Leaving Neverland

1246

Comments

  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,854
    edited March 11
    PJ_Soul 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_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 12,317
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul 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.
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,854
    edited March 11
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul 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_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 12,317
    What is a sandwich board...
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,854
    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_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 12,317
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul 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?
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,854
    edited March 11
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul 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
  • Ledbetterman10Ledbetterman10 Posts: 10,869
    edited March 11
    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

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 46,854
    edited March 11
    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
  • bbiggsbbiggs Posts: 3,217
    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. 
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 12,317
    edited March 11
    bbiggs said:
    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. 
    Wasn't he about to go out on his 1993 Dangerous Tour - and he would lose more than the X million dollars by cancelling the tour and standing trial? Wasn't that their reason given at least.
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • bbiggsbbiggs Posts: 3,217
    bbiggs said:
    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. 
    Wasn't he about to go out on his 1993 Dangerous Tour - and he would lose more than the X million dollars by cancelling the tour and standing trial? Wasn't that their reason given at least.
    I’m not sure if that was part of his legal team’s explanation. The settlement was early ‘94 and I believe the tour was already almost done when this news came out. He cancelled some of the tour for health issues. 
  • DewieCoxDewieCox Posts: 9,767
    Yeah, I don’t remember them saying that but it was 4 hours so maybe I missed it.
  • njnancynjnancy Northern New JerseyPosts: 4,551
    edited March 12
    The excuse he gave to these two families was that his lawyers told him that it would cost so much more time and money to continue  and settling would be cheaper and easier.  He never actually mentioned the tour. It was enough for the families the first time and then the second time I can't believe that Wade's mother convinced him to testify. She really pisses me off - made them fast forward through the sex parts. She bought in to the fantasy and left her family and knew that her husband was having mental health issues. I have no problem with the sister or the brother but the mother of Wade is very irritating. 

    I don't have as much of a problem with Jimmy's mom. 

    And I don't own a MJ tee-shirt and wouldn't wear one; though I have worn concert t'shirts throughout my life. I wore them regularly in high school and I still wear them today. 

    I think that everyone needs to make their own decision when it comes to what they choose to consume and not consume. There are so many ways to consume art and information these days  and each platform has its own right to provide or not provide it. 

    And as I've always believed with people who complain about a TV show or some sort of music - turn the channel or turn off the TV but don't tell someone else what they should do. 

    MJ's kids haven't done anything wrong and probably will have many problems in the future. Having it aired that your father is a pedophile must be horrible. They are innocent victims and to bankrupt the estate would mean that they would not have what is rightfully theirs.  He died in massive debt because of his ridiculous over spending, but will continue to earn royalties. The brothers and sisters shouldn't get a freakin' cent. 

    And the jacket was the jacket that MJ wore in the video - he let him pick whichever he wanted. I kept thinking about how much money he could get for the stuff he was burning but I understand why he needed to do that. 


    Post edited by njnancy on
  • njnancynjnancy Northern New JerseyPosts: 4,551
    PJ_Soul said:
    What is a sandwich board...

    :rofl:   Perfect!
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 21,077
    Parents are to blame period , it’s like letting your 5 yr old go on a weekend catholic retreat with priests in charge ! Fucking idiots 
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • fortyshadesfortyshades Posts: 1,747
    edited March 12
    dankind said:
    I'm not sure why this is making waves now, when it's all been out there forever and nobody cared. Then again, stories about Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby were out there forever, and people kept looking the other way, so --

    Too many people are willing to look away if the accused is famous enough, powerful enough, puts enough butts in seats. So, no, I'm not watching because I know it will just make me angry.
    I'm not sure that we heard from the victims as directly as this....I could be wrong.

    Interesting that Mac Culkin still denies any sexual assault.  My guess is that he just doesn't want to admit it.
    Corey Feldman always defended Michael Jackson too.
    In the cases of Culkin and Feldman, perhaps Jackson and/or his accomplices knew that the risk would be too great for him to try to have his way with a child star. Plus, they were nice props for other parents and their children to see with Jackson, likely helping to alleviate any concerns that they might have. And in the long haul, we’re still saying but Culkin and Feldman said ....
    Its diffecult to say anything about this, A small.fact;  not just Culkin and Feldman denied. The FBI did an investigatiom for 10 years, interrogated almost 100 children: they all denied inproper behaviour. (Transcripts trial 2005.) Today 48 other former children signed a collective petition / open letter where they denied any wrong doings. Blake or Blanes (or something like that - bad at names) who according to Wade was the next victim, made an annoucement that nothing happened to him. He made after that a fierce statement towards HBO, Reed and Wade; tjat he doesnt wants to branded as a victim, when he wasnt. You can all verify this yourselves.

    Its complicated, but there are many dimensions and layers to this case. And it is diffecult, especially now with the me2 movement (which I fully support) to even question accussers. It is the sign of our time. But since I believe in the movement, we should stay very vigilant. Not.all accusations are true and could undermine the movement. I would encourage everyone to read the court transcripts yourself, They are different (and not a little bit) from the narrations made in Neverland. The testimonies and transcipts are made public, so anyone can  check them.The discrapencies are enormous: re. dates, the sequence of events and accusations (especially by Wade) of specific days when MJ was not even at Neverland. James also  made some contradictionary statements, even in the documentary itself..He states first that he started to remember the abuse after regressive therapy, which is a very controversial form of therapy within the field of Psychology. This was in 2012. In another statement he has said that he told his mother in 2005. (But he didnt go to therapie then yet.). He .just started to remember it in 2012 according to the documentary. But in the same breath he states that his mother danced (2009) when MJ died. Yet in another statement he claims that the family was devestated and wanted to go to the funeral. In the same way Wade wanted to get married at Neverland - a place that held so many horrible memories for him.

    I am not an  MJ fan, but because Reed never asked critical questions, and the press seem not to ask critical questions either, (which is their damn job) we are left to our own devices. (Why did Wade for example withhold information during his own trail, which caused tje judge even reprimanded him for it. This can be found in the 2013 transcripts.

    For clarity I do not want to defend MJ. But can also not look away from these discrepancies. I know I will be hated for this. But.everything  I stated can be independetly verified.

    Is Neverland an impressive with a narration that hold you in its grip. Yes.  I also learned not to take everything at face value though. Especially with an Appeal hanging at the appeal court for 1,5 billion dollars, I believe it is now.

    I am not saying MJ is innocent, I do not know  (we all dont, really) but if you base your opinion on the  narratives alone, you should also.be able to look at the discrapencies and the narratives of other individuals who are coming forward now. (Like the 48 former childten, his nanny, his bodyguards etc.)Try to see the whole picture befote you pass judhement. The public is now judge and jury at the same time, which never worked in the past. And will not work.now. Some already thought he was guilty and saw the documentary as a confirmation. Others became convinced by the documentary itself and others still would like to see less contradictions snd more facys before making a judgement. I think we will never truly know. What I do know is that there are a lot more discrepancies and sinkholes than I mentioned above. I also believe that you can claim suspicion, your opinion and what you believe in. You cannot claim facts however. These are independent.

    I will probably be blackballed for this, but as I stated; read *all*  the testimonies and transcripts and dont let your opinion be based on two narratives alone. But that is my opinion. More facts and testimonies will probably come soon enough.
     
    Post edited by fortyshades on
  • fortyshadesfortyshades Posts: 1,747
    Anyone watching this?  Pretty amazing stuff.
    Do you believe any of it?
    I sure do. Why wouldn't you? We've known for like 20 years that Jackson was likely a child molester. And these guys have enough proof of being with Jackson on stage, backstage, and at his ranch. Hell, they even have faxes and video birthday wish videos (or "congratulations" videos as Jackson says in it that he doesn't believe in birthdays). Also, it was produced by Oprah, who I doubt would sensationalize the story and make the "beloved" Michael Jackson look worse in death than he looked in life (which was already pretty damn bad) if she didn't believe the victims. 

    Watching this, I can't believe people back in the 90's weren't worried when they saw a 33-year-old man walking around holding hands with 9-year-old boys. Maybe people were trying not to be cynical and just thought "No way Michael Jackson would be molesting that kid."  I'm not a fan of how cynical our society has become, but nowadays, the moment he was seen holding a boy's hand, he'd be the subject of ridicule and criticism, and that would have been a good thing.  
    Ps; Oprah was not a friend of Michael Jackson. She felt beyrayed, and stated such during one of her talkshows. She saw rhe infamous interview as a pre-emptive strike. Yet, she was all sympathy and emparhy when he died. She interviewed the children. (Prince knowing about the tension between Oprah amd his father hardly answered any quedtion.) Besides she is a journslist, not a detective and avoided the same crtical questions that Reed avoided days before.
  • fortyshadesfortyshades Posts: 1,747
    edited March 12
    Did this documentary interview any of the people that lied about abuse?

    I remember a string of people coming forward and they had all proven to be lying about the whole thing.

    Just curious.
    Answer to your question is no. In the same way Reed didnt question anyone working for MJ and knew him 20+ years.
  • bbiggsbbiggs Posts: 3,217
    ^ Interesting perspective and points.  My mind was made up on him before the documentary. This just solidified my position. I can’t look away from the fact that a grown man was sleeping alone in a bed with little boys. The argument stops there in my book. Under no circumstance is that appropriate. It all should have been nipped in the bud the second that became known.  All of that said, your points are well stated and we shall see what unfolds in due time. 
  • DewieCoxDewieCox Posts: 9,767
    edited March 12
    dankind said:
    I'm not sure why this is making waves now, when it's all been out there forever and nobody cared. Then again, stories about Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby were out there forever, and people kept looking the other way, so --

    Too many people are willing to look away if the accused is famous enough, powerful enough, puts enough butts in seats. So, no, I'm not watching because I know it will just make me angry.
    I'm not sure that we heard from the victims as directly as this....I could be wrong.

    Interesting that Mac Culkin still denies any sexual assault.  My guess is that he just doesn't want to admit it.
    Corey Feldman always defended Michael Jackson too.
    In the cases of Culkin and Feldman, perhaps Jackson and/or his accomplices knew that the risk would be too great for him to try to have his way with a child star. Plus, they were nice props for other parents and their children to see with Jackson, likely helping to alleviate any concerns that they might have. And in the long haul, we’re still saying but Culkin and Feldman said ....
    Its diffecult to say anything about this, A small.fact;  not just Culkin and Feldman denied. The FBI did an investigatiom for 10 years, interrogated almost 100 children: they all denied inproper behaviour. (Transcripts trial 2005.) Today 48 other former children signed a collective petition / open letter where they denied any wrong doings. Blake or Blanes (or something like that - bad at names) who according to Wade was the next victim, made an annoucement that nothing happened to him. He made after that a fierce statement towards HBO, Reed and Wade; tjat he doesnt wants to branded as a victim, when he wasnt. You can all verify this yourselves.

    Its complicated, but there are many dimensions and layers to this case. And it is diffecult, especially now with the me2 movement (which I fully support) to even question accussers. It is the sign of our time. But since I believe in the movement, we should stay very vigilant. Not.all accusations are true and could undermine the movement. I would encourage everyone to read the court transcripts yourself, They are different (and not a little bit) from the narrations made in Neverland. The testimonies and transcipts are made public, so anyone can  check them.The discrapencies are enormous: re. dates, the sequence of events and accusations (especially by Wade) of specific days when MJ was not even at Neverland. James also  made some contradictionary statements, even in the documentary itself..He states first that he started to remember the abuse after regressive therapy, which is a very controversial form of therapy within the field of Psychology. This was in 2012. In another statement he has said that he told his mother in 2005. (But he didnt go to therapie then yet.). He .just started to remember it in 2012 according to the documentary. But in the same breath he states that his mother danced (2009) when MJ died. Yet in another statement he claims that the family was devestated and wanted to go to the funeral. In the same way Wade wanted to get married at Neverland - a place that held so many horrible memories for him.

    I am not an  MJ fan, but because Reed never asked critical questions, and the press seem not to ask critical questions either, (which is their damn job) we are left to our own devices. (Why did Wade for example withhold information during his own trail, which caused tje judge even reprimanded him for it. This can be found in the 2013 transcripts.

    For clarity I do not want to defend MJ. But can also not look away from these discrepancies. I know I will be hated for this. But.everything  I stated can be independetly verified.

    Is Neverland an impressive with a narration that hold you in its grip. Yes.  I also learned not to take everything at face value though. Especially with an Appeal hanging at the appeal court for 1,5 billion dollars, I believe it is now.

    I am not saying MJ is innocent, I do not know  (we all dont, really) but if you base your opinion on the  narratives alone, you should also.be able to look at the discrapencies and the narratives of other individuals who are coming forward now. (Like the 48 former childten, his nanny, his bodyguards etc.)Try to see the whole picture befote you pass judhement. The public is now judge and jury at the same time, which never worked in the past. And will not work.now. Some already thought he was guilty and saw the documentary as a confirmation. Others became convinced by the documentary itself and others still would like to see less contradictions snd more facys before making a judgement. I think we will never truly know. What I do know is that there are a lot more discrepancies and sinkholes than I mentioned above. I also believe that you can claim suspicion, your opinion and what you believe in. You cannot claim facts however. These are independent.

    I will probably be blackballed for this, but as I stated; read *all*  the testimonies and transcripts and dont let your opinion be based on two narratives alone. But that is my opinion. More facts and testimonies will probably come soon enough.
     
    Ya know, I went down a debunking Leavign Neverland YouTube eabbit hole and seen a lot of the stuff you mention. If anything, it strengthened my position after watching FN. It showed how a long pattern of enabling could greatly exacerbate things. 

    It’ll be interesting to see how a well produced counter argument changes public opinion back in favor of MJ
    Post edited by DewieCox on
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 12,317
    Parents are to blame period , it’s like letting your 5 yr old go on a weekend catholic retreat with priests in charge ! Fucking idiots 

    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • fortyshadesfortyshades Posts: 1,747
    edited March 14

     
    Ya know, I went down a debunking Leavign Neverland YouTube eabbit hole and seen a lot of the stuff you mention. If anything, it strengthened my position after watching FN. It showed how a long pattern of enabling could greatly exacerbate things. 

    It’ll be interesting to see how a well produced counter argument changes public opinion back in favor of MJ
    I think no counter argument will no longer help. People have made up their minds, the verdict has been given, people branded him guilty and have already decided on the punishment erase him from hiistory. (In some countries it seems.)And before you start with more assumptions about me, I did not gain this information through youtube. I am a researcher, that is part of my profession and use the three principles of resesach: 1) investigate and cross reference statements; never follow one narrative but interlink these with others, This is considered external validity. 2) Seek fallsification in statements (and if you find them, dig deeper) and 3) search for counter arguments or at least different perspectives. For It contextualize your data. Most of what you read above I got from newspapers (the petition of former 48 children for example) and from the court case transcripts (2005, 2013, 2014), autopsy report and several interviews here and there. I never use youtube or wiki as a source. (The last one I use sometimes, but mostly to use the links beneath the wiki page and compare this with other sources.) I am not a great believer of youtube and all the insanity thst goes on there and I am of course not responsible of other youtubers, who have probably found similar information. The truth stays that Dan Reed didn't apply the above principles which is also often used in investigating journalism. And he is open about it. He keeps saying, this is the story of the victims and not about MJ. Which is of course questionable, fot if his wasnt about MJ it didn''t nearly got as much of attention.(And it wouldnt grow his bank account as it does now.)  If this was only about victims of sexual abuse, you could have taken stories from others. But he choose these two because it is is in fact about MJ. But if he would have applied the principles of research, there would have been statements from others to either solidify the accusations or put them in a broader perspective. And I am truly neutral in this. I had death threats from MJ fans and MJ haters. The first because i mentioned somewhere (not here, could have been in a newspaper article or some forum) the psychological evaluation report that the DA in 2005 ordered. The conclusion of that report was that MJ was emotionally digressed to a 14 year old, which explains much of his problematic behaviour. (Throwing waterballoons from hotel windows for example to people underneath, who were having dinner..) He also suffered, at least they think, from body dysmorphic disorder and severe depression. The last one has been proven by the medication he took in the autopsy report. Stating that he was mentally ill and had among other things an addictive personality, whoa that backlashed to such an extent thst my mailbox exploded. But I keep standing by these statements, the tolerance level he showed to demerol and *intravenous* benzodiazepines tells its own tale. There is a website btw, I dont hsve all the data here present at the moment, for I am in my office writing right now (about something else than MJ), but there is a website dedicated to reviewing movies but also documentaries, often by movie and documentary makers. They wrote an interesting piece about Neverland.. Worldonreels, I think it is called. Another interesting piece is written by washingtonexaminator, I think it is called. And i can continue with a whole list. The transcriptions of the court cases however = the most important data. And it surprises me, and the same time it does not, that the big newspapers, even the critical ones, parrot one another but do hardly any research, that would have given a more balanced view. When I stated this somewhere, my mailbox exploded also, this time by MJ haters - so I am basically hated by both sides. (But that is ok, my book about the Arrmenian genocide, the backlash was even worse,  my whole family got threatened and the bastards even knew my address. Come to think of it, I also sent a copy of my book to Tenclub - since I was proud of my first English publication - and even though the topic is the Armemian genocide, it is more about tribalism and identity making,  which I thought would be interesting  after the election of Trump. Human folliness. ) The parroting however, the return and repeat of a narrative has it own dynamics, which has been scientifically proven. The more we repeat statements, the more the narrative gets solidified, tangible (sp?) and normalized and less questioned. In this age with the me2 movement, which is imo an important movement, it is sometimes taken to such an extreme that we should no longer question victims of sexual abuse. But we should, especially if there is an Appeal for 1,2 billion dollars in a settlement and where it is important to.influence the public opinion. But by not asking questions in some cases,  I think this could be detrimental for the movement, for it comes out in any case, (not just MJ) that the victims lied we will.have Trump and his cronies pointing their finger to the movement and state "false news" or "cry wolf", while it isn't false news, but poorly investigated news. And it is ok these days, even hot and normalixed, to hate MJ. In some message boards people even state that he should have died a lot sooner. (I think it has been stated here too.) These.statements are often made and bssed by the same poorly researched articles. But think about that statement for a minute and how normalized it has become to dehumanize someone and wish him death. In the end I do not know if he has done it. I think the haters dont know either. They presume it in the way the fandom presumes he was not mentally conflicted or addictive. As a researcher however I owe it to myself to cross reference claims instead of taking them immediatly at face value. That doesnt make me an "enabler" but critical at best. Sorry for the typos, I am writing this on a cell and I think I need glasses.
    Post edited by fortyshades on
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,900

     
    Ya know, I went down a debunking Leavign Neverland YouTube eabbit hole and seen a lot of the stuff you mention. If anything, it strengthened my position after watching FN. It showed how a long pattern of enabling could greatly exacerbate things. 

    It’ll be interesting to see how a well produced counter argument changes public opinion back in favor of MJ
    I think no counter argument will no longer help. People have made up their minds, the verdict has been given, people branded him guilty and have already decided on the punishment erase him from hiistory. And before you start with more assumptions about me, I did not gain this information through youtube. I am a researcher, that is part of my profession and use the three principles of resesach: 1) investigate and cross reference statements; never follow one narrative but interlink these with others, This is considered external validity. 2) Seek fallsification in statements (and if you find them, dig deeper) and 3) search for counter arguments or at least different perspectives. For It contextualize your data. Most of what you read above I got from newspapers (the petition of former 48 children for example) and from the court case transcripts (2005, 2013, 2014), autopsy report and several interviews here and there. I never use youtube or wiki as a source. (The last one I use sometimes, but mostly to use the links beneath the wiki page and compare this with other sources.) I am not a great believer of youtube and all the insanity thst goes on there and I am of course not responsible of other youtubers, who have probably found similar information. The truth stays that Dan Reed didn't apply the above principles which is also often used in investigating journalism. And he is open about it. He keeps saying, this is the story of the victims and not about MJ. Which is of course questionable, fot if his wasnt about MJ it didn''t nearly got as much of attention.(And it wouldnt grow his bank account as it does now.)  If this was only about victims of sexual abuse, you could have taken stories from others. But he choose these two because it is is in fact about MJ. But if he would have applied the principles of research, there would have been statements from others to either solidify the accusations or put them in a broader perspective. And I am truly neutral in this. I had death threats from MJ fans and MJ haters. The first because i mentioned somewhere (not here, could have been in a newspaper article or some forum) the psychological evaluation report that the DA in 2005 ordered. The conclusion of that report was that MJ was emotionally digressed to a 14 year old, which explains much of his problematic behaviour. (Throwing waterballoons from hotel windows for example to people underneath, who were having dinner..) He also suffered, at least they think, from body dysmorphic disorder and severe depression. The last one has been proven by the medication he took in the autopsy report. Stating that he was mentally ill and had among other things an addictive personality, whoa that backlashed to such an extent thst my mailbox exploded. But I keep standing by these statements, the tolerance level he showed to demerol and *intravenous* benzodiazepines tells its own tale. There is a website btw, I dont hsve all the data here present at the moment, for I am in my office writing right now (about something else than MJ), but there is a website dedicated to reviewing movies but also documentaries, often by movie and documentary makers. They wrote an interesting piece about Neverland.. Worldonreels, I think it is called. Another interesting piece is written by washingtonexaminator, I think it is called. And i can continue with a whole list. The transcriptions of the court cases however = the most important data. And it surprises me, and the same time it does not, that the big newspapers, even the critical ones, parrot one another but do hardly any research, that would have given a more balanced view. When I stated this somewhere, my mailbox exploded also, this time by MJ haters - so I am basically hated by both sides. (But that is ok, my book about the Arrmenian genocide, the backlash was even worse,  my whole family got threatened and the bastards even knew my address. Come to think of it, I also sent a copy of my book to Tenclub - since I was proud of my first English publication - and even though the topic is the Armemian genocide, it is more about tribalism and identity making,  which I thought would be interesting  after the election of Trump. Human folliness. ) The parroting however, the return and repeat of a narrative has it own dynamics, which has been scientifically proven. The more we repeat statements, the more the narrative gets solidified, tangible (sp?) and normalized and less questioned. In this age with the me2 movement, which is imo an important movement, it is sometimes taken to such an extreme that we should no longer question victims of sexual abuse. But we should, especially if there is an Appeal for 1,2 billion dollars in a settlement and where it is important to.influence the public opinion. But by not asking questions in some cases,  I think this could be detrimental for the movement, for it comes out in any case, (not just MJ) that the victims lied we will.have Trump and his cronies pointing their finger to the movement and state "false news" or "cry wolf", while it isn't false news, but poorly investigated news. And it is ok these days, even hot and normalixed, to hate MJ. In some message boards people even state that he should have died a lot sooner. (I think it has been stated here too.) These.statements are often made and bssed by the same poorly researched articles. But think about that statement for a minute and how normalized it has become to dehumanize someone and wish him death. In the end I do not know if he has done it. I think the haters dont know either. They presume it in the way the fandom presumes he was not mentally conflicted or addictive. As a researcher however I owe it to myself to cross reference claims instead of taking them immediatly at face value. That doesnt make me an "enabler" but critical at best. Sorry for the typos, I am writing this on a cell and I think I need glasses.
    I have no interest in debating much of what you wrote, but I will say that you seem to believe that the fact of being on psychiatric medication “proves” that one has a mental illness, when of course it does nothing of the sort. This leads me to question some of the other conclusions. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • njnancynjnancy Northern New JerseyPosts: 4,551
    I think no counter argument will no longer help. People have made up their minds, the verdict has been given, people branded him guilty and have already decided on the punishment erase him from hiistory. And before you start with more assumptions about me, I did not gain this information through youtube. I am a researcher, that is part of my profession and use the three principles of resesach: 1) investigate and cross reference statements; never follow one narrative but interlink these with others, This is considered external validity. 2) Seek fallsification in statements (and if you find them, dig deeper) and 3) search for counter arguments or at least different perspectives. For It contextualize your data. Most of what you read above I got from newspapers (the petition of former 48 children for example) and from the court case transcripts (2005, 2013, 2014), autopsy report and several interviews here and there. I 
    How extensively did you research child abuse and the grooming pattern of pedophiles? The reasons why the children are picked before they have a sexual interplay knowledge base and how it affects them at the different stages of their lives? 

    Also you had mentioned that Jimmy came up with his beliefs that he was abused through a repressed memory but that was debunked in the documentary by him saying he knew all along what happened, he just did not feel that he had been harmed at the time (which is why pedophiles groom and pick people who are pre-sexual interaction. They have no reference point to what is occurring). 

    I think you should delve into how abusers groom people - all types of abusers - and see how that perfectly fits into the pattern of MJ. The fact that he happens to be a huge celebrity made it that much easier to lull 7 year olds into a false sense of security and love. 

    A person with the mind of a 14 year old is perfectly capable of being sexual, especially since they are well passed puberty at the time of their infliction of abuse.  His other illnesses do not make him any less or any more capable of being a pedophile. He was an addict and had various mental illnesses but none of them are relevant in an abuse accusation. 

    Why MJ may have become a pedophile is even more backed by the psychological profile. If he indeed had the 'mind' of a 14 year old, he had the 'equipment' of an adult and had sexual urges whereas the children were pre pubescent and in most cases so young at the onset of abuse that they had not engaged in any form of sexual activity including masturbation. And that is exactly why a predator, regardless of their younger emotional age, would be interested in boys of that age. Get them early and often.

     MJ has accused his father, at the least, of abusive behavior towards him as a young person. Do you believe his accusations?  And the parroting that you are accusing people and media entities of doing right now is also evident in the stories that each of the children who have come forward. He said and did the same exact things to them and their families in each of the cases. So if you are going to discuss parroting, it applies to what was done in the grooming of these children.

     In a minor amount of cases people who have been abused become abusers themselves if they do not have a supportive network that is grounded and loving. If you look at children of domestic abusers; they are more likely to become domestic abusers than someone who grew up in an emotionally supportive household. The two men met extremely grounded and loving women and are very lucky for that fact. MJ was surrounded by enablers his entire life especially when he became a solo artist. So much so that he was enabled into medicating himself to death.  He was not found guilty in the public's opinion. He lived his entire life with adoring fans, children, family and enabling sycophants surrounding him and just prior to his death the media and people of the world were hyping his new tour. He got away with it and did not suffer consequences in his life. 

    The fact that he was stunted emotionally, as the psychiatrist's reported (though his defense team could buy whatever answers they wanted from experts), does not have anything to do with if he was capable of having sex with children.  Abusers are also extreme manipulators and are able to convince people in all walks of life of whatever they want them to believe. This is true for every abuser - they are narcissists or sociopaths that are charismatic and chameleon like and can convince a child that he loves them and what they are doing is just fun and at the same time convince a large portion of the public that he is a wonderful human being who could never hurt a child. He did do a lot of good things for the world. This is typical of abusers. They are trusted members of the community, philanthropists, helpers of the poor and needy. That is a huge part of how they groom the casual observer. Everyone in an abusers life is there for an intended purpose that is in the interest of the abuser. 

    And it begs the question - where are the girls. If he was just into kids and was a kid himself why weren't their girls sleeping in his bed and sneaking away to secret places to 'play'. 

    Every argument needs a counterpoint and you are leaving out the patterns of child abuse and how that can affect everyone's thoughts and beliefs that are staring all of us in the face. And this is happening all over the world to people who will never say a word.  And who will not be believed if they do. The hope of the documentary is to give awareness of how good abusers are at hiding that part of their personality to the world. The world believed that he was innocent or held a not sure opinion for the most part and that is the norm for good abusers.  

    MJ had high powered attorneys - one even said in the documentary that if anyone tried to besmirch MJ's character that they would bring the hammer down on them (paraphrased) and they would ruin them. That sounds like a defense team that would go about accumulating information that is included in the reports. 

    A man can throw a water balloon and get oral sex in the same day, they are not mutually exclusive. They are both reckless and without regard for the welfare of others. 

    The documentary is for the purpose of the stories of these two men and I have heard more detail from them than I have ever heard from MJ or his lawyers. The denials by children that were either scared into complying or also brainwashed and towing the party line do not impress me. 

    I think any person - pro or anti MJ - is insane to be sending death threats. Especially when all they know is the person's music and not the person, that is the scary part of fanaticism. Now imagine being a little kid who actually knows MJ and has been led to believe they are their 'best friend' and have been told repeatedly that the world is evil and the most important thing is to protect MJ (or US as he would say). 

    I believe that he was a predator and that these men are victims. Your opinion is yours and I am not putting you down for that. 

     I also was a researcher for a profession but I take in all this information and digest it with an extensive  knowledge of abuse, narcissistic  behavior and common sense. 
  • njnancynjnancy Northern New JerseyPosts: 4,551
    Also, on this forum, there have been mixed opinions on his music and if should be 'erased from history'. Most people have a centered realization that censorship is not good and that a person can choose to listen to him or not listen to him on their own. MJ can never be erased from history. He has made a mark on the world in his musical career that will endure forever. It just is marred by accusations of being a pedophile. Not erased. 
  • fortyshadesfortyshades Posts: 1,747
    edited March 12
    Whoa. Lots of comments, some assumptions and some statements about issues that I did not even discuss. But let me at least comment to some statements, made here:

    Oftenreading:
    I have no interest in debating much of what you wrote, but I will say that you seem to believe that the fact of being on psychiatric medication “proves” that one has a mental illness, when of course it does nothing of the sort. 

    You are right that I probably stated this too sharply. And mental illness itself is a tricky ground to walk on. Antidepressants does not indicate that you may suffer from severe depression. This is true. They are also used for nerve pain etc. Many psychiatrists differentiate between mood fluctuations and clinical depression. The latter is in fact considered a mental illness by the DSM V standards. But you are correct, indications are not facts. The doss he took though does corresponds with depression. If you take antidepressants for nerve pain, you take them in lower dosses.

    NJNancy: 

    1)  And it begs the question - where are the girls. If he was just into kids and was a kid himself why weren't their girls sleeping in his bed and sneaking away to secret places to 'play'. 

    This is a very interesting statement for the people who worked at Neverland asked the same question, but differently. There were actually a lot of girls invited at Neverland and supposedly also had slumber parties (which was an idiotic thing to do, but we can all agree on that.) They are just not shown, or not as much shown, or mentioned in Neverland. There is actually a lot of footage of girls in Neverland, but not in the documentary. See here by also the comments made by the staff of Neverland and the girls that were questioned in the FBI investigation. This is the danger if you follow one source. You dismiss the other possible interpretations.

    2) A man can throw a water balloon and get oral sex in the same day, they are not mutually exclusive.

    I never claimed as such.

    3) 
    The documentary is for the purpose of the stories of these two men and I have heard more detail from them than I have ever heard from MJ or his lawyers.

    Thomas Mesereau, the lawyer of Michael Jackson, gave more interviews than any other lawyer I have seen. He gave interviews in 2005, in 2009 and I think he gave about five interviews in the last few weeks. Some were more than 60 minutes. And he gives a lot of details. That you didn't hear it, I cannot help, but it is not because he didn't say anything or made no statements. He did. A lot. And he doesn't even work for the Estate. 

    4) 
    The fact that he was stunted emotionally, as the psychiatrist's reported (though his defense team could buy whatever answers they wanted from experts), does not have anything to do with if he was capable of having sex with children. 

    The defense did not pay anyone. As my memory serves correctly (but I have to look at my data) the psychological profile was requested by the DA and was actually done by an expert on pedophilia. I didn't mention this above, for I want to avoid these discussions, but the report is somewhere on internet, so you can find it. And it actually states literally that in the experts opinion Michael Jackson was not a pedophile. It states this literally. He was childlike and almost a-sexual. Not sure if this is true. I do know he was acquitted (let not forget this) and that narrations are not facts. That was my whole point. We take two narrations, that differ a lot with the court transcriptions of their own court cases, and we take these narrations as absolute facts. But if you look at the separate court cases there are discrepancies in time, place, order of events etc. How come the narrations of the individual court cases are so different than the narrations in the documentary? Which brings me to the following point:

     


    Post edited by fortyshades on
  • fortyshadesfortyshades Posts: 1,747
    5) How extensively did you research child abuse and the grooming pattern of pedophiles? The reasons why the children are picked before they have a sexual interplay knowledge base and how it affects them at the different stages of their lives? I think you should delve into how abusers groom people - all types of abusers - and see how that perfectly fits into the pattern of MJ. 

    Interesting.You state: "and see how that perfectly fits into the pattern of MJ.". But this pattern fits because of the statements you took from the accusers, correct? And then the statements in the documentary and not the separate court cases. How does this fit if you take into account that the court transcriptions of James were different than the narrations in Neverland? If you only go by the narrations of Neverland it is a slam dunk. It becomes muddier if you start to look at the discrepancies in the actual court transcriptions. And here is where the parroting in my opinion lies. The mass media (except for some critical journalist which I have mentioned) parrot the documentary. It takes center stage, but everything underneath there is not even investigated or questioned. While seeking falsifications (which you know as a researcher) is equally important as finding commonalities. 

    6) I believe that he was a predator and that these men are victims. Your opinion is yours and I am not putting you down for that. 

    Thanks. I will not put you down for yours. But I as I actually stated, I have *no* opinion. The only argument I made is that journalists should do research if there are discrepancies. And let me lay out a few here:

    1) It is propagated, especially by Dan Reed, that Wade and James have no financial incentive. This is not true. Their cases are in the court of Appeal and it is in their interest to influence the public opinion. (See the testimonies of the lawyers on both sides.) They claim now  1,5 billion dollars. It is also important to know that the case of Wade was not only thrown out of court because of the statue of limmitations, but also because Wade withheld information. The judge actually calls him upon that in the transcripts.

    2) Wade volunteered, adamantly I must add, to testify in 2005. He wasn't asked by MJ. The lawyer was first against it. This has been admitted by Thomas Mesereau in several interviews and cross referenced with the other lawyers in the team.  

    3) It was when Wade became dissolute in 2012 and 2013, after not being hired for Circus de Soleil, a project by the Estate, that he almost became bankrupt, thats when he started about the allegations. His economical situation is well documented in the court case itself of 2013. 

    4) More importantly, and this is easily verifiable, the testimonies in 2013 show great discrepancies with the narrative in the documentary of Dan Reed. Both in time, place and order of sequence what had happened. The discrepancies are so big, even during the trail itself, that the judge questioned the credibility of Wade.

    5) It became obvious during the trail of James Safechuck that his statements re. grooming were obvious familiair and were suspected to be taken from a book. The defense could even at some point name the title and author of the book and the passages James used.

    6) Wade decided after his case was thrown out of court to write a tell-all book. He sent parts of the manuscript to publisher companies. It was going to be published until the publisher companies realized that parts of the book was plagiarized from a book of an actual sexual abuse victim. (Not an MJ case.) The narrative in the manuscript shows great discrepancies with the narrative in Neverland. Especially, once again, the dates, the sequence and the acts that occured. Dan Reed avoid these discrepancies in his documentary. He even doesn't ask critical questions about them to Wade and James. He is on purposely withholding this information. As a journalist (and a researcher myself) the question arises: why?

    7) in 2005 it came forward that the FBI had investigated MJ for 10 years. They interrogated aprox.*100* children. (Male and females btw - the latter group hardly gets mentioned or shown in the documentary of Reeds. He often uses footage where Michael is seen and surrounded with boys. This is a typical narrative style, where you use a subtle framing methods to tell the story. These scenes are often shown after the accusers made some kind of disturbing statement. This causes, what psychogists call "associative thinking". If you use no narrative or another narrative at that same instance, the same scene will have a different association/ meaning. With other words: documentaries can be edited in such a wsy, that you can manipulate the audience. Reed does not mention the FBI case explicitly. Not one of these children claimed that he/she were inappropriately touched. This goes completely against the profile of a pedophile, as you know,  which is by efinition often a serial offender. (There is scientific research done on this - you may actually have done it.) The FBI had to dissolve MJ from any wrong doing after *ten years* of investigation. This is is also verifiable. The file of 300 pages is open sourced. As stated aprox *100* children were questioned. Keep in mind that all of these children are adults now and had time to come forward.  


  • fortyshadesfortyshades Posts: 1,747

    But honestly Nancy, lets stop this debate. We will not succeed in finding a common ground. And this forum is for better and more fun subjects than this. I really have no opinion. As fas as I know, he could be a pedophile; as a researcher I keep this open. I only wish that there was more critical journalism out there, so we don't have to ask these questions. This is not an MJ Board. And some MJ fans are, well how can I put it? Intense? I do not want to colour a forum of PJ with all this crap about MJ. He is death for ten years. Some live by the documentary. Others like me have questions. (This does not mean, I do not agree with you. This means that I see open spots that needs be filled to make a firm statement from my side.) In other words: this is not the forum, time, place and format to discuss this. I respect your opinion enormously. (No sarcasm.) You made me think a lot about your answer. And before I get blamed for this: sleeping with any child, except your own, is downright stupid. But X does not immediately equate A. We should stay vigilant and ask uncomfortable questions. But a PJ forum is not the place to do it in. If you have more comments, questions or you want to verbally shred me to pieces, please do so in a PM. That I have questions and that I think that the mass media should be more vigilant, does not indicate that I do not respect your opinion, your knowledge or who you are. At this point I have no opinion. I may as well tomorrow agree. But we should not shut our eyes to the discrepancies either for they are as equally as valuable as commonalities in the narratives.
  • njnancynjnancy Northern New JerseyPosts: 4,551
    I'm fine ending the debate, I respect that. And yes, intense is a generous term for the fans. lol

    This is just for the thread, not in response to you @fortyshades

    He came out angrily after the documentary aired but.....




Sign In or Register to comment.