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.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2009/08/13/michael/
Quote from: Main Street on March 08, 2019, 11:52:08 AM
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.
Do you think so?
The paedophilia allegations have been around for more than 25 years (I remember being at a U2 gig at the RDS in '93 around the time they first came out and Bono saying "Michael Jackson, I don't believe you're bad"). He was tried and acquitted less than 15 years ago for the same.
At the same time, the allegations and suspicions were notably absent during the hysteria at the time of his death, at least here in the states, and have been since with regard his huge legacy. I watched the Netflix documentary on Quincy Jones (what a life he's led!) a few months back, and while they obviously delve into his major role in Jackson's solo career, I don't recall any mention of Jackson's personal life or conduct (I could be wrong).
I think people basically just wanted to ignore it and just remember the artistic genius. Until now, at least. The Me Too movement has brought the reckoning for another offender.
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.
Quote from: Main Street on March 08, 2019, 11:52:08 AM
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.
Do you agree with banning his music?
Quote from: tyrone08 on March 08, 2019, 01:06:47 PM
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 would have to think that there are easier ways to make money than baring your soul on a documentary and exposing yourself to the worst type of online vitriol and hate from legions of single diamante glove wielding weirdoes. In fact, given the baffling vitality of his fan base, a book entitled "MJ - Cool Guy - Defo Not A Paedophile" would be a much simpler way of cashing in?
Perhaps before saying
The whole the stinks of a money grab ploy to be honest you might rectify this
Havent seen the documentary ?
Good man.
Quote from: tyrone08 on March 08, 2019, 01:06:47 PM
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.
Have a look at the documentary! See what you think. You might have the same opinion. You might not have the same opinion.
You have to believe them.
Jackson was an absolute weirdo. Weirdo's should always be treated with suspicion. He was a grown man who lived in a f**king children's theme party. I wouldn't leave my children alone with him anyway.
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.
Quote from: Dolph1 on March 08, 2019, 01:12:33 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 08, 2019, 11:52:08 AM
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.
Do you agree with banning his music?
I have no opinion on banning his music. I believe the stripping of Jackson from the public arena will occur one way or another.
If a radio station does not ban his music, I believe individual presenters will not play his music.
Do you agree with pedophiles being honoured?
Quote from: MoChara on March 08, 2019, 01:31:20 PM
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.
I've not seen it either but did see the documentary maker on tv the other night and didn't like him. Jacko always seemed a little suspect to me and it wouldn't surprise me if some/all of the allegations were true but this guy I thought came across as him thinking everything he said was fact despite presenting only one side of a story.
Should Jackos music be banned? Not for me and even if it were proven he was a paedophile I'd still say the same I think.
The Simpsons, the longest running sitcom in the USA and probably the most popular series ever created, has decided to drop its Jackson episode. The stripping of Jackson from popular culture has begun in earnest.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/mar/08/michael-jackson-simpsons-episode-pulled-by-producers
There is a difference between banning music and simply not wanting to play it. I'm sure there are plenty of DJs who (like me) couldn't stomach playing "Man in the Mirror" after hearing those revelations. I'm sure there are some who could. That is not a ban.
And it is not actually radio play where we will see this - the Spotify charts will show far more accurately whether people are streaming him still or not. Either way, it is perfectly democratic and a pure expression of both the principle of free speech and the effectiveness of markets (for our right wing friends) if people make that choice.
Quote from: Main Street on March 08, 2019, 01:47:35 PM
The Simpsons, the longest running sitcom in the USA and probably the most popular series ever created, has decided to drop its Jackson episode. The stripping of Jackson from popular culture has begun in earnest.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/mar/08/michael-jackson-simpsons-episode-pulled-by-producers
Interesting quote there from one of the creators - they don't support bans, but it is their book and they are entitled to drop a chapter if they like.
Michael Jackson wax figure was removed from Copenhagen's Roedovre Centrum mall on feb 11.
....replaced by Brad Pitt :)
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2019/02/11/michael-jackson-wax-figure-removed-danish-mall/2839523002/ (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2019/02/11/michael-jackson-wax-figure-removed-danish-mall/2839523002/)
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 08, 2019, 01:48:27 PM
There is a difference between banning music and simply not wanting to play it. I'm sure there are plenty of DJs who (like me) couldn't stomach playing "Man in the Mirror" after hearing those revelations. I'm sure there are some who could. That is not a ban.
And it is not actually radio play where we will see this - the Spotify charts will show far more accurately whether people are streaming him still or not. Either way, it is perfectly democratic and a pure expression of both the principle of free speech and the effectiveness of markets (for our right wing friends) if people make that choice.
Gary Glitter has nearly a 130,000 monthly listens on Spotify. I was surprised they still carried him.
Watched Part 1 and wasnt convinced, but after Part 2 was more convinced when ye heard about the boys tellin their families and the fall out etc;
so leavin aside the obvious fact that he was a weirdo, i side with the boys with the frustratin thing being youll never know for sure;
With Saville it was hundreds who came out, here its 2 plus one or two more from before, i think if the other boys eg Macauley who have said he never touched came out then ye would have more certainty.
But yep. Paedo for me. I think..
Quote from: Main Street on March 08, 2019, 11:52:08 AM
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 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.
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..
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".
Try believing actual facts and evidence rather than reality tv.
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.
Tell me this does the "documentary" answer why they supported him was he was alive and didnt sue him them?
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 08, 2019, 01:13:04 PM
Quote from: tyrone08 on March 08, 2019, 01:06:47 PM
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 would have to think that there are easier ways to make money than baring your soul on a documentary and exposing yourself to the worst type of online vitriol and hate from legions of single diamante glove wielding weirdoes. In fact, given the baffling vitality of his fan base, a book entitled "MJ - Cool Guy - Defo Not A Paedophile" would be a much simpler way of cashing in?
Perhaps before saying The whole the stinks of a money grab ploy to be honest you might rectify this Havent seen the documentary ?
Good man.
If Jacko was a pedo then the kids should sue their parents as well for putting them in danager. Who in their right mind would let their own kid stay over at a mans house who they barely knew.
Quote from: J70 on March 08, 2019, 01:06:13 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 08, 2019, 11:52:08 AM
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.
Do you think so?
Yes and it has already started
QuoteThe paedophilia allegations have been around for more than 25 years (I remember being at a U2 gig at the RDS in '93 around the time they first came out and Bono saying "Michael Jackson, I don't believe you're bad"). He was tried and acquitted less than 15 years ago for the same.
That court judgement did not cleanse Jackson from the stain of persistent pedophilia allegations, nor did it cleanse him from the almost classic profile of a pedophile. The admitted facts from Jackson's life screamed pedophile. Popular acclaim / talent certainly masked it
It was just a matter of time before the remnants of the facade that protected him would be smashed.
QuoteAt the same time, the allegations and suspicions were notably absent during the hysteria at the time of his death, at least here in the states, and have been since with regard his huge legacy. I watched the Netflix documentary on Quincy Jones (what a life he's led!) a few months back, and while they obviously delve into his major role in Jackson's solo career, I don't recall any mention of Jackson's personal life or conduct (I could be wrong).
That great reflector of public educated debate, the GAA discussion board, held a robust debate on the pedophile allegations after his death was reported http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=12807.0 (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=12807.0)
I'd assume there some level of debate elsewhere, and mention of pedophilia allegations in news reports of his death.
QuoteI think people basically just wanted to ignore it and just remember the artistic genius. Until now, at least. The Me Too movement has brought the reckoning for another offender.
That's not an educated perception of what has happened in this case.
The Jackson pedophile allegations have always hung like a cloud and it is low level sarcasm to say the Mee Too movement has claimed another victim, never mind putting Jackson the pedophile as a victim in all this.
Have you watched the program? I'd hazard a guess that HBO legal team scrutinised every line of it.
The Documentary showed how young children can be groomed for sex. How their families can be fooled into a false sense of security. How the child can be fooled in to maintaining a lie. A young mind is very impressionable. Although they may know what has happened can be wrong, they can often believe they were part of the wrong doing. This in turn causes them to lie about it for fear of the repercussions of these event(s) getting out into the public domain.
There will be more allegations to come out of the woodwork. This will depending on the allegations to be truthful and if there is compensation from his estate.
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.
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.
Quote from: Main Street on March 08, 2019, 01:36:36 PM
Quote from: Dolph1 on March 08, 2019, 01:12:33 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 08, 2019, 11:52:08 AM
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.
Do you agree with banning his music?
I have no opinion on banning his music. I believe the stripping of Jackson from the public arena will occur one way or another.
If a radio station does not ban his music, I believe individual presenters will not play his music.
Do you agree with pedophiles being honoured?
Even though the evidence seems overwhelming he was never convicted. This point is very important. We are watching mass hysteria based on a TV documentary.
This is not new news. Robson's story has been out since 2013. It's just been repackaged for the outrage generation.
Funny that the same people who are going apoplectic about Jackson are the same ones who dismiss third term abortion and post birth infanticide as normal.
Is this the start of banning celebrities who have been convicted of any crimes and purging their work from the archives?
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 08, 2019, 02:33:38 PM
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/
Quote from: Main Street on March 08, 2019, 11:52:08 AM
Every public image of Jackson will be removed.
Some task to achieve that...
Here is the official response from MJ's estate:
https://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress....ing-neverland/ (//https:///)
Watched the documentary last night, it is just the 2 lads telling their story, more of an interview than a documentary. Unless new evidence is found somewhere it is hard to see how they would ever win a case in court. You can see from the details in the estates response that the 2 lads credibility would be ripped to shreds quite easily.
Quote from: Falcao on March 08, 2019, 03:04:19 PM
Here is the official response from MJ's estate:
https://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress....ing-neverland/ (//https:///)
Watched the documentary last night, it is just the 2 lads telling their story, more of an interview than a documentary. Unless new evidence is found somewhere it is hard to see how they would ever win a case in court. You can see from the details in the estates response that the 2 lads credibility would be ripped to shreds quite easily.
After reading the forbes story i am not even going to bother watching the documentary now. Its a bad sign of the times when alleged allegations by 2 people can get you stripped from history.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 08, 2019, 02:08:27 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 08, 2019, 11:52:08 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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?
QuotePersonally 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?
Quote from: tyrone08 on March 08, 2019, 02:49:57 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 08, 2019, 02:33:38 PM
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.
Quote from: tyrone08 on March 08, 2019, 01:06:47 PM
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.
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?
A few have used the "not around to defend himself" defence. Plenty used that line about Saville. Just saying
Quote from: tyrone08 on March 08, 2019, 02:43:04 PM
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.
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.
July 3 2009
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/michael-jackson-bad-and-very-dangerous-1731258.html (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 (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"
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2019, 03:57:00 PM
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.
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 08, 2019, 04:14:55 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2019, 03:57:00 PM
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.
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 08, 2019, 01:37:13 PM
Quote from: MoChara on March 08, 2019, 01:31:20 PM
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.
Quote from: MoChara on March 08, 2019, 04:26:19 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 08, 2019, 01:37:13 PM
Quote from: MoChara on March 08, 2019, 01:31:20 PM
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! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Does that help?
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 08, 2019, 05:01:32 PM
Quote from: MoChara on March 08, 2019, 04:26:19 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 08, 2019, 01:37:13 PM
Quote from: MoChara on March 08, 2019, 01:31:20 PM
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! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Does that help?
You're not doing yourself any favours with that rant.
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.
Quote from: Capt Pat on March 08, 2019, 05:17:41 PM
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!
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 08, 2019, 05:01:32 PM
Quote from: MoChara on March 08, 2019, 04:26:19 PM
Quote from: easytiger95 on March 08, 2019, 01:37:13 PM
Quote from: MoChara on March 08, 2019, 01:31:20 PM
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! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Does that help?
Pretty sure an anonymous poster saying what they heard is as verifiable as saying it themselves for the little authority it carries. I do intend watching it and I'll comment again afterwards , how's that lol
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 08, 2019, 07:25:08 PM
Quote from: Capt Pat on March 08, 2019, 05:17:41 PM
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!
They lied at the trial defending Jackson. They perjured themselves to defend Jackson.
The two protagonists and the director sat on Oprah's stage after the US tv premier to face the scrutiny of Oprah and an audience of experts on child sexual abuse.
It's the first time I have watched an Oprah interview or show and I have to say, considering her being a 'lay person', she is wonderfully expressive and knowledgeable on the issue of the abuse of children. She can hold her own in any company on that subject.
There is no higher court of scrutiny in my opinion than to face such an audience and interviewer and the two lads fared exceptionally well.
And for those folks who harp on about the court case (2005?) where Whacko was exonerated of sex abuse related charges, the main witnesses were a 14 and 15 year old kid and were left to face an onslaught from the dream defense team and reduced to mumbling responses to cross examination of discrepancies in minute of testimony.
Who would I trust more, a jury of educated knowledgeable childhood sex abuse experts or a jury of 12 citizens?
Quote from: Main Street on March 08, 2019, 09:58:41 PM
The two protagonists and the director sat on Oprah's stage after the US tv premier to face the scrutiny of Oprah and an audience of experts on child sexual abuse.
It's the first time I have watched an Oprah interview or show and I have to say, considering her being a 'lay person', she is wonderfully expressive and knowledgeable on the issue of the abuse of children. She can hold her own in any company on that subject.
There is no higher court of scrutiny in my opinion than to face such an audience and interviewer and the two lads fared exceptionally well.
And for those folks who harp on about the court case (2005?) where Whacko was exonerated of sex abuse related charges, the main witnesses were a 14 and 15 year old kid and were left to face an onslaught from the dream defense team and reduced to mumbling responses to cross examination of discrepancies in minute of testimony.
Who would I trust more, a jury of educated knowledgeable childhood sex abuse experts or a jury of 12 citizens?
Oprah I think suffered abuse as a child so she'd know a thing or two about it. So I'd hold her judgment as high regard..
But the 12 citizens all didn't agree, thought I seen one juror say he thought it was child abuse. But unfortunately they need believable evidence and the two guys could have provided first hand evidence. Which could have kept Jackson alive now!
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 08, 2019, 10:22:54 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 08, 2019, 09:58:41 PM
The two protagonists and the director sat on Oprah's stage after the US tv premier to face the scrutiny of Oprah and an audience of experts on child sexual abuse.
It's the first time I have watched an Oprah interview or show and I have to say, considering her being a 'lay person', she is wonderfully expressive and knowledgeable on the issue of the abuse of children. She can hold her own in any company on that subject.
There is no higher court of scrutiny in my opinion than to face such an audience and interviewer and the two lads fared exceptionally well.
And for those folks who harp on about the court case (2005?) where Whacko was exonerated of sex abuse related charges, the main witnesses were a 14 and 15 year old kid and were left to face an onslaught from the dream defense team and reduced to mumbling responses to cross examination of discrepancies in minute of testimony.
Who would I trust more, a jury of educated knowledgeable childhood sex abuse experts or a jury of 12 citizens?
Oprah I think suffered abuse as a child so she'd know a thing or two about it. So I'd hold her judgment as high regard..
But the 12 citizens all didn't agree, thought I seen one juror say he thought it was child abuse. But unfortunately they need believable evidence and the two guys could have provided first hand evidence. Which could have kept Jackson alive now!
The court case is one episode in a long saga. The charges didn't pass muster in court for a variety of reasons, however that does not have that much value in the scheme of things whether Jackson was a pedophile or not.
As is sometimes said, a lie is a sprint, the truth is a marathon.
Taking the whole Jackson saga vis a vis these boys and comparing it to most every child abuse story, the story that those two men told fits the life long profile of a child abuse victim to a tee and the grooming by a pedophile.
Oprah highlighted the question of disconnect, that they both only began to connect to their own childhood when they had their own children. One of the lads had said that rearing his son became a bridge to his own childhood experience.
As Oprah eloquently elucidated, the court's focus is on the actual sex act (was there penetration?) not on the real abuse - what happens afterwards. That the abuse of a child is most often not the sex itself (which can even be pleasurable) it's the lingering secret and the lie to be lived. When a child right through to adulthood holds a secret, their whole childhood becomes a living lie, all the decisions made were made from that space of a lie and that's why they both had that disconnection experience. Both these lads didn't connect with the abuse or that it was even abuse, because in their eyes their whole childhood was a lie. This is the guilt. The lady spoke exceptionally well and informed on the important aspects of the documentary in a way the layperson could understand.
She said, with many abused it is to hear an account of the grooming process which is the light bulb moment where they see it was not my fault.
In Germany the average age of disclosure is 52
There is no fixed patter to how it is disclosed -- taken from
'What Does the Research Tell Us About the Ways That Children Tell'?"some professionals have gone as far as suggesting that children who readily disclose abuse should be considered suspect. Rather, only those children who initially deny abuse, then make a sexual abuse allegation, then recant it, and later re-disclose, should be considered reliable cases of sexual abuse."
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/59ea/f55682807261d1c1b053797074953f9175ab.pdf (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/59ea/f55682807261d1c1b053797074953f9175ab.pdf)
One interesting reason for lying in the trial given by Robson when he was in his 20s is that he felt his career would be damaged by admitting it. It's not hard to imagine how that thought would come into someone's head, especially if they worked in the same music industry that held Jackson in such high regard. Morally questionable - undoubtedly. Understandable - yes.
Quote from: Rois on March 09, 2019, 03:39:56 PM
One interesting reason for lying in the trial given by Robson when he was in his 20s is that he felt his career would be damaged by admitting it. It's not hard to imagine how that thought would come into someone's head, especially if they worked in the same music industry that held Jackson in such high regard. Morally questionable - undoubtedly. Understandable - yes.
A but like the women that did the business with Harvey Weinstein
Quote from: Rois on March 09, 2019, 03:39:56 PM
One interesting reason for lying in the trial given by Robson when he was in his 20s is that he felt his career would be damaged by admitting it. It's not hard to imagine how that thought would come into someone's head, especially if they worked in the same music industry that held Jackson in such high regard. Morally questionable - undoubtedly. Understandable - yes.
I'm in agreement, what erks me is they have kept things belonging to him, houses benefits jewellery, ask for vip tickets to his flipping funeral! Wtf
Quote from: tyrone08 on March 08, 2019, 02:19:36 PM
If Jacko was a pedo then the kids should sue their parents as well for putting them in danager. Who in their right mind would let their own kid stay over at a mans house who they barely knew.
Many parents did that with priests here. Now it's weird. Then it wasn't.
Quote from: Dolph1 on March 08, 2019, 02:43:11 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 08, 2019, 01:36:36 PM
Quote from: Dolph1 on March 08, 2019, 01:12:33 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 08, 2019, 11:52:08 AM
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.
Do you agree with banning his music?
I have no opinion on banning his music. I believe the stripping of Jackson from the public arena will occur one way or another.
If a radio station does not ban his music, I believe individual presenters will not play his music.
Do you agree with pedophiles being honoured?
Even though the evidence seems overwhelming he was never convicted. This point is very important. We are watching mass hysteria based on a TV documentary.
This is not new news. Robson's story has been out since 2013. It's just been repackaged for the outrage generation.
Funny that the same people who are going apoplectic about Jackson are the same ones who dismiss third term abortion and post birth infanticide as normal.
Is this the start of banning celebrities who have been convicted of any crimes and purging their work from the archives?
Yep, I certainly agree with that.
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2019, 03:57:00 PM
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?
Yes, and since they've now said they lied under oath, is that not a crime? Should these two boys not be prosecuted for that?
Quote from: Saffrongael on March 09, 2019, 04:25:39 PM
Quote from: Rois on March 09, 2019, 03:39:56 PM
One interesting reason for lying in the trial given by Robson when he was in his 20s is that he felt his career would be damaged by admitting it. It's not hard to imagine how that thought would come into someone's head, especially if they worked in the same music industry that held Jackson in such high regard. Morally questionable - undoubtedly. Understandable - yes.
A but like the women that did the business with Harvey Weinstein
A bit like the women who relented and let the fat f**k have his way when he threatened them that he'd destroy their careers you mean
Quote from: BennyCake on March 10, 2019, 11:21:09 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on March 08, 2019, 03:57:00 PM
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?
Yes, and since they've now said they lied under oath, is that not a crime? Should these two boys not be prosecuted for that?
From another thread, Stockholm syndrome.
If Jackson is going to be taken off the airwaves, where is the line going to be?
Phil Spector is going to spend most of the rest of his life in prison for murder, assuming he lives to a very good age.
We listen to his xmas album every year. Still love all those 60s hits he masterminded for the Ronettes, Crystals, Darlene Love, Righteous Brothers etc. The Beatles/Lennon stuff too.
Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin.
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2019, 12:28:09 PM
If Jackson is going to be taken off the airwaves, where is the line going to be?
Phil Spector is going to spend most of the rest of his life in prison for murder, assuming he lives to a very good age.
We listen to his xmas album every year. Still love all those 60s hits he masterminded for the Ronettes, Crystals, Darlene Love, Righteous Brothers etc. The Beatles/Lennon stuff too.
Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin.
On that very topic https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/michael-jackson-music-bans-show-double-standards-of-cultural-elitists-1.3820729?mode=amp
I wasn't aware of the John Peel stuff..
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2019, 12:28:09 PM
If Jackson is going to be taken off the airwaves, where is the line going to be?
Going by the MJ standard If you are potentially guilty of a crime that could mean your music gets pulled.
While I would not be in favour of such censorship I would not be too sad if this meant the near shutdown of the Rap & RnB industry.
or should it be depending of your category of crime of if you were convicted. Is violent assault of women ok like Chris Brown? Or murder like Snoop Dogg?
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2019, 12:28:09 PM
If Jackson is going to be taken off the airwaves, where is the line going to be?
Phil Spector is going to spend most of the rest of his life in prison for murder, assuming he lives to a very good age.
We listen to his xmas album every year. Still love all those 60s hits he masterminded for the Ronettes, Crystals, Darlene Love, Righteous Brothers etc. The Beatles/Lennon stuff too.
Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin.
JLL got hammered for that marriage, his music career was stunted for years, but compared to Jackson's pedophilia, that relationship was puritanical.
People make their own choices re listening to Jackson's music. I'm not familiar with his music. There are some people who just cannot watch a Woody Allen film. I have watched Woody Allen movies, I might watch some again but I'd agree that he should not be honoured such are the known facts and clouds around him.
My contention would be that Jackson should not be honoured, statutes in a mall, waxed images, that type of stuff.
Given the documentary was so one-sided, I think everyone who watched it should also read this, to get another side of the story:
https://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress.com/2019/02/09/michael-jackson-estate-letter-of-facts-debunking-leaving-neverland/
On balance, I think I still believe the guys. It is a pity the documentary made no effort to be balanced. Robson and Safechuck definitely have credibility issues, especially Robson. But just because they have credibility issues doesn't mean they are now lying.
Quote from: Dolph1 on March 11, 2019, 02:55:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2019, 12:28:09 PM
If Jackson is going to be taken off the airwaves, where is the line going to be?
Going by the MJ standard If you are potentially guilty of a crime that could mean your music gets pulled.
While I would not be in favour of such censorship I would not be too sad if this meant the near shutdown of the Rap & RnB industry.
or should it be depending of your category of crime of if you were convicted. Is violent assault of women ok like Chris Brown? Or murder like Snoop Dogg?
What has the Rap and RnB industry done to you that you think it should be shut down??
Quote from: screenexile on March 11, 2019, 03:59:15 PM
Quote from: Dolph1 on March 11, 2019, 02:55:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2019, 12:28:09 PM
If Jackson is going to be taken off the airwaves, where is the line going to be?
Going by the MJ standard If you are potentially guilty of a crime that could mean your music gets pulled.
While I would not be in favour of such censorship I would not be too sad if this meant the near shutdown of the Rap & RnB industry.
or should it be depending of your category of crime of if you were convicted. Is violent assault of women ok like Chris Brown? Or murder like Snoop Dogg?
What has the Rap and RnB industry done to you that you think it should be shut down??
It's not music. It's noise. Still don't know why the #metoo movement hasn't gone after it if it really wanted to make its point.
Quote from: Dolph1 on March 11, 2019, 04:23:50 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 11, 2019, 03:59:15 PM
Quote from: Dolph1 on March 11, 2019, 02:55:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2019, 12:28:09 PM
If Jackson is going to be taken off the airwaves, where is the line going to be?
Going by the MJ standard If you are potentially guilty of a crime that could mean your music gets pulled.
While I would not be in favour of such censorship I would not be too sad if this meant the near shutdown of the Rap & RnB industry.
or should it be depending of your category of crime of if you were convicted. Is violent assault of women ok like Chris Brown? Or murder like Snoop Dogg?
What has the Rap and RnB industry done to you that you think it should be shut down??
It's not music. It's noise. Still don't know why the #metoo movement hasn't gone after it if it really wanted to make its point.
Interesting. . . just because you don't like it they should shut it down??
Plenty of good RnB music around!! Irish Country music now there's something they should shut down!!
Quote from: screenexile on March 11, 2019, 04:27:30 PM
Quote from: Dolph1 on March 11, 2019, 04:23:50 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 11, 2019, 03:59:15 PM
Quote from: Dolph1 on March 11, 2019, 02:55:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2019, 12:28:09 PM
If Jackson is going to be taken off the airwaves, where is the line going to be?
Going by the MJ standard If you are potentially guilty of a crime that could mean your music gets pulled.
While I would not be in favour of such censorship I would not be too sad if this meant the near shutdown of the Rap & RnB industry.
or should it be depending of your category of crime of if you were convicted. Is violent assault of women ok like Chris Brown? Or murder like Snoop Dogg?
What has the Rap and RnB industry done to you that you think it should be shut down??
It's not music. It's noise. Still don't know why the #metoo movement hasn't gone after it if it really wanted to make its point.
Interesting. . . just because you don't like it they should shut it down??
Plenty of good RnB music around!! Irish Country music now there's something they should shut down!!
In your haste to virtue signal you didn't read what I actually said. I don't agree with censorship but if they did there would be a silver lining.
Lil' Pump and Drake are no match for TR Dallas and Big Tom (RIP).
Quote from: Dolph1 on March 11, 2019, 04:51:18 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 11, 2019, 04:27:30 PM
Quote from: Dolph1 on March 11, 2019, 04:23:50 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 11, 2019, 03:59:15 PM
Quote from: Dolph1 on March 11, 2019, 02:55:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2019, 12:28:09 PM
If Jackson is going to be taken off the airwaves, where is the line going to be?
Going by the MJ standard If you are potentially guilty of a crime that could mean your music gets pulled.
While I would not be in favour of such censorship I would not be too sad if this meant the near shutdown of the Rap & RnB industry.
or should it be depending of your category of crime of if you were convicted. Is violent assault of women ok like Chris Brown? Or murder like Snoop Dogg?
What has the Rap and RnB industry done to you that you think it should be shut down??
It's not music. It's noise. Still don't know why the #metoo movement hasn't gone after it if it really wanted to make its point.
Interesting. . . just because you don't like it they should shut it down??
Plenty of good RnB music around!! Irish Country music now there's something they should shut down!!
In your haste to virtue signal you didn't read what I actually said. I don't agree with censorship but if they did there would be a silver lining.
Lil' Pump and Drake are no match for TR Dallas and Big Tom (RIP).
I asked a question I'm not quite sure how you can call it virtue signalling!!
They're no match for the Beastie Boys and Dr. Dre but hey different strokes for different folks!
PS. You forgot Philomena and Uncle Hugo!
Quote from: Hound on March 11, 2019, 03:43:33 PM
Given the documentary was so one-sided, I think everyone who watched it should also read this, to get another side of the story:
https://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress.com/2019/02/09/michael-jackson-estate-letter-of-facts-debunking-leaving-neverland/
On balance, I think I still believe the guys. It is a pity the documentary made no effort to be balanced. Robson and Safechuck definitely have credibility issues, especially Robson. But just because they have credibility issues doesn't mean they are now lying.
The documentary was not and never intended to be about balance. It's a documentary about the story of the two men and their families, their story, their words. The facts of the story up to Jackson's bedroom door are undisputed, nobody else but the boys and Jackson were a witness to what happened behind that door. Jackson is dead. This is the testimony of the boys.
Nobody else can speak of what happened to the boys behind the door.
That Michael Jackson estate link you posted is quite frankly a poorly presented juvenile document, contains inaccuracies, uses inflamed language and attacks points which have no relevance to the documentary.
eg "
all (their lawsuits) of which have now been dismissed with prejudice"However it is not mention why the lawsuit of 2013 was dismissed, the dismissal had nothing to do with the merits of the evidence.
Interestingly enough, Bill Dworwin who has investigated 4,000 sex exploitation cases was the lead investigator in 2003, he was convinced of the veracity of the boy Chandler's account, he was also a witness to the set up in Jackson's house and made some interesting observations in the 2nd half of this article.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3080078/ns/dateline_nbc-newsmakers/t/new-look-dark-accusations/#.XIZxdi10eqm (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3080078/ns/dateline_nbc-newsmakers/t/new-look-dark-accusations/#.XIZxdi10eqm)
If this were the lair of a priest, bishop, teacher or sports coach, Chandler's evidence alone would have been enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quote from: screenexile on March 11, 2019, 04:55:38 PM
Quote from: Dolph1 on March 11, 2019, 04:51:18 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 11, 2019, 04:27:30 PM
Quote from: Dolph1 on March 11, 2019, 04:23:50 PM
Quote from: screenexile on March 11, 2019, 03:59:15 PM
Quote from: Dolph1 on March 11, 2019, 02:55:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 11, 2019, 12:28:09 PM
If Jackson is going to be taken off the airwaves, where is the line going to be?
Going by the MJ standard If you are potentially guilty of a crime that could mean your music gets pulled.
While I would not be in favour of such censorship I would not be too sad if this meant the near shutdown of the Rap & RnB industry.
or should it be depending of your category of crime of if you were convicted. Is violent assault of women ok like Chris Brown? Or murder like Snoop Dogg?
What has the Rap and RnB industry done to you that you think it should be shut down??
It's not music. It's noise. Still don't know why the #metoo movement hasn't gone after it if it really wanted to make its point.
Interesting. . . just because you don't like it they should shut it down??
Plenty of good RnB music around!! Irish Country music now there's something they should shut down!!
In your haste to virtue signal you didn't read what I actually said. I don't agree with censorship but if they did there would be a silver lining.
Lil' Pump and Drake are no match for TR Dallas and Big Tom (RIP).
I asked a question I'm not quite sure how you can call it virtue signalling!!
They're no match for the Beastie Boys and Dr. Dre but hey different strokes for different folks!
PS. You forgot Philomena and Uncle Hugo!
Hugo Duncan has had more chart success than the beastie boys one career hit. I still find it bizarre that folks can listen to music which preaches hatred like "Dr" Dre. Different strokes indeed.
Quote from: Main Street on March 11, 2019, 05:55:15 PM
Quote from: Hound on March 11, 2019, 03:43:33 PM
Given the documentary was so one-sided, I think everyone who watched it should also read this, to get another side of the story:
https://mjjjusticeproject.wordpress.com/2019/02/09/michael-jackson-estate-letter-of-facts-debunking-leaving-neverland/
On balance, I think I still believe the guys. It is a pity the documentary made no effort to be balanced. Robson and Safechuck definitely have credibility issues, especially Robson. But just because they have credibility issues doesn't mean they are now lying.
The documentary was not and never intended to be about balance. It's a documentary about the story of the two men and their families, their story, their words. The facts of the story up to Jackson's bedroom door are undisputed, nobody else but the boys and Jackson were a witness to what happened behind that door. Jackson is dead. This is the testimony of the boys.
Nobody else can speak of what happened to the boys behind the door.
That Michael Jackson estate link you posted is quite frankly a poorly presented juvenile document, contains inaccuracies, uses inflamed language and attacks points which have no relevance to the documentary.
eg "all (their lawsuits) of which have now been dismissed with prejudice"
However it is not mention why the lawsuit of 2013 was dismissed, the dismissal had nothing to do with the merits of the evidence.
Agreed, the documentary wasn't supposed to be balanced, I just said I would have preferred if it was.
Just as the documentary was a must-see, the article is a must read. Both are biased, but at least you get two sides of the story. And the fact of the matter is Robson in particular only turned on Jackson when his career started to go down the swanny. Doesn't mean he's lying, but does mean he deserves extra scrutiny before believing him.
I would have liked a documentary that gave more insight into the two lads who replaced Robson and Safechuck. Brett Barnes and Macauley Culkin. Given that Robson and Safechuck accounts were so similar regarding how Jackson groomed them and they were at completely different times, so I think it is very interesting to hear that Barnes and Culkin both admitted to regularly sharing a bed with Jackson, but are adamant that there was no sexual contact. I'd really like to hear their stories more developed. I find it almost impossible to believe that Jackson treated the four of them differently. I'd be inclined to believe that either Robson and Safechuck are lying or Barnes and Culkin are.
The many Jackson estate documents lack the support of educated input from a recognized and respected sex abuse expert, they amount to scatty accusatory bluster without a base in science re the psychology of child abuse.
Every knowledgeable sex abuse practitioner who has commented, finds the erratic and conflicting actions of those two men over the last 20 years, not only not conflicting with their current testimony but supporting it.
The account of the grooming of Robson and Safechuck are very similar to the accounts of the grooming of Gavin Arvizo and Chandler.
A maid's son Jason Francia was abused by Jackson in 1993, paid off with $2m, yet testified in 2005 and stood up well under persistent cross examination - from the lawyer who defended Crosby and Tyson :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SQXcPNt9NQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SQXcPNt9NQ)
Neverland is on sale now and they can't find a buyer, even changed the name to Sycamore Valley Ranch and reduced the price from $100m to $30m.
I think it is obvious now in relation to the kids Jackson did hang out with that he apparently didn't molest that he was grooming them and seeing what he could get away with. Just because he didn't molest them doesn't mean he didn't want to.
Quote from: Capt Pat on March 12, 2019, 12:29:26 AM
I think it is obvious now in relation to the kids Jackson did hang out with that he apparently didn't molest that he was grooming them and seeing what he could get away with. Just because he didn't molest them doesn't mean he didn't want to.
That might be right, but to say it's "obvious", given Barnes and Culkin are adamant nothing happened, is quite the stretch!
Also Robson and Safechuck both stated sexual abuse started within a few days of the start of the shared sleeping arrangements.