Leaving Neverland

123578

Comments

  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,562
    njnancy said:
    igotid88 said:
    What about Jackson 5 music or to a lesser extent Rockwell's Somebody's Watching Me?
    I love the Jackson 5. I see them as a separate entity. 

    Music didn't molest kids, a person did. 


    So you can still wear a Michael Jackson dangerous tour tshirt then when you go out and about?
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • F Me In The Brain
    F Me In The Brain this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,876
    I would laugh if I saw that!
    The love he receives is the love that is saved
  • Meltdown99
    Meltdown99 None Of Your Business... Posts: 10,739
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    Meltdown99 said:
    Me and my buddies new something were odd with him in the 80's really, really odd. 
    Please elaborate. 
    Well for starters buying a ranch and naming it neverland should have been some people's clue that this fucking freak was odd.  Sorry Adults don't buy ranches and then start gearing them towards children (especially others children)...unless...The guy was freak, I hope now that this documentary is out and people come forward and sue and bankrupt the Jackson estate.  I am especially glad some in the radio community is showing decency and removing him from the rotation.
    Give Peas A Chance…
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,562
    edited March 2019
    Watching now. 

    Hard to not trust the two guys.

    Weird seeing the photos of Michael with the families and stuff. He's so iconic it looks like it's photoshopped. 

    It's also a journey of Michaels nose changing.
    Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,562
    edited March 2019
    Watched it now. 

    If something happened to Feldman and McCaulkin (be it an one time advance that was rejected and never tried again, or a series events of abuse) I could see them staying quiet with them being friends with Michael and having an image of "he didn't hurt me / it wasn't abuse etc" -- just like Wade and Jimmy felt for a long time. I can see that. 
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,562
    Burning up that thriller jacket is a bridge to far.



    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • Harrycat
    Harrycat UK Posts: 59
    It wasn't the original Thriller jacket apparently. It was a custom one given to Robson that he used to perform in.
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,759
    edited March 2019
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    oftenreading said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    That's stupid. I hate the idea of any past material being pulled from anywhere in cases like this. It's way too subjective. I think it has to be an all or nothing thing, which of course leaves nothing as the only reasonable option.
    It’s an interesting situation, because throughout history there has been a lot of great art created by a lot of questionable people. Do we now feel we have to get rid of it all? And if not all, how far back? Just from our century? Just artists who are still alive? Everyone?? Picasso, Gaugin, Caravaggio? Norman Mailer, Ben Johnson, William Golding - all did terrible things, and that’s not even counting more garden variety terrible behaviour like racism and anti-Semitism. 

    I tend to agree with you - only all or nothing makes sense, so it has to be nothing, society-wise. Individual people are free to make their own individual choices of course.  
    I don't crank an album by Picasso (as an example) while I do my dishes or in the car going to work.

    I would not mind there being a Michael Jackson exhibit somewhere. But there is a difference between that an putting on Billie Jean on a party (if you believe MJ did what is being said). There is a difference between being a big part of our history and culture, and being all "I love singing along to this child molester!!"
    Yeah, but the obvious question is, where does it end? I don't even want to think about how many very famous musicians have fucked around with minors or done other terrible things. Not to mention actors, directors, and many, many other historical figures that are a big part of our culture. Censoring retroactively just will not work in any case, and I don't think it's a road we should even start heading down. Besides, there is always a lot that we don't want to listen to on the radio... that's when you turn the dial. Plenty of people do still want to listen to MJ.
    FWIW, I will always play earlier MJ. It's a permanent part of my music library.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • DewieCox
    DewieCox Posts: 11,432
    edited March 2019
    I think he did the stuff and I don’t know how anybody could’ve thought he was innocent before this aired. When you’re worth $1B you don’t worry about 10s of millions of dollars to clear your name if you’re innocent.

    Jimmys mom should’ve been left out b/c to me it seemed like she didn’t care one way or the other but relished appearing in the doc. She und ermined the believability of the info presented here.

    Wade’s mom and other parents like her that ignore obvious signs of abuse should be tossed in jail. 


    I was was on the fence with the guys in the doc until the last hour and they started talking about their families and how it was affecting them as adults.
    Post edited by DewieCox on
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,562
    PJ_Soul said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    oftenreading said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    That's stupid. I hate the idea of any past material being pulled from anywhere in cases like this. It's way too subjective. I think it has to be an all or nothing thing, which of course leaves nothing as the only reasonable option.
    It’s an interesting situation, because throughout history there has been a lot of great art created by a lot of questionable people. Do we now feel we have to get rid of it all? And if not all, how far back? Just from our century? Just artists who are still alive? Everyone?? Picasso, Gaugin, Caravaggio? Norman Mailer, Ben Johnson, William Golding - all did terrible things, and that’s not even counting more garden variety terrible behaviour like racism and anti-Semitism. 

    I tend to agree with you - only all or nothing makes sense, so it has to be nothing, society-wise. Individual people are free to make their own individual choices of course.  
    I don't crank an album by Picasso (as an example) while I do my dishes or in the car going to work.

    I would not mind there being a Michael Jackson exhibit somewhere. But there is a difference between that an putting on Billie Jean on a party (if you believe MJ did what is being said). There is a difference between being a big part of our history and culture, and being all "I love singing along to this child molester!!"
    Yeah, but the obvious question is, where does it end? I don't even want to think about how many very famous musicians have fucked around with minors or done other terrible things. Not to mention actors, directors, and many, many other historical figures that are a big part of our culture. Censoring retroactively just will not work in any case, and I don't think it's a road we should even start heading down. Besides, there is always a lot that we don't want to listen to on the radio... that's when you turn the dial. Plenty of people do still want to listen to MJ.
    FWIW, I will always play earlier MJ. It's a permanent part of my music library.
    So you can wear a Michael Jackson Thriller tour of 1983 proudly then?
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,759
    edited March 2019
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    oftenreading said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    That's stupid. I hate the idea of any past material being pulled from anywhere in cases like this. It's way too subjective. I think it has to be an all or nothing thing, which of course leaves nothing as the only reasonable option.
    It’s an interesting situation, because throughout history there has been a lot of great art created by a lot of questionable people. Do we now feel we have to get rid of it all? And if not all, how far back? Just from our century? Just artists who are still alive? Everyone?? Picasso, Gaugin, Caravaggio? Norman Mailer, Ben Johnson, William Golding - all did terrible things, and that’s not even counting more garden variety terrible behaviour like racism and anti-Semitism. 

    I tend to agree with you - only all or nothing makes sense, so it has to be nothing, society-wise. Individual people are free to make their own individual choices of course.  
    I don't crank an album by Picasso (as an example) while I do my dishes or in the car going to work.

    I would not mind there being a Michael Jackson exhibit somewhere. But there is a difference between that an putting on Billie Jean on a party (if you believe MJ did what is being said). There is a difference between being a big part of our history and culture, and being all "I love singing along to this child molester!!"
    Yeah, but the obvious question is, where does it end? I don't even want to think about how many very famous musicians have fucked around with minors or done other terrible things. Not to mention actors, directors, and many, many other historical figures that are a big part of our culture. Censoring retroactively just will not work in any case, and I don't think it's a road we should even start heading down. Besides, there is always a lot that we don't want to listen to on the radio... that's when you turn the dial. Plenty of people do still want to listen to MJ.
    FWIW, I will always play earlier MJ. It's a permanent part of my music library.
    So you can wear a Michael Jackson Thriller tour of 1983 proudly then?
    Wear what? I have never in my life worn a concert t-shirt, and I'm not about to start now. I'm talking about listening to some music, that's it.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,562
    PJ_Soul said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    oftenreading said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    That's stupid. I hate the idea of any past material being pulled from anywhere in cases like this. It's way too subjective. I think it has to be an all or nothing thing, which of course leaves nothing as the only reasonable option.
    It’s an interesting situation, because throughout history there has been a lot of great art created by a lot of questionable people. Do we now feel we have to get rid of it all? And if not all, how far back? Just from our century? Just artists who are still alive? Everyone?? Picasso, Gaugin, Caravaggio? Norman Mailer, Ben Johnson, William Golding - all did terrible things, and that’s not even counting more garden variety terrible behaviour like racism and anti-Semitism. 

    I tend to agree with you - only all or nothing makes sense, so it has to be nothing, society-wise. Individual people are free to make their own individual choices of course.  
    I don't crank an album by Picasso (as an example) while I do my dishes or in the car going to work.

    I would not mind there being a Michael Jackson exhibit somewhere. But there is a difference between that an putting on Billie Jean on a party (if you believe MJ did what is being said). There is a difference between being a big part of our history and culture, and being all "I love singing along to this child molester!!"
    Yeah, but the obvious question is, where does it end? I don't even want to think about how many very famous musicians have fucked around with minors or done other terrible things. Not to mention actors, directors, and many, many other historical figures that are a big part of our culture. Censoring retroactively just will not work in any case, and I don't think it's a road we should even start heading down. Besides, there is always a lot that we don't want to listen to on the radio... that's when you turn the dial. Plenty of people do still want to listen to MJ.
    FWIW, I will always play earlier MJ. It's a permanent part of my music library.
    So you can wear a Michael Jackson Thriller tour of 1983 proudly then?
    Wear what? I have never in my life worn a concert t-shirt, and I'm not about to start now. I'm talking about listening to some music, that's it.
    Well, the question wasn't about me believing you had the mentioned t-shirt or about you wearing t-shirts or not. I don't really care about if you do in fact wear t-shirts or not. Atleast in this thread.

    Could you - in your mind - wear a Michael Jackson t-shirt right now, just like being a fan of and playing his music.
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,759
    edited March 2019
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    oftenreading said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    That's stupid. I hate the idea of any past material being pulled from anywhere in cases like this. It's way too subjective. I think it has to be an all or nothing thing, which of course leaves nothing as the only reasonable option.
    It’s an interesting situation, because throughout history there has been a lot of great art created by a lot of questionable people. Do we now feel we have to get rid of it all? And if not all, how far back? Just from our century? Just artists who are still alive? Everyone?? Picasso, Gaugin, Caravaggio? Norman Mailer, Ben Johnson, William Golding - all did terrible things, and that’s not even counting more garden variety terrible behaviour like racism and anti-Semitism. 

    I tend to agree with you - only all or nothing makes sense, so it has to be nothing, society-wise. Individual people are free to make their own individual choices of course.  
    I don't crank an album by Picasso (as an example) while I do my dishes or in the car going to work.

    I would not mind there being a Michael Jackson exhibit somewhere. But there is a difference between that an putting on Billie Jean on a party (if you believe MJ did what is being said). There is a difference between being a big part of our history and culture, and being all "I love singing along to this child molester!!"
    Yeah, but the obvious question is, where does it end? I don't even want to think about how many very famous musicians have fucked around with minors or done other terrible things. Not to mention actors, directors, and many, many other historical figures that are a big part of our culture. Censoring retroactively just will not work in any case, and I don't think it's a road we should even start heading down. Besides, there is always a lot that we don't want to listen to on the radio... that's when you turn the dial. Plenty of people do still want to listen to MJ.
    FWIW, I will always play earlier MJ. It's a permanent part of my music library.
    So you can wear a Michael Jackson Thriller tour of 1983 proudly then?
    Wear what? I have never in my life worn a concert t-shirt, and I'm not about to start now. I'm talking about listening to some music, that's it.
    Well, the question wasn't about me believing you had the mentioned t-shirt or about you wearing t-shirts or not. I don't really care about if you do in fact wear t-shirts or not. Atleast in this thread.

    Could you - in your mind - wear a Michael Jackson t-shirt right now, just like being a fan of and playing his music.
    No, and I wouldn't have since the first time he was accused of anything. But for me that is not at all like playing his music. Wearing a t-shirt isn't art. I'm no more willing to go around wearing an MJ shirt than I am to go around wearing a Woody Allan sandwich board, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to stop and watch a bit of Annie Hall when I see it's on TV. And I'm not going to don a Louis CK baseball cap or even be seen at a CK show, but that's not going to stop me from maybe pressing play on an old Louis CK stand up special that is still available on Netflix. Hey, the Cosby Show is still on Amazon Prime too... it was a good show. Obviously what I am saying is that it's fucking stupid to boycott old art just because the artist was later found to have done something bad. That doesn't mean I support people going around acting like walking billboards for the artist now.
    If you support censoring all art from artists who have since been found to be bad guys, then wow, that's a lot of censorship! They should design entire degree programs to fill the careers that would need filling for people to effectively identify and censor all that art around the world. And gee, wouldn't that make everything so much better? /s
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,562
    What is a sandwich board...
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,759
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    What is a sandwich board...

    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Spiritual_Chaos
    Spiritual_Chaos Posts: 31,562
    PJ_Soul said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    oftenreading said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    That's stupid. I hate the idea of any past material being pulled from anywhere in cases like this. It's way too subjective. I think it has to be an all or nothing thing, which of course leaves nothing as the only reasonable option.
    It’s an interesting situation, because throughout history there has been a lot of great art created by a lot of questionable people. Do we now feel we have to get rid of it all? And if not all, how far back? Just from our century? Just artists who are still alive? Everyone?? Picasso, Gaugin, Caravaggio? Norman Mailer, Ben Johnson, William Golding - all did terrible things, and that’s not even counting more garden variety terrible behaviour like racism and anti-Semitism. 

    I tend to agree with you - only all or nothing makes sense, so it has to be nothing, society-wise. Individual people are free to make their own individual choices of course.  
    I don't crank an album by Picasso (as an example) while I do my dishes or in the car going to work.

    I would not mind there being a Michael Jackson exhibit somewhere. But there is a difference between that an putting on Billie Jean on a party (if you believe MJ did what is being said). There is a difference between being a big part of our history and culture, and being all "I love singing along to this child molester!!"
    Yeah, but the obvious question is, where does it end? I don't even want to think about how many very famous musicians have fucked around with minors or done other terrible things. Not to mention actors, directors, and many, many other historical figures that are a big part of our culture. Censoring retroactively just will not work in any case, and I don't think it's a road we should even start heading down. Besides, there is always a lot that we don't want to listen to on the radio... that's when you turn the dial. Plenty of people do still want to listen to MJ.
    FWIW, I will always play earlier MJ. It's a permanent part of my music library.
    So you can wear a Michael Jackson Thriller tour of 1983 proudly then?
    Wear what? I have never in my life worn a concert t-shirt, and I'm not about to start now. I'm talking about listening to some music, that's it.
    Well, the question wasn't about me believing you had the mentioned t-shirt or about you wearing t-shirts or not. I don't really care about if you do in fact wear t-shirts or not. Atleast in this thread.

    Could you - in your mind - wear a Michael Jackson t-shirt right now, just like being a fan of and playing his music.
    No, and I wouldn't have since the first time he was accused of anything. But for me that is not at all like playing his music. Wearing a t-shirt isn't art. I'm no more willing to go around wearing an MJ shirt than I am to go around wearing a Woody Allan sandwich board, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to stop and watch a bit of Annie Hall when I see it's on TV. And I'm not going to don a Louis CK baseball cap or even be seen at a CK show, but that's not going to stop me from maybe pressing play on an old Louis CK stand up special that is still available on Netflix. Hey, the Cosby Show is still on Amazon Prime too... it was a good show. Obviously what I am saying is that it's fucking stupid to boycott old art just because the artist was later found to have done something bad. That doesn't mean I support people going around acting like walking billboards for the artist now.
    If you support censoring all art from artists who have since been found to be bad guys, then wow, that's a lot of censorship! They should design entire degree programs to fill the careers that would need filling for people to effectively identify and censor all that art around the world. And gee, wouldn't that make everything so much better? /s
    Not listening to a POS:s art isn't "censoring". It's picking something you can stand by morally instead of that specific art.

    What have I said about censoring?
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,759
    edited March 2019
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    oftenreading said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    That's stupid. I hate the idea of any past material being pulled from anywhere in cases like this. It's way too subjective. I think it has to be an all or nothing thing, which of course leaves nothing as the only reasonable option.
    It’s an interesting situation, because throughout history there has been a lot of great art created by a lot of questionable people. Do we now feel we have to get rid of it all? And if not all, how far back? Just from our century? Just artists who are still alive? Everyone?? Picasso, Gaugin, Caravaggio? Norman Mailer, Ben Johnson, William Golding - all did terrible things, and that’s not even counting more garden variety terrible behaviour like racism and anti-Semitism. 

    I tend to agree with you - only all or nothing makes sense, so it has to be nothing, society-wise. Individual people are free to make their own individual choices of course.  
    I don't crank an album by Picasso (as an example) while I do my dishes or in the car going to work.

    I would not mind there being a Michael Jackson exhibit somewhere. But there is a difference between that an putting on Billie Jean on a party (if you believe MJ did what is being said). There is a difference between being a big part of our history and culture, and being all "I love singing along to this child molester!!"
    Yeah, but the obvious question is, where does it end? I don't even want to think about how many very famous musicians have fucked around with minors or done other terrible things. Not to mention actors, directors, and many, many other historical figures that are a big part of our culture. Censoring retroactively just will not work in any case, and I don't think it's a road we should even start heading down. Besides, there is always a lot that we don't want to listen to on the radio... that's when you turn the dial. Plenty of people do still want to listen to MJ.
    FWIW, I will always play earlier MJ. It's a permanent part of my music library.
    So you can wear a Michael Jackson Thriller tour of 1983 proudly then?
    Wear what? I have never in my life worn a concert t-shirt, and I'm not about to start now. I'm talking about listening to some music, that's it.
    Well, the question wasn't about me believing you had the mentioned t-shirt or about you wearing t-shirts or not. I don't really care about if you do in fact wear t-shirts or not. Atleast in this thread.

    Could you - in your mind - wear a Michael Jackson t-shirt right now, just like being a fan of and playing his music.
    No, and I wouldn't have since the first time he was accused of anything. But for me that is not at all like playing his music. Wearing a t-shirt isn't art. I'm no more willing to go around wearing an MJ shirt than I am to go around wearing a Woody Allan sandwich board, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to stop and watch a bit of Annie Hall when I see it's on TV. And I'm not going to don a Louis CK baseball cap or even be seen at a CK show, but that's not going to stop me from maybe pressing play on an old Louis CK stand up special that is still available on Netflix. Hey, the Cosby Show is still on Amazon Prime too... it was a good show. Obviously what I am saying is that it's fucking stupid to boycott old art just because the artist was later found to have done something bad. That doesn't mean I support people going around acting like walking billboards for the artist now.
    If you support censoring all art from artists who have since been found to be bad guys, then wow, that's a lot of censorship! They should design entire degree programs to fill the careers that would need filling for people to effectively identify and censor all that art around the world. And gee, wouldn't that make everything so much better? /s
    Not listening to a POS:s art isn't "censoring". It's picking something you can stand by morally instead of that specific art.

    What have I said about censoring?
    Not listening is not censoring. I am talking about it not being available via media formats, i.e. banning the songs from radio stations, which is what we were talking about in the first place. I already said anyone is free to turn the dial.
    Banning art because of past acts of the artists is a stupid thing to do - that is my point.
    I personally don't boycott that art either, but that is a personal choice. I don't think anyone has any kind of moral obligation to do so, and I don't think that those who do do that have any kind of moral highground.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Ledbetterman10
    Ledbetterman10 Posts: 17,002
    edited March 2019
    A radio station can play whatever they want. If they don't want to play some child molester's pop songs from 30 years ago, they don't have to. Now, banning the music from being able to be purchased via iTunes or in stores, that would be a bit different. I wouldn't care in this particular case because I never have or never will buy Michael Jackson's music. But it could set a precedent and I wouldn't want that. 
    Post edited by Ledbetterman10 on
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,759
    edited March 2019
    Ledbetterman10 said:
    A radio station can play whatever they want. If they don't want to play some child molester's pop songs from 30 years ago, they don't have to. Now, banning the music from being able to be purchased via iTunes or in stores, that would be a bit different. I wouldn't care in this particular case because I never have or never will buy Michael Jackson's music. But it could set a precedent and I wouldn't want that. 
    I know they can censor anything they want. I'm saying they shouldn't censor anything based on this requirement, because how in the fuck can they justify it? They will forever have to closely monitor everything they ever play and make sure the artist has never been caught doing something sexually nefarious, or else they are total hypocrites. It's stupid. That is my point. But you're right - banning past work where it can be purchased (which is also happening, and has happened in the past for one reason or another) is even worse.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • bbiggs
    bbiggs Posts: 6,965
    DewieCox said:
    I think he did the stuff and I don’t know how anybody could’ve thought he was innocent before this aired. When you’re worth $1B you don’t worry about 10s of millions of dollars to clear your name if you’re innocent.

    Jimmys mom should’ve been left out b/c to me it seemed like she didn’t care one way or the other but relished appearing in the doc. She und ermined the believability of the info presented here.

    Wade’s mom and other parents like her that ignore obvious signs of abuse should be tossed in jail. 


    I was was on the fence with the guys in the doc until the last hour and they started talking about their families and how it was affecting them as adults.
    This is a great point. If he was innocent, he would have paid as much money as necessary and gone through the court system for as long necessary to clear his name. That additional cost would be a drop in the bucket, so the excuse by his attorney of saying MJ settled out of court to avoid the ongoing legal fees is complete BS. I didn’t pay a lot of attention to those details at the time, but even as a teenager, I would have been calling bullshit. The guy was a flat-out creep. 

Categories