'Leaving Neverland' (Michael Jackson sex abuse documentary) coming to HBO this spring (1 Viewer)

[Le_Moyne]

One of these guys I believe the Aussie is a famous choreographer. He dated Brittany Spears and allegedly caused her and Timberlake’s break up which lead to cry me a river song.

I’m not a fan at all of Michael JACKSON but I don’t believe these two guys at all. How can Michael JACKSON who is a perpetual child because he never grew up and lacked friends be a sadistic pedophile. From what I gather MJ just wanted friends and he was crazy. These guys were just as creepy as well as the families.

Wade Robson - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

People always assume that a pedophile is always sadistic . But that doesn't have to be the case. I am sure in his head he was having a love story with these kids and it was reciprocal. Would that make it ok?

Also for everyone saying that they are lying and it's a cash grab. Nobody in their right mind would go pretend to have been molested as a kid on such a public platform.

The reality is that whenever these kind of rumors pop up about a celebrity, they are true 9 times out of 10.

 

[SystemShock]

People always assume that a pedophile is always sadistic .

I don't think that's a true statement.

I am sure in his head he was having a love story with these kids and it was reciprocal. Would that make it ok?

No.

Also for everyone saying that they are lying and it's a cash grab. Nobody in their right mind would go pretend to have been molested as a kid on such a public platform.

I find this an odd statement. People do the craziest things for money.

The reality is that whenever these kind of rumors pop up about a celebrity, they are true 9 times out of 10.

Jackson was investigated by the FBI and tried. If he was guilty, he was really, really good at covering his tracks.

 

[saint_drago]

I watched the entire thing. I found the two men to be credible. I never wanted this to be true. Always told myself it was a cash grab by the parents. But now as an adult, I guess it should've been obvious when a grown man has 10 year old boys as travel companions.

 

[SaintsFan742]

Too many consistencies between the two men for it to be a lie. One can clearly see that they are both seriously impacted and will likely stay so for the rest of their lives. Will watch the offphrra interview tonight; anxious to see her take being she was sexually abused as a child and also a friend of michael.

 

[You]

Interesting read about the film: https://www.theatlantic.com/enterta...nd-how-michael-jackson-used-celebrity/584089/

Well written.

I agree that it’s much easier to simply ignore the allegations so that we can all keep on dancing ...

 

[Arathrael]

I watched the entire thing. I found the two men to be credible.

Too many consistencies between the two men for it to be a lie.

The problem there is that both of those would also be likely to be the case if it was a lie.

The documentary was produced, by design, to be "an account of sexual abuse", focused on the lives of the two men and their stories. Unless it's very badly done, that is always going to give an impression of credibility, in the same way a documentary focused on portraying Michael Jackson as a victim of false claims would inevitably give the impression they weren't at all credible.

And as far as consistency goes, as well as the above, consistency is noteworthy when the stories come from independent people with no source in common. But in this instance, they were in contact and both had lawsuits against Jackson and his estate via the same attorney five or six years ago. If one or both were lying, or experiencing some sort of false memory syndrome, then it would still be odd if they weren't consistent at this point.

Or to put it another way, falsehoods don't tend to be exposed by making a documentary about them that takes the position they're true.

That does not mean the claims are false of course. They'd also appear to be credible and consistent if they were true. It just means that they can't be objectively concluded to be true purely on the basis of that apparent credibility or consistency.

 

[saint_drago]

The problem there is that both of those would also be likely to be the case if it was a lie.

The documentary was produced, by design, to be "an account of sexual abuse", focused on the lives of the two men and their stories. Unless it's very badly done, that is always going to give an impression of credibility, in the same way a documentary focused on portraying Michael Jackson as a victim of false claims would inevitably give the impression they weren't at all credible.

And as far as consistency goes, as well as the above, consistency is noteworthy when the stories come from independent people with no source in common. But in this instance, they were in contact and both had lawsuits against Jackson and his estate via the same attorney five or six years ago. If one or both were lying, or experiencing some sort of false memory syndrome, then it would still be odd if they weren't consistent at this point.

Or to put it another way, falsehoods don't tend to be exposed by making a documentary about them that takes the position they're true.

That does not mean the claims are false of course. They'd also appear to be credible and consistent if they were true. It just means that they can't be objectively concluded to be true purely on the basis of that apparent credibility or consistency.

I don't know about all that. All I know is that it didn't seem like those two men were lying. I feel so bad for them and the other boys that were abused.

It seems so obvious now. Everybody says, "Oh he was just a kid" like that excuses all of the extremely inappropriate things he did that no one disputes. But he wasn't a kid. He was a grown man with the needs of a grown man.

 

[SaintsFan742]

The problem there is that both of those would also be likely to be the case if it was a lie.

The documentary was produced, by design, to be "an account of sexual abuse", focused on the lives of the two men and their stories. Unless it's very badly done, that is always going to give an impression of credibility, in the same way a documentary focused on portraying Michael Jackson as a victim of false claims would inevitably give the impression they weren't at all credible.

And as far as consistency goes, as well as the above, consistency is noteworthy when the stories come from independent people with no source in common. But in this instance, they were in contact and both had lawsuits against Jackson and his estate via the same attorney five or six years ago. If one or both were lying, or experiencing some sort of false memory syndrome, then it would still be odd if they weren't consistent at this point.

Or to put it another way, falsehoods don't tend to be exposed by making a documentary about them that takes the position they're true.

That does not mean the claims are false of course. They'd also appear to be credible and consistent if they were true. It just means that they can't be objectively concluded to be true purely on the basis of that apparent credibility or consistency.

Good points. Curious what you think about the other alleged victims who did bring their allegations forward before they were adults. We don't have the in-depth details of their allegations as they weren't a major part of this documentary.

 

[saint_drago]

Think about those parents who got caught up in the fame. How do they live with themselves? How did they let their children sleep in a man's bed? Celebrity just blinds people I guess. Had he been a farmer named Reginald Jackson who acted child like, you think anyone would've let their children sleep with him? Of course not. But because he was awesome at singing and dancing it was ok.

 

[Saint Jack]

Think about those parents who got caught up in the fame. How do they live with themselves? How did they let their children sleep in a man's bed? Celebrity just blinds people I guess. Had he been a farmer named Reginald Jackson who acted child like, you think anyone would've let their children sleep with him? Of course not. But because he was awesome at singing and dancing it was ok.

It happens across the country. Look at the wide scale abuse by the Catholic Church. There’s even a Netflix documentary about what you just described, “Abducted In Plain Sight.” That’s about a regular Idaho family.

 

[Brandon13]

It happens across the country. Look at the wide scale abuse by the Catholic Church. There’s even a Netflix documentary about what you just described, “Abducted In Plain Sight.” That’s about a regular Idaho family.

At least Michael Jackson was the biggest celebrity in the world and could use that on the parents.. the parents in "Abducted in Plain Sight" were the most naive people I've seen in my life.

 

[kanona29]

One of these guys I believe the Aussie is a famous choreographer. He dated Brittany Spears and allegedly caused her and Timberlake’s break up which lead to cry me a river song.

I’m not a fan at all of Michael JACKSON but I don’t believe these two guys at all. How can Michael JACKSON who is a perpetual child because he never grew up and lacked friends be a sadistic pedophile. From what I gather MJ just wanted friends and he was crazy. These guys were just as creepy as well as the families.

Wade Robson - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That is Wade Robson. I know a lot about him because he was a Choreographer for NSYNC for their Celebrity album and I am/was a huge NSYNC fan. ? He was also a choreographer on So You Think You Can Dance. He is obsessed with being famous and "relevant". And yes he is the individual who cheated with Britney Spears.

People don't realize that just shortly before Wade first came out with the allegations he was desperately wanting to be involved in a Michael Jackson tribute project and when he did not receive the role he wanted to play, shortly afterwards he came out with the allegations. He was dancing and creating choreography to MJ's music just a few years ago! I don't know the other guy at all, but Wade Robson is not a reliable source for me. A lot of his supposed memories are from some type of hypnosis sessions.

You can learn a bit more about Wade in this video , but Wade was shot down before with his allegations. And with the #metoo movement he is looking to capitalize and gain attention IMO.




The HBO documentary had less than 2 million viewers in ratings and even less for Part 2. And the Oprah special had less viewers as well because we have already been thru this accusation before with at least Wade and it was shut down before by fans and non-fans of MJ a few years ago. There was even a website that was created and chronicled his allegations and pin-pointed all the numerous lies and times his story has changed.

He has struggled with gaining employment and money problems the last few years and I believe this is his way to get the attention and money he has always felt he deserved.

Michael Jackson is not here to defend himself and there is no smoking gun to prove the allegations. And I know a good bit about this guy since early 2000s.

So, It's a no for me

 

[saint_drago]

It happens across the country. Look at the wide scale abuse by the Catholic Church. There’s even a Netflix documentary about what you just described, “Abducted In Plain Sight.” That’s about a regular Idaho family.

I watched that documentary and it was one of the most jaw dropping things I have ever seen. In that case it seems like both parents were in love with the man. I think they knew full well what was going on. Both parents had sexual relations with the abuser BEFORE letting him sleep in their daughter's bed for his "therapy".

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

That is Wade Robson. I know a lot about him because he was a Choreographer for NSYNC for their Celebrity album and I am/was a huge NSYNC fan. ? He was also a choreographer on So You Think You Can Dance. He is obsessed with being famous and "relevant". And yes he is the individual who cheated with Britney Spears.

People don't realize that just shortly before Wade first came out with the allegations he was desperately wanting to be involved in a Michael Jackson tribute project and when he did not receive the role he wanted to play, shortly afterwards he came out with the allegations. He was dancing and creating choreography to MJ's music just a few years ago! I don't know the other guy at all, but Wade Robson is not a reliable source for me. A lot of his supposed memories are from some type of hypnosis sessions.

You can learn a bit more about Wade in this video , but Wade was shot down before with his allegations. And with the #metoo movement he is looking to capitalize and gain attention IMO.




The HBO documentary had less than 2 million viewers in ratings and even less for Part 2. And the Oprah special had less viewers as well because we have already been thru this accusation before with at least Wade and it was shut down before by fans and on-fans of MJ a few years ago. There was even a website that was created and chronicled his allegations and pin-pointed all the numerous lies and times his story has changed.

He has struggled with gaining employment and money problems the last few years and I believe this is his way to get the attention and money he has always felt he deserved.

Michael Jackson is not here to defend himself and there is no smoking gun to prove the allegations. And I know a good bit about this guy since early 2000s.

So, It's a no for me

Very interesting.

I cant personally bring myself to watch the Neverland doc because it seems too disturbing.. but as to the question of Jackson’s guilt or innocence, i just don’t know.. on most ‘issues’, i either have a strong opinion, or i at least lean one way or the other.. on this, I don’t know what to believe.

 

[Arathrael]

Good points. Curious what you think about the other alleged victims who did bring their allegations forward before they were adults. We don't have the in-depth details of their allegations as they weren't a major part of this documentary.

I followed the 2004 trial at the time, which included at least some testimony and evidence relating to previous allegations which were settled, and from what I recall it was all pretty unconvincing, dubious parents with a history of dubious litigation, Neverland ex-employees who'd previously tried to sue Michael Jackson after being fired and then been counter-sued and lost, and inconsistent testimony all round. I wasn't surprised he was cleared at the time, even without the testimony from the defense witnesses.

Speaking of which, if Robson's account now is entirely true, I'm slightly amazed Jackson and his defense would have called him to testify. They'd have been calling an adult Jackson repeatedly abused as a child to testify, with cross-examination, that he wasn't abused in the same way Jackson was on trial for. Presumably he'd have had to convince the defense that wasn't the case, but Jackson would have known obviously. That seems like kind of an unnecessarily risky move, to put it mildly.