[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.