[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?

[user104658]

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)

[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

[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.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

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

I feel sure you are right.
Maybe not from this documentary perhaps but they'll know now, coming out with this in this way.
There'll be clamouring likely for more from them.
Magazines, other outlets too.

At a probable lucrative financial gain for them.

[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 ?

[user104658]

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.

[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.

[Crimson Dynamo]

would i let him babysit

NO

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

would i let him babysit

NO

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

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

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.

Well... Being blunt, his legal team spent several million dollars pushing that narrative in the press so it's unsurprising that a lot of people think that.

[iRyan]

Originally Posted by Amy Jade

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.

I’d like to see if you still think this after watching the film. But I agree with the fact that the parents were opportunists. They were offered houses, lavish gifts, and all expenses paid travel by Michael. Not only that but Michael essentially promised the boys and their families fame and fortune, convincing them to literally take their kids out of school to let Michael guide them. Keeping in mind, at this point in time, Michael was the biggest superstar in the world. Just as the boys were seduced, so was their families.

[Marsh.]

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.

That's a lot of assumptions you're making about a lot of people.
Assuming why they think the way they do and even predicting what they may think if some hypothetical scenario that hasn't happened might happen.

But you do you.

[iRyan]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

That's a lot of assumptions you're making about a lot of people.
Assuming why they think the way they do and even predicting what they may think if some hypothetical scenario that hasn't happened might happen.

But you do you.

Well, it’s my opinion. People are blinded by his superstardom and the impact and influence his music had on their lives, that they refuse to accept any possibility other than his innocence. I don’t think this is all hypothetical, it’s pretty obvious all the of the backlash is coming from fans or people who haven’t even seen the documentary and are making snap judgements based on hearsay.

[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.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Maxxie-D

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.

His cock would be numb from.painkillers....pop a vaigra and poke away at something that doesn't turn you on and I think we could all be magic in bed...

I doubt she would know anyway what good or bad is when you look at her own upbringing.

[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.

[user104658]

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 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.

[Beso]

Hopefully he is drinking the devil's juice now.