It's not really a numbers game, the 2005 case was torn to pieces, using it to add things up as a pattern is rather strange. They wouldn't be the first persons to conjure up a compelling story that ultimately is not true.
Television Leaving Neverland....Harrowing Michael Jackson Documentary
- Thread starter simonhch
- Start date
I can only imagine how difficult it must been to finally deal with trauma that you've went through, but maybe also a bit liberating? Anyway, no child should have to deal with any kind of abuse let alone sexual. What's absolutely horrific is that children end up feel guilty about being abused.
If I'm honest, and I very rarely talk about it, I nearly got abused by a boy who was about 14-15. I was maybe 6-7. He exposed himself to me and started threatening me - thankfully I just bolted. I've never told anyone until I was 22 or so. It's kind of weird thinking about it, I didn't really know what was going on - I just knew it wasn't right.
Sure there was a thread on this and people were making excuses up for him, saying he just slept near the kids he had stay over and played with them like a kid would do, and justifying it.
Even if he was just doing that, which I find hard to believe, imagine if it was anyone 'normal' doing it.
Even if he was just doing that, which I find hard to believe, imagine if it was anyone 'normal' doing it.
Last edited:
Did you see faxs he was sending to Robson, they were akin to love letters I was sending to my ex when we were in long distance relationship. It's truly bizarre. I don't know how anyone could think it was appropriate behaviour, no matter the status. I'm nearly at end of the first episode and it's truly disturbing. Of course, they could be lying but to what end? Man, I really don't know what to think. At best he was fecking weirdo that need serious help and at worst, well...
Probably not!
And the common person may even excuse it.
Not seen any of this yet! I think there's plenty enough to realise it even before it. Will give it a watch though.
What's clear is that those kids genuinely idolised him. It's kind of sad. A part of me just wants to believe that there was no malice in his absurd behaviour.
It took me a while to get round to it but it's a must watch. It's on C4 on Wednesday I think.
Cheers. I missed the post. I'll read over it now.
come on, what you're doing is worse than that, you're defending him on instinct while not fully committing to that defence because you know it's on shaky groundsIf it is that scarring of a memory how wouldn't he?
It's the first time he met him. Not the time he was abused. It's not that I don't believe him it's just that I'm curious as to how he can remember so vividly being 5 years old. Like @Classical Mechanic pointed out, there are studies that it is perfectly possible to do so. In my experience, I couldn't remember feck all - the day my brother was born - when I was 5.
Listen, i think we all have that gut instinct that he probably did abuse boys, but there is definitely some shady backgrounds to the two in the documentary. On top of that, Jackson was found not guilty on all counts in a highly publicised trial when he was alive, so i understand the caution surrounding his innocence.
Forgive my ignorance on this specific subject, but is there a 'tradition' of people who suffered a stunted childhood & then, as adults, innocently sought the regular company of children? I ask this because I wondered how unique - or common - in the historical/psychological/social record Jackson's behaviour was.
Well, paedophiles always place themselves in work settings surrounded by children, like coaching/teacher roles. That cnut Huntley was a school care-taker for example also. The majority of paedophiles were also abused as children I believe. I have listened to many crime podcasts where they delve into the past of psychos and they are pretty much always exposed to some sort of abuse when they were younger.
True, but I wondered if Jackson's defence (that he innocently befriended children because he 'didn't have an ordinary childhood') has any credibility or not. In other words, is his a known behaviour common to people who lacked the usual joys of a normal childhood?
You need to watch the documentary and look at all the evidence. The evidence of him being a prolific paedophile is overwhelming.
Thank you for publicly sharing that. Can’t have been easy.
There’s really nothing shady about their backgrounds, other than being heavily groomed by Jackson. And Jackson was acquitted in his trial on the basis of the testimony of other former or current children who shared his bed. One of whom has since recanted. The other who has grown up to be a deeply troubled and drug addicted man.
This is a very interesting question. From my memory and revisiting of the trial, so much of their public defence revolves around (a) what you just said and (b) Mark Geragos threatening anyone who accused him with apocalyptic legal action.
It's not a defense, it's getting to the root of the problem. Paedophilia isn't a choiceWhy do people behave like they do? So many problems can be traced back to the childhood and MJ had a shitty childhood and basically a shitty life. He's a unique situation because there is basically no one else that's been accused of a similar crime that has gone through similar things so you can't make any statements about his mental state or reasons from your armchair whatever the truth might be.
I feel everything I read about this is subjective. The articles are all written with an agenda from either side. If you get a really unbiased opionion that looks at the facts and foregoes emotional affects then the result will be "I don't know" or "It's impossible to say for sure without more facts". Too many of the "facts" just aren't real facts. That's always the problem with abuse allegations without other witnessess than the accuser and accused or physical evidence. That's why he acquitted in 2003 and his reasoning for settling in 1993 makes perfect sense considering what happened with the latter case whilst simultenously also making perfectly sense for someone to do who is guilty and can afford it. There simply was no proof.
However the several testimonies and accounts definitely allude to his behavior towards some of the boys were not alright and non-abusive. I think it's very hard to believe that he did nothing wrong with boys. It's hard to believe that no abuse took place. What I personally find likely given the accounts of the abusers is that there was at least some boys that were abused but that MJ himself genuinely believe that what he did with or around them wasn't abusive behavior. If he was a paedophile and knew that he was a paedophile I don't believe he would have been so public with his relationships or statements on boys. Then again, nothing was normal about Michael Jackson.
Last edited:
The 2005 case was pretty poor though and shouldn’t have even made it to court. The Jordy Chandler case was also pretty poor with the father admitting in a phone call he wanted the money and that he held resentment towards MJ for not helping his music career. Jordy even sued his father years later after he beat him for not testifying in the 2005 case.
The unfortunate thing is the 4 people that have come forward, their stories can be picked apart for various reasons. The facts are that after extensive searches the FBI and the DA Tom Sneddon who seemed to have a personal agenda against MJ couldn’t find a thing.
Having that particular feeling or need might not be, but acting upon it certainly is your own choice imo.
Well you are entitled to your opinion. Personally I despair for those people who are willing to twist themselves in knots to defend a guy who is a very obvious paedophile. Jackson only managed to stay out of prison by virtue of his massive celebrity, ferocious legal team, and almost bottomless pockets.
That's true but there is hardly any data on paedophiles that aren't criminals. If you're a paedophile you have a sexual attraction primarily to prebubescent children. The disorder starts before or during puberty so you it's fair to assume that it's extremely hard to have this disorder and not act on it in any way throughout your life.
It was also probably wrong of me to use the term paedophilia or talk about it since most child molestions aren't done by paedophiles.
I prefer facts over belief. The fact is that despite extensive investigations he was found not guilty. However, I realise that doesn’t mean he’s innocent as investigations even by the FBI aren’t exactly fool proof.
My personal belief is that MJ has a lot of skeletons in his closet, the unfortunate thing is that the people that have come forward so far haven’t been concrete enough.
If you fully believe he is, do you then believe the first two cases had enough merit?
To be honest, the documentary is a hard watch. I’ve always known that Jacko was a fecking weirdo, but being a fan I didn’t want to believe he was a Paeodophile.
The similarities in both men’s stories (both stated Michael liked having his nipples touched/licked and enjoyed staring at their bumholes while masturbating) has me totally convinced.
Michael was a paedophile but in my opinion the parents are just as guilty as he was. They should never have been allowed to spend so much time alone with Jackson.
The similarities in both men’s stories (both stated Michael liked having his nipples touched/licked and enjoyed staring at their bumholes while masturbating) has me totally convinced.
Michael was a paedophile but in my opinion the parents are just as guilty as he was. They should never have been allowed to spend so much time alone with Jackson.
I’ve seen similarities in stories being mentioned a couple of times. I think over twenty years is enough time to get your similar stories straight.
No one knows what went on, I’m not even a fan of MJ but still shocked at peoples rush to judge after watching a piece of tv documentary even after law courts could not provide enough evidence.
I know, money, but still.
No one knows what went on, I’m not even a fan of MJ but still shocked at peoples rush to judge after watching a piece of tv documentary even after law courts could not provide enough evidence.
I know, money, but still.
There's a 300+ pages long pdf from the FBI investigation that's available to everyone, with no evidence of any wrongdoing, so the suggestion that evidence is overwhelming is a bit off..In terms of the 2005 trial, the problem wasn't the defence of Michael Jackson, the problem was the lack of any evidence of him being guilty, the prosecutions own witnesses were useless as well, their entire case imploded. They were left with scraps.
In terms of the leaving neverland series, they tell a compelling story but i won't instantly believe someone on that basis alone. They present their story, a horrible story of abuse, but at the same time it's not new evidence or new witnesses, and it's a one way street with information, which makes it very difficult. Robson has also set up a non-profit trust fund asking for donations as a survivor of child abuse, he's not required to disclose information about donations. Claiming that he's not getting money for this is, well...Also, for me, there's quite a few gaps in terms of what they did in 2005 and onwards, to what they're telling in the documentary and the reports they've filed. There's the contradictions in his lawsuit, deposition and what's being said now. I find it difficult to believe that he got past some hefty cross examinations for the 2005 case without showing any signs of being a victim, when he's now saying that he lied under oath and he didn't really want to do it. I also find it difficult to believe it on the basis that this comes after vast attempts to get large sums of money from the estate.
I'm cynical when it comes to this, especially after the metoo debacle which has been both great and terrible. Virtanen in Sweden for instance, and the fallout related to investigative journalists making a documentary on how metoo was handled in Swedish media. I've been close enough to some absurd examples of people lying..A friend of mine was assaulted and raped when she was walking home from a night out years back, another woman (lets call her X) who knows her, and the full story, started telling other people that my friend was more or less making things up, she wasn't really raped and it was just a drunken argument with a random knobhead on his way home as well. Fast forward around 3 years and woman X comes forward presenting a very detailed story of how she was sexually abused by someone her family is close to (and mine as well), i initially thought it was a bit strange that she'd go around telling lies about someone that was assaulted and raped, instead of feeling sympathy, especially when she claims she's been abused in the past. After a year or so, with the police looking into it, they found nothing and the case was dismissed. They couldn't find any actual evidence supporting her case, it being years back obviously made it difficult, but her detailed story was a bit too detailed, with a lot of her examples being on dates where it can't possibly have happened due to him being offshore, which was easier to check up on, and/or it supposedly happening at locations he didn't have access to. The problem is that it never goes away, in the back of your mind it's always a case of what if half of it was true, or was none of it true.
Bearing in mind you will effectively ruin the life of an innocent child if you act upon it, they could make the decision to chemically castrate.
Aren't you contradicting yourself a tad here? I don't know how much experience or knowledge you have of MJ being a paedophile.
I appreciate you've dealt with this in your past, but that doesn't make you an expert on all paedophiles.
Truth is I don't know if MJ was a paedo and neither do you.
What we do know is the courts of justice found him innocent after a very public and extensive investigation. Now, this wouldn't be the first time an investigation was wrong, of course.
But the fact remains, you do not know MJ was a paedophile. It is simply your opinion.
If you agree there's a real possibility he molested multiple children, why are you getting into an argument about the degree of certainty you attach to it? Why does that matter in the grand scheme of things?
The new evidence is the allegations made by the two men in the documentary. The previous cases partly rested on testimony from boys who spent a lot of time with Michael Jackon claiming that no abuse took place. Two of those that testified as part of the defence now claim to have lied on the stand and are claiming that Jackson abused them. So that is the original Jordan Chandler case that was settled out of court and the other case in which he was acquitted. Four accusations of child abuse directly from the boys/men who were left alone for long periods of time with Michael Jackson.
You can't paint these two as entirely credible whilst Jackson's innocnet depends on them and then entirely untrustworthy the minute they speak out against him without good reasons (money perhaps but I can't see it given the upheavel to their lives with nothing to show for it). The documentary presents good reasons as to why they would lie for Jackson in the first two trials. Putting myself in their shoes at that time I don't think I could have told the entire world if Jackson was abusing me.
Believe them or don't, but enough already with the bullshit spin.
You can't paint these two as entirely credible whilst Jackson's innocnet depends on them and then entirely untrustworthy the minute they speak out against him without good reasons (money perhaps but I can't see it given the upheavel to their lives with nothing to show for it). The documentary presents good reasons as to why they would lie for Jackson in the first two trials. Putting myself in their shoes at that time I don't think I could have told the entire world if Jackson was abusing me.
Believe them or don't, but enough already with the bullshit spin.
Its basically what every accusation against MJ has ever been about. How sure are people that he did it? Isn't what every criminal case is about? The degree of certainty that the crime was committed.
The degree of certainty is the difference between an accusation and jail time.
Yes but this isn't a criminal procedure and people don't pass judgment according to criminal law, for all sorts of good reasons. It just seems like some people in here are acting like MJ's defence attorney, actively challenging people on the nuances of the case.
Defence attorneys have an explicit incentive to do so. What is it you get out of it? It just seems detached from the big picture, from my perspective. You have to be very involved to go out there and actively argue against others, when you hold such a similar starting belief.
The only case Ive talked about is the one he was proven innocent on. I wouldn't call a not guilty verdict a 'nuance'.
I do have an issue with someone telling another to effectively not make sweeping, definitive statements and then continue making their own. And on a public forum, I'm allowed to discuss that, right?
You ask what I get out of it? What does anyone get? What does Simon get out of saying he's definitely a paedophile? What do you get out of replying to my post? We're having a discussion.
I have no idea what you mean by saying I must be very involved.
Plus we are talking about the American justice system here. Deep pockets and/or wall to wall TV coverage is guaranteed to get you off. Jeffrey Epstein being a prime example of how fame and fortune can manipulate a corrupt legal system.
Simon shared with us in this thread that he was a victim of child abuse so he would understand the reasoning of these two men sharing their stories now. I kind of think its bullshit to not believe a victim of grooming and pedophilia just because they didn't run out of the room screaming the minute they were touched. Coming to terms with something like this is a long process especially when the icon of prepubescent boys is the perpetrator. We must also consider that in a lot of instances the only semblance of justice and truth for victims comes through civil courts.
Ask anyone who had to deal with a the catholic church to hold sexual abusers accountable, they will tell you how easy it was for them to be silenced when family members who were meant to protect them were actually enabling the abuse. You are fighting deep pockets and an institution that is to be protected at all cost. In the 80's and 90's Jackson was an institution.
Now if we want to talk about the 05 case well let's look at the rhetoric of his legal team, kind of disgraceful to be honest. And if you think the legal system here is beyond reproach, well I have a lovely bridge for sale. This is a system that would have me on a register and my life in tatters if I took a piss against an elementary school wall on the way home from the pub but will allow a human trafficker and serial child rapist like Jeffrey Epstein basically go free because he had a dodgy prosecutor (who is now trump's labor secretary) who cowered at the sight of money and power.
Last edited:
American criminal justice system is trash. Always believe the victim.
What ?
I understand Simon has, but at no point have I asked why either of those 2 man have only just come out now. I'm well aware that it takes however long it takes. I have dealt with child abuse in my family with somebody very very close to me. If I've been insensitive, I apologize. I don't see where I have, but if I have, then sorry.
To be honest, your entire post has nothing to do with anything that I've said, so I've no idea why you quoted me? Unless I've missed something obvious.
These are all excellent posts and effectively answer certain posters for me. I have little to add to them.