Leaving Neverland - a documentary on sexual abuse

[Main Street]

For the most part  the 4 hour HBO documentary is a gripping account of 2 boys and their family's journey through the experience of being sexually abused in the full glare of pop stardom. It starts with the initial grooming, the obsessive nature of the grooming, the manipulation of the family, the lure of pop stardom, the sexual abuse itself, the self denials, the lies, the repression of the abuse trauma, the damaging psychological effects of the trauma, finally the shit hits the fan and whole families have to deal with the aftermath of the truth of what had been really happening all those years to the children in the company of Jackson.
As a piece of filmmaking  it's a brilliant documentary on sexual abuse, unparalleled.

It's also an indictment of a pedophile who just happens to be the world's most popular musician. But most rational people who were aware of signs of pedophilia and had examined the existing evidence, had already concluded to a reasonable certainty that Jackson was a pedophile and that his obsessive interest in children had a sexual attraction.

He had admitted to playing and sleeping with children separately in a remote room locked away in a basement. He was openly obsessed with children who were ever present in his life. The children (7 year olds) engaged in highly sexualised dance routines with him publicly on stage. Jackson's personality was evidently damaged and tales of abuse inflicted upon him as a child were many.
He had been dogged by persistent allegations of sexual abuse. The strongest evidenced case was bought off before it came to court with US$22m. Now the picture of the pedophile is fully formed.

Jackson's legacy will be stripped away from public life. Endorsing Jackson in public in any form will forever be associated with endorsing sex abuse pedophilia.  Every public image of Jackson will be removed, his wax images will be melted. Good riddance.

Some points that need to be looked at also, I for one think that Jackson was sexually involved with kids in some manner or form, though it doesnt matter which form that may take he was a child abuser (my view) though never convicted even over many years of various police forces attempts..

Questions need to be asked about how a local authorities actually allowed this to be facilitated, the parents were staying in the same house also which confuses me also..

The parenst were given no interest loans then the money that they owed back to Jackson after a small period was forgotten about ab dthey didnt have to pay it back.

The grooming of the children also involved the grooming of the family, notably the mother. Yes the the eventual gift of a house to one parent was an award for pleasing Jackson for supporting him in the 2003 case.

The kids took gifts (rings jewellery) which they still keep, I mean what sort of person keeps stuff from a person that raped them!?
They also defended him under oath and allowed him to continue to rape (possibly) more kids and let down the ones that were brave enough to go against the Jackson media machine.

I don't know about the gifts or what type of person would keep such gifts, but  in their words they did not perceive that they were being raped. Did you notice at the end during the credit roll, the burning of all Jackson paraphernalia in a bonfire?  Only one of the two men testified on Jackson's behalf, the other refused
As an aside are you aware of just how fckd up the other witness Culkin's life has been?

Personally I've no respect for them to now come out years later, and make a well made gripping documentary about being abused when they had the world media and Jackson there for the taking..

Has your respect got much value? I think they can manage without it, they have enough flak from ignorant hysterical jacksonites to deal with. They did not make the documentary, HBO made the documentary, they participated in it.
If you followed the story, the abuse events came to be revealed after one had undergone therapy after experiencing a mental and emotional breakdown and the other man had also reached the end of his tether.
As regards you having no respect for their character because they both denied and delayed.
Do you know anything about sexual abuse?
Do you remember the case of the pedophile Mick Feeney?  national school principal in Ballybay  and Ulster GAA chief?
That investigation started after one of his  many victims had gotten as far away as possible geographically, eventually ended up in therapy some 35 years later due to a breakdown, her life had fallen apart, the abuse trauma was uncovered. She wrote a letter to someone, who wrote to somebody else and that person confirmed an abuse experience with Feeney. By the time the sergeant from Cavan town concluded his very thorough investigation, there were scores who came out the woodwork.
Would anyone claim that Feeny was yet another victim of the Mee Too movement as J70 might be prone to? Would you wish to keep your respect on hold  for that woman because she waited 35 years, thus allowing a free path for Feeney to continue his abuse?

[J70]

Wow.

Let's do this quick.

To be honest i would rather rewatch the numerous trials that he was put through including an FBI investigation all of which found him not guilty instead of watching a one sided "documentary".



The clue is in the title of the thread - we are talking about this documentary, not about his trials. And you are perfectly entitled to call it one-sided. Once you watch it. Which you haven't. And using inverted commas to emphasise your "scepticism" is a little "overblown" and "redundant" given the overall tone of your posts. Just a "style tip" for you.

Try believing actual facts and evidence rather than reality tv.

I'll be coming back to this one, but I will just say, as you haven't seen the "documentary" you are in no position to classify it as "reality tv" - you see what I'm doing here?

I am not defending him but anyone can say things about you when your dead. People are too quick these days to believe everything they hear instead of doing some research.



You are defending him. See your point just above about facts and evidence.

Tell me this does the "documentary" answer why they supported him was he was alive and didnt sue him them?


"Yes". It does. You should "watch" it.

I will just leave this here for you to read and get back to me as you have seen the documentary. Please begin to explain this
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/joevogel/2019/01/29/what-you-should-know-about-the-new-michael-jackson-documentary/amp/

Interesting take.

I have NOT seen the documentary.

[Itchy]

Havent seen the documentary but i would not be rushing to believe 2 people who swore under oath that mj had not abused them while he was alive.

If you are a parent would you take 22milion over justice for your kid? The whole the stinks of a money grab ploy to be honest.

You should watch it then, I think you might think different. No doubt in my mind he was a Paedo. Then when Bono said he wasnt "bad" that confirmed he was as we all know Bono is an idiot.

[nrico2006]

How much credibility can you give to the two main contributors if they have said otherwise under oath previously?  Nothing new allegation wise, the only difference now is that he is not alive to defend himself.  Do we respect the fact that he was found innocent in court or just take allegations as gospel?

[haveaharp]

A few have used the "not around to defend himself" defence. Plenty used that line about Saville. Just saying

[easytiger95]

Wow you are grumpy. So you would perfer to discuss the documentary rather than actual facts which dispute the entire documentary.

I used inverted commas because a documentary is defined as "a film or television or radio programme that provides a factual report on a particular subject." This cannot be a documentary then as it doesn't provide actual facts or evidence. If it did he would have been jailed.

I will watch it this weekend and get back to you. But as i said before unless it provides actual evidence then it simply should not be taken as fact.

Again im not defending him. I am following the rule of the law...iinnocent until proven guilty. Glad your not a judge.

Grumpy???

I thought my response was quite funny.

Whatever, as they say, dying is easy, comedy is hard.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I am in someway endorsing the testimony of Safechuk and Robson. I'm not, though I do believe their account.

I'm merely pointing out the utter absurdity of you passing judgement on a documentary .. sorry "documentary"...without even making the minimum effort of watching it.

And the utter absurdity of accusing them of using this documentary as an easy way to make money by lying about abuse by Jackson - which means they went to the trouble of making up some of the most horrible and humiliating details about what was done to them, suffering immense public embarrassment and harassment for financial gain. As I said before, there are far less mortifying ways of making money of an association with Jackson.

I couldn't read the Forbes piece because it seems to be behind a pay wall for me? But I'm still better informed than you in the context of this conversation, because I've actually watched the documentary that this conversation is about.

And the documentary was factual. Safechuk and Robson claim they were abused. That is a fact and it was documented by the film.  Whether the abuse took place or not is for the viewer to decide. I viewed it and I believe them. If you viewed it and didn't, then I'd take your opinion a lot more seriously, and we could have a chat about this film.

But you didn't and we can't.

[themac_23]

There was a post from someone who was a manager (i think, or management company) who literally shed a complete new light on the whole affair and how Wade Robson and his family piggy backed off Michael Jackson for years and actually built his career off him. When you look at the facts she laid out it makes his story very hard to believe, the 2 things that really struck me when i read it having watched the documentaries are 1. When the 'This is It' Tour was being planned Robson contacted a number of MJ representatives to be involved with the choreography for the show, when this was given to someone else he then asked could he at least be one of the dancers. 2. When MJ died, he contacted representatives asking for VIP access for himself mother and sister for the funeral. Now for someone who was sexually abused by a man i think these are 2 very strange things to do after nearly 20 years. the rest of the post was also pretty revealing, must see can i find it again and post it

ps, i think Michael Jackson was an extremely weird character, i wouldnt let my son near him unsupervised but i think its pretty easy to throw accusations at a dead man, especially when you know his estate is still worth a lot of money.

[Main Street]

July 3 2009
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/michael-jackson-bad-and-very-dangerous-1731258.html
Jordy Chandler, Jackson's first accuser, gave detectives a detailed description of Jackson's genital area, including distinctive "splotches" on his buttocks and one on his penis. The boy's information was so accurate he was able to locate where the splotch moved to when Jackson's penis became erect and the fact that he was circumcised. Jackson was brought in and his genitals duly photographed. Soon after this shoot (surely one of the stranger photo sessions endured by the singer) was matched up to Chandler's description, Jackson suddenly agreed to settle Chandler's civil claim out of court for somewhere north of $20m (£12.2m)."

More recently another kid came out and alleged abuse against Jackson
Even his teachers warned his mother about Jackson's pedophila suspicions,  his schoolmates mocked him for having sex with Jackson
Jan 19  2019
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/michael-jackson-called-rubba-rubba-13912812

"Michael Jacobs-hagen was just 14 when he joined the singer on a string of tours but now he's a dad himsef he realises he was abused"

[easytiger95]

How much credibility can you give to the two main contributors if they have said otherwise under oath previously?  Nothing new allegation wise, the only difference now is that he is not alive to defend himself.  Do we respect the fact that he was found innocent in court or just take allegations as gospel?

I find it ironic that in a country with a long and unhappy history with miscarriages of justice that we cannot conceive of people recanting their evidence, or find that someone doing so to be so beyond the pale.

Again, I'm not saying the documentary definitively proves Jackson's guilt. But the protagonists are very detailed and convincing in the recounting of events, and Jackson's absence does not in itself discredit their stories.

If it did, then no historical crimes would ever be investigated.

[magpie seanie]

How much credibility can you give to the two main contributors if they have said otherwise under oath previously?  Nothing new allegation wise, the only difference now is that he is not alive to defend himself.  Do we respect the fact that he was found innocent in court or just take allegations as gospel?

I find it ironic that in a country with a long and unhappy history with miscarriages of justice that we cannot conceive of people recanting their evidence, or find that someone doing so to be so beyond the pale.

Again, I'm not saying the documentary definitively proves Jackson's guilt. But the protagonists are very detailed and convincing in the recounting of events, and Jackson's absence does not in itself discredit their stories.

If it did, then no historical crimes would ever be investigated.

Some people can't help themselves with the victim blaming.

[MoChara]

haven't had a chance to see it yet but a mate of mine was saying the two fellas in it didn't seem entirely honest.

Oh well that settles that then. If MoChara's mate says it, you can take it to the bank.

Easy tiger you seem like a very angry person, which is ironic what with your moniker and all.

[easytiger95]

haven't had a chance to see it yet but a mate of mine was saying the two fellas in it didn't seem entirely honest.

Oh well that settles that then. If MoChara's mate says it, you can take it to the bank.

Easy tiger you seem like a very angry person, which is ironic what with your moniker and all.

Well, I don't feel angry about this, but maybe I'm coming across that way? I hate using emoticons, but maybe I should start. I just think it is hilarious when the title of the thread is about a documentary - a visual medium - you and others are coming on to proffer opinions about said documentary - without even seeing it.

And then when I point the absurdity of this out - in what I (mistakenly) thought was a jokey way, I get told I'm angry.

Well maybe, I should get angry. No one is coming on here saying "Well I didn't see the documentary, but I completely believe the two lads and everything that they say" - because that is completely unreasonable. Yet we're meant to give equal weight to the inverse statement which has as little validity to it? And because, what? That Michael Jackson deserves to keep his squeaky clean reputation?

As I pointed out before, if you watched the documentary and have a problem with their honesty, then that is a conversation we can have, because I watched it, and I have come to different opinion. And that is a debate.

But please don't come over all offended when I have the temerity to point out the immense pointlessness of giving an opinion on a film you haven't seen and shaming people you haven't listened to.

Only joking! 

Does that help?

[Dolph1]

haven't had a chance to see it yet but a mate of mine was saying the two fellas in it didn't seem entirely honest.

Oh well that settles that then. If MoChara's mate says it, you can take it to the bank.

Easy tiger you seem like a very angry person, which is ironic what with your moniker and all.

Well, I don't feel angry about this, but maybe I'm coming across that way? I hate using emoticons, but maybe I should start. I just think it is hilarious when the title of the thread is about a documentary - a visual medium - you and others are coming on to proffer opinions about said documentary - without even seeing it.

And then when I point the absurdity of this out - in what I (mistakenly) thought was a jokey way, I get told I'm angry.

Well maybe, I should get angry. No one is coming on here saying "Well I didn't see the documentary, but I completely believe the two lads and everything that they say" - because that is completely unreasonable. Yet we're meant to give equal weight to the inverse statement which has as little validity to it? And because, what? That Michael Jackson deserves to keep his squeaky clean reputation?

As I pointed out before, if you watched the documentary and have a problem with their honesty, then that is a conversation we can have, because I watched it, and I have come to different opinion. And that is a debate.

But please don't come over all offended when I have the temerity to point out the immense pointlessness of giving an opinion on a film you haven't seen and shaming people you haven't listened to.

Only joking! 

Does that help?

You're not doing yourself any favours with that rant.

[Capt Pat]

Going back to the 23 million dollar settlement with Jordan Chandler. In my opinion you don't make these sort of settlements unless you are guilty.

Jacksons family have come out and said that Safechuck and Robson are perjurers because they defended Jackson at the time of the Chandler lawsuit. That may be the case but it was their lies that were defending Jackson. They now appear to be telling the truth.

[Milltown Row2]

Going back to the 23 million dollar settlement with Jordan Chandler. In my opinion you don't make these sort of settlements unless you are guilty.

Jacksons family have come out and said that Safechuck and Robson are perjurers because they defended Jackson at the time of the Chandler lawsuit. That may be the case but it was their lies that were defending Jackson. They now appear to be telling the truth.

Which is it? They lied back at the trial or lied on tv? Did the parents hand back the house?

The lad admitted on tv that he cried at Jackson's funeral but not his fathers, sounds as if there has been a lot of crap going on while staying at Neverland, I don't doubt Jackson was into kids. but he'd grown up by the time the chandler case was going on, he hadn't heard from Jackson who'd dropped him for few years leading up to the trial, but still defended him!