear pattern between those that get abused keeping their abuse a secret and covering for the abuser.

[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.

[bots]

Trump is alive and 100% a crook and still 30% of the American population refuse to consider it because he is sticking it to the "elites". It's not inconceivable that 30% or more would excuse Jackson on the basis of he sang a good tune.

Whatever ones views on Jackson, he was a very flawed individual. If he was guilty, he can't do any more harm now, and I tend to believe that those coming out the woodwork at this point are after a fast buck. He is a prime target for that.

The test I put on him is this. Would I have allowed my children to go for "sleepovers" with him .... not a chance in hell.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Trump is alive and 100% a crook and still 30% of the American population refuse to consider it because he is sticking it to the "elites". It's not inconceivable that 30% or more would excuse Jackson on the basis of he sang a good tune.

Whatever ones views on Jackson, he was a very flawed individual. If he was guilty, he can't do any more harm now, and I tend to believe that those coming out the woodwork at this point are after a fast buck. He is a prime target for that.

The test I put on him is this. Would I have allowed my children to go for "sleepovers" with him .... not a chance in hell.

Oh I had an argument with my sister in law about Michael Jackson one time, she was absolutely adamant he wasn't a paedo and I asked her that question, would you leave him babysit your kids then? ..........No answer

[MTVN]

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.

Well it's not just that is it, these two spent a lot of time around him when they were kids and have given very detailed testimonies of how he abused them. Then consider also that he himself said he shared beds with children, he surrounded himself with them, he had to pay off the first family who accused him and there were all these accusations and reports around for years

Jimmy Saville was also dead when everything came out, it doesn't get you off the hook

[user104658]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Jimmy Saville was also dead when everything came out, it doesn't get you off the hook

Well... I mean... It does get you off the hook. People like to believe that Saville didn't get away with his crimes because they were discovered after his death and his "name is mud" but really that doesn't mean anything. Dead is dead, he wasn't caught while he was alive, and he got away with it. There isn't some Saville ghost out there going "Oh nooo, my reputation!". He doesn't exist any more.

I know it's important for victims to feel like they're getting some justice by these things being exposed post-humously but if we're looking at it pragmatically, the dead perpetrator doesn't give a ****. They don't give an anything. They're just a memory.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Well... I mean... It does get you off the hook. People like to believe that Saville didn't get away with his crimes because they were discovered after his death and his "name is mud" but really that doesn't mean anything. Dead is dead, he wasn't caught while he was alive, and he got away with it. There isn't some Saville ghost out there going "Oh nooo, my reputation!". He doesn't exist any more.

I know it's important for victims to feel like they're getting some justice by these things being exposed post-humously but if we're looking at it pragmatically, the dead perpetrator doesn't give a ****. They don't give an anything. They're just a memory.

Well legally it does, I just mean that it shouldn't make someone immune to accusations or scrutiny

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Well it's not just that is it, these two spent a lot of time around him when they were kids and have given very detailed testimonies of how he abused them. Then consider also that he himself said he shared beds with children, he surrounded himself with them, he had to pay off the first family who accused him and there were all these accusations and reports around for years

Jimmy Saville was also dead when everything came out, it doesn't get you off the hook

I never said being dead lets anyone off the hook. It's just yet another convenience.

These people whose testimonies you're investing in also spent a long time defending Michael Jackson.

It wasn't a Rose McGowan (or even Jimmy Saville) style keeping quiet until finally being able to speak out but actively defending him. Makes any of their claims completely dubious now they're deciding to change their tune 10 years after the man's death.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

I never said being dead lets anyone off the hook. It's just yet another convenience.

These people whose testimonies you're investing in also spent a long time defending Michael Jackson.

It wasn't a Rose McGowan (or even Jimmy Saville) style keeping quiet until finally being able to speak out but actively defending him. Makes any of their claims completely dubious now they're deciding to change their tune 10 years after the man's death.

I honestly don't think there's much question over whether or not it's true in this case. I think there's a lot of cognitive dissonance over his guilt because people desperately want to believe in his innocence... And the fact of the matter is, he was prosecuted twice for child sex offences and the first time it was dropped because he made a HUGE out of court settlement, and the second time he would almost certainly have been found guilty if Wade Robson hadn't defended him again.

Their stories have a level of detail that make them totally feasible and explain their actions afterwards. What they describe, and their emotional response to it, is classic for child grooming. The idea that they, and their families, have concocted some elaborate scheme to say they were abused when they weren't is... Far fetched, at best.

I know he hasn't been convicted of anything and is unlikely to be posthumously convicted like Saville, but for me on a personal level I have very little doubt that he engaged in inappropriate sexual behaviours with children.

Again I don't think he was "faking" being who he was and was some calculating predator... I think he was a very damaged man himself and really believed that the relationships he had with these boys was real love and that others just wouldn't understand. But that doesn't mean he's innocent.

[Gstar]

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.

This

[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.

[thesheriff443]

No one wants their hero to be a child molester.

Jimmy savile raised millions for charity but was a paedophil.

[bots]

it's not like the BBC doesn't have history. It's banned all sorts of stuff over the years with no legal basis to do so. It's not like Jackson's music is current, who really gives a toss if the beeb never played any music again, let alone MJ's greatest hits

[user104658]

Watched it and I have to say, I personally am inclined to believe their stories. The documentary doesn't even paint him as a monster - even they're saying he was the kind, wonderful, childlike personality that everyone believes him to be...... It's just that he was also really messed up and that part of those friendships was sexual experimentation. It's very strange listening to it. They clearly loved him (maybe STILL love him?) and were willing participants at the time. They say they weren't scared or upset during any of it, they felt special and like they had a special relationship with him. They would wait for hours by the phone for his phone calls and got jealous when he was seen with other kids. It's only when they got older and look back on it that they realise how wrong it all was.

I honestly don't know if Jackson himself even really understood that what he was doing was wrong... And he did think it was a "normal" expression of love and that others people just wouldn't understand. He doesn't come across as a predator even though the things he got them to do are objectively horrendous. Sadly I think it's a case of MJ being both a victim himself, and a victimiser of others... His childhood and fame completely warped his psychology, his understanding of what childhood is, and created some twisted ideas about sexuality and affection.

[Elliot]

mj had a lot of issues with the press and his acquaintances trying to slate him for attention, so something doesn't sit right joining in with this to slate a dead man. The day he gets convicted tho, is a different story

[user104658]

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.

[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.

[user104658]

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.