Watch the doc to find out.
Had some art books, some featuring some nude images of boys. And girls. And men. And women.
Do we take everything said in a documentary as 100% proof? What about the countless people that said he wasn’t an abuser, do we just ignore all of them. I’m not defending him here, the guy has definitely behaved in a way that understandably drives huge suspicions but I doubt I’m going to be completely convinced by a documentary including two men that previously defended their abuser.
Ah, the one from the 2005 trial that were so innocent that the only thing actually pornographic was normal porn
Nothing will ever be 100% in this case. I'm just saying the doc does try to address your question. Up to you whether you want to make your mind up without watching it.
Are you serious? AFAIK MJ didnt have any child related nude content but even if he did do you know how many people end up molesting children vs those that just watch the content online?
Plenty of people seem to be already arriving at definitive conclusions based on this documentary, including the OP. No matter how shocking this documentary is, it also shouldn’t shock people enough to confuse it with actual evidence. Glad it addresses that question anyway, I’ll certainly go in without making my mind up.
Remember I didn't say he did, I was saying that I didn't find the childlike theory to be one that more absolves than incriminates.
NRK will air it quite soon
NRK nett-tv 10/3.
Thanks.
Me too. I remember nothing until I was about 5 and even then it’s hazy!
Doesn't absolve him but leaves enough room to take a stance that he didn't do it. Doesn't mean he definitely didn't.
Yeah I'm not saying it's impossible to remember some stuff but Wade Robson describes what MJ was doing when he went to meet him in Jacksons hotel room and subsequently how long he was there for. How on earth can someone remember that?
Looking online and Robson was 5 when he first meet Jackson and Safechuck was 10 so neither were toddlers. Hanging around with a God like figure you idolise is a memory that’s more likely to stick in your mind too.
Isn't it a safe assumption to say that the "countless people" who say he wasn't an abuser just weren't abused by Jackson or slept in his bed when they were 7 years old.
I don’t know, but I guess there’s a distinction between HBO and HBO Nordic. Perhaps NRK has bought the rights for Norway?
According to this it is possible to have vivid long lasting memories from an even younger age.
You are probably right.
I'll pre-empt this by saying I'm yet to actually see the documentary but in this case I am already aware that Robson was turned down by Jackson's estate for directing the Immortal world tour a year before first making the allegations. His career, finances and general life then went to pot over the next year and he ultimately unsuccessfully tried so sue the Jackson estate based on the allegations, then unsuccessfully tried to sell the story in a book and eventually landed the documentary. I'm also aware Safechuck has apparently said in the past that he realised he was also abused after becoming aware of Robson's 1.5 billion dollar lawsuit. That seems to be quite a different situation to a large number of women going to the authorities about what Cosby did to them. As I say, I'm yet to see the documentary but I'm suspicious that the accusations are purely for financial gain going in.
Robson was abused from ages 7 to 14. Safechuck from 10 to 16. So neither were even remotely close to being toddlers.
Sorry to hear that mate. I mean I just find it peculiar because of my childhood memories, or lack thereof.
Well you’re safe enjoying his undoubted masterpiece, Rock & Roll Part 2, because he doesn’t appear on it
You should definitely watch it. You should also be very careful to speak too confidently on such a sensitive issue, when you don't have any real experience or knowledge of it. I am not trying to be critical here; but I am saying that having watched the documentary, and also adding it to what we already know about Jackson, I would find him guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. The issue about the two boys defending him earlier is very clearly addressed in the documentary, and from the perspective of someone who has been subjected to similar things they have been; 100% believable. In fact I would have found it more surprising if they had come forward at the time, given the circumstances of their relationship with him.
Thanks. I do appreciate that. As someone who is about to turn 40, I can say that i buried this deep down until I hit my late 30's; and for the longest time felt a huge amount of shame and stigma attached to coming forwards about it. Now I am very open about it, because (a) I understand and finally believe that it was in no way my fault, and (b) there are other people who can benefit from a strong voice and example to show you can go through this sort of hell, and still come out the other side and be a (reasonably) well adjusted, and successful adult.
That really doesnt mean he didnt do it. Only that the parents didnt have enough money and MJ really did.
Didn't know that!Well you’re safe enjoying his undoubted masterpiece, Rock & Roll Part 2, because he doesn’t appear on it
Thank you. Good post.
Are you UK? If so Wednesday channel 4.
Part 1 has him singing Rock & Roll over and over in a tedious way; Part 2 (the B-side, but the one the radio picked up on which became the big hit) has his vocals removed and is just an instrumental, with the Glitter Band shouting Hey! at appropriate intervals.
That’s one factoid you won’t hear as a question in the local pub quiz.
