Leaving Neverland - a documentary on sexual abuse

[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.

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?

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

[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.

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.

[Main Street]

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?

[Milltown Row2]

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!

[Main Street]

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

[Rois]

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. 

[Saffrongael]

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

[Milltown Row2]

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

[BennyCake]

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.

[BennyCake]

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.

[BennyCake]

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?

[johnnycool]

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

[Main Street]

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.

[J70]

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.

[Boycey]

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..