Plus, there's the 'he makes us money' angle:
Guardian said:
Television Leaving Neverland....Harrowing Michael Jackson Documentary
- Thread starter simonhch
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
Why, if Jackson innocently craved the company of children, did he not simply adopt some? A person of his means should've been able to...so why didn't he do so instead of 'borrowing' an ever-changing cast of other people's kids? Hmm...
Because he was a massive nonce
There was something about him supposedly wanting to help kids, so it could be argued he wanted to interact with and help as many as possible. It's probably because he's a massive nonce though.
I watched and I thought the two guys were believable. I understand the uproar about the money side of things but there was just way too much questionable behaviour from Jackson for me which makes me think they were telling the truth.
Just watched the first episode and feel physically ill.
If you want to look at this in the most sympathetic way possible towards MJ, that's cool, you do you. But you're doing a disservice to these people if you don't challenge the assumptions that sympathy is founded upon. That's not looking at things from another perspective. That's active ignorance for selfish reasons.
Have you never listened to any of the catholic priests talk about how they perceived the children and their relationship with them? You should listen to Joaquín Benítez in Examination of Conscience and Oliver Grady in Deliver Us From Evil. Love, compassion, kindness. That's what they felt they were sharing. Just to be clear, they confessed to their crimes. In the latter case, a truly sickening number.
If you want to look at this in the most sympathetic way possible towards MJ, that's cool, you do you. But you're doing a disservice to these people if you don't challenge the assumptions that sympathy is founded upon. That's not looking at things from another perspective. That's active ignorance for selfish reasons.
First of all, I was only saying that in that instance MJ is providing an alibi.
Secondly, it goes both ways. I am not denying what MJ has done or accepting it because I am in no position to know whether or not something happened or not. All I can do is have faith that a proper investigation team would figure it out.
If you truly believe that a few documentaries and "weirdness" of a person is enough to accept he did it then do you also think we should get rid of courts for "obvious" cases? Good on you if you believe this but if there is even a 1 percent chance MJ is innocent, then labelling an innocent man to have been guilty of all these crimes would be quite sickening.
Like I said, I simply don't believe I have the information. I think it's quite possible it did happen but also probable it didn't. How can I take a stance with this information. Investigation units exist for a reason.
Yes, but the point you seem to be wilfully ignoring is the people who use this reasoning so freely, are the people who also do these things. For you to believe this is a plausible "alibi" would suggest you know other people who would say this, but don't mean "sexually exploit" when they say "show love". Because you do know people who would say this and have allied it sexual exploitation. Or at least you can, if you want to. MJ is not unique in having a lost childhood, and an unusual perception of children in his adult life.
I find it weird that you're focusing on these documentaries. These inanimate objects. It's not the documentaries that communicate the message. It's the people. You're making a choice to believe MJ, when you say it's probable it didn't happen. Other people who think it's "probable" it did happen are also making a choice to believe people. They're not being misled by some dramatic narrative. They're not following a crowd of opinions. They're doing exactly what you're doing.
Not only that but they end up blaming themselves for most of their lives. Especially in the face of public scrutiny when everyone questions their motives and agendas. It takes years and years of therapy to come to terms with what happened to them or even forgive their parents.
So what should I focus on if not documentaries? What all do we have right now to be able to make a judgement? It's the only way we can make one. That or wikipedia articles.
And yes it's a plausible alibi because not everyone who sleeps with children would have abused them. Maybe there's a very high chance they would have but like I said, not everyone. For instance, it seems very possible Macauly Culkin was not abused and they spent a fair amount of time together as well. Are you saying anyone who sleeps with a child MUST be punished because that is proof enough for the abuse?
Okay, the argument I'm coming across may also be used by the people who do this but what have I got to do with them? Just because they abuse this form of reasoning for their own power doesn't mean I can't use it myself to make a fair judgement.
As for your last point, I am making a choice to abstain from making a judgement. I can't say for sure MJ was innocent and vice versa. I simply do not have access to all that information to make a judgement.
I disagree about not being misled by dramatic narrative. The main selling point of this latest documentary is the vivid detail and emotions portrayed by the alleged victims. It is what makes it possible to believe that they indeed may have been victims of MJ.
Also, if they were abused it is extremely sad and depressing. However, you can't do much now. They had the chance to testify I believe. The FBI couldn't find much. I mean, admitting to all the stuff that happened and releasing a documentary after the death of MJ unfortunately cannot be conclusive evidence.
Unless someone of authority actually decides to reinvestigate this and come to a conclusion, I can't say for sure that MJ did this. I also am not gonna go around defending him for obvious reasons.
I'm not really a fan of Joe Rogan's show, but I'm kind of in the same place as him with this topic - it's weird, it's sad, it isn't normal, he isn't alive to defend himself properly, when he was alive he was tried (unlike many of the recent celeb cases that've come to light - Jim'll Fix It, politicians etc who were actively protected by the authorities until they died...) and was found innocent in a trial that seemed very thorough and also seemed to take a great deal out of him...
Rogan and co also mention that Jackson was apparently chemically castrated? I didn't know this previously, not sure it challenges the allegations anyway, but yeah.
Jackson was obviously a very odd, and I think quite seriously mentally ill person. His openness about his connection with children is very unique - I can't think of any other cases like this where the person flat out advertised that they slept in the same bed as children... Which I guess might suggest that if he was guilty he was approaching criminally insane - unable to actually know the difference between right and wrong?
He just seemed like he was from another planet in a way. And I'm not comfortable either way - I'm not comfortable condemning a man that was tried and found innocent in his lifetime, and I'm also not comfortable dismissing the words of these men.
I suppose all I know is that I hope he was innocent - which is possible. But I have genuinely no clue what happened, none of us do.
Rogan and co also mention that Jackson was apparently chemically castrated? I didn't know this previously, not sure it challenges the allegations anyway, but yeah.
Jackson was obviously a very odd, and I think quite seriously mentally ill person. His openness about his connection with children is very unique - I can't think of any other cases like this where the person flat out advertised that they slept in the same bed as children... Which I guess might suggest that if he was guilty he was approaching criminally insane - unable to actually know the difference between right and wrong?
He just seemed like he was from another planet in a way. And I'm not comfortable either way - I'm not comfortable condemning a man that was tried and found innocent in his lifetime, and I'm also not comfortable dismissing the words of these men.
I suppose all I know is that I hope he was innocent - which is possible. But I have genuinely no clue what happened, none of us do.
You have made a judgment. You said he's probably innocent just minutes ago. The cognitive dissonance is there for you to see.
I don't think anyone that sleeps with children is a child molester. I think anyone that speaks about it openly in that way is telling you something about themselves, though. After settling the civil case. Then buying this other woman a house.
Seriously, listen to those two priests if you really want to understand what that means. Or show me an example of it meaning anything else. Likewise @Rhyme Animal. It is not a unique way to describe precisely that situation.
I didn't say he's probably innocent. I said (or at least meant) that his innocence is also a probability = the fact that he is innocent is also probable. The fact that he is guilty may be more possible but that doesn't change that.
This basically.
What you said was that it was possible he was guilty and probable he wasn't. I don't know why you used the words in that order if the opposite is a true representation of your assessment, but let's not confuse things here - probable means it is likely that is the case.
I’m watching episode 1 tonight, does anything mention about the kids testifying at the trial that he was innocent?
It’s all a bit fishy to me
It’s all a bit fishy to me
Yeah, they try to explain it
Given that people are happy to lie in low profile cases just to hurt someone else on the basis of being pissed off, I'm happy to believe that there are people that will lie about abuse in high profile cases where money, and lots of it, is involved.
My problem with the documentary, is that there's no attempts of providing evidence of anything, it's their story and that's it. I find it difficult to believe, from a personal point of view, that given what Robson claims in the documentary about the 2005 trial, he manages to get though cross examinations and testify without anyone picking up on it. The timeline, for me, just doesn't make sense. So he didn't want to testify and he says he worked up the courage to tell Michael but he was convinced to testify, yet he keeps praising Michael in the years to come. Robson says it all started to come down after he became a father in 2010, his realization that he was abused by Michael etc and him finally confronting the truth. Yet in 2011 he's begging for a part in the Cirque du Soleil in Vegas, wanting to make the show fantastic in memory of Michael, and in 2012 he's interviewed talking about his love for Michael Jackson, still dancing to his music etc, praising him as a person, the same year that he's trying to find someone willing to publish a book about him being sexually abused by Michael Jackson, in 2013, a month before the premiere of the Cirque du Soleil show, he launches a lawsuit where he wants $1.3-1.6 billion.
Show this thread - read the fragments from the lawsuit
It's interesting to read the timeline surrounding the lawsuit, and not to mention the stuff about how he's redacted a shitload of emails between him and his family.
https://www.scribd.com/document/341877298/Order-on-MJ-Estate-Motion-to-Compel-Robson
I just find it insanely difficult to have faith in Robson telling the truth.
Last edited: Yesterday at 18:50
Last edited:
Can't find the piece I read on this the other day, but it was my understanding that Robson/Chandler have been discredited on many occasions and shown to be completely untrustworthy. Still trying to find it.
Last edited:
If you think that kids have never defended their abusers before then that's only because you haven't looked at abuse cases before. The idea that from your vantage point you can judge their actions is kinda mad, if you give it any serious thought.
It's on national tv in Belgium tomorrow, I'll record it. 4 hours ffs.
Nah, chemical castration is non permanent so even if his dad did that to him, Jackson would have had to maintain it throughout his life every 3-5 years.
finished this last night, that bit when Wade described telling his family was heartbreaking 
Im using the mathematic probable. Its probable too that he was innocent.
Are you suggesting here that a person can't possibly love someone that abused them, that did something they now find despicable? Or is it a narrower point that you can't possibly want to hurt someone that you love (even if it's in response to them hurting you)? I'm really struggling here why love enters into your mind at all as contradictory evidence.
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Holy shit i actually just shed a tear for this wade guy when he finally tells his family. fecking mental.
He’s right. He 100% had some sort of sexual interest in children and is by definition a paedophile. Whether he actually acted upon it is a different question.
I'm struggling to watch this. Started it before and I'm considering turning it off.
I was going to post a link to Kyle Dunnigan's MJ impression but thought better of it (don't want to get banned).
Google it if you like your comedy darker than a black hole.
Google it if you like your comedy darker than a black hole.
I’m intrigued
Edit: Not up there with “Michael Jackson’s Children’s Hospital” but it was okay
He was a fecking scumbag nonce.
The absolute state of people defending him and his actions as well.
The absolute state of people defending him and his actions as well.
Just started watching the Oprah special, fecking hell James looks like he hasn’t slept for a week
No ?
No ?
As far as i'm aware, i haven't focused on love specifically as a contradictory evidence, not entirely sure why this is what you choose to focus on.
Is that enough to get you banned? I've seen and it's brilliant by the way.
Course he did, it was blatantly obvious watching that documentary, did you watch it? I genuinely think he was a boy in a mans body who fell in love with other kids . When you hear some of the confessions of convicted paedophiles alot of them profess their genuine love for the kids they abused. Its totally fecked up.
I don't think so but that sort of humour is not really for everyone and I did not want to shove it down anyone's throat.
Yay. Debating games. I suggest rather than dragging out the discussion by questioning and deflecting questions, you just jump straight to what your point was. I'll start by clarifying my question.
Here's how I read this. The timeline doesn't make sense, because the way some of the evidence you've outlined lines up, doesn't quite fit. Something about that series of events is contradictory, which makes you suspicious. Let's break it down into those different elements:
- In 2010 he "confronted the truth"
- In the next couple of years he wanted to celebrate MJ's legacy at the Cirque du Soleil, said he loved him, talked about him fondly
- During that time he also looked into writing a book about the abuse and sought to profit from it
If so, what part of that doesn't make sense to you? Do you believe that he couldn't possibly have loved him, while at the same time thought what he did was heinous?
So many punchlines.....
Yeah I’ve watched it, I’m of the opinion he is absolutely guilty.
Michael Jackson literally went to great length to ensure that he won the trust of young children and their parents in order for them to share a bed with him unsupervised and on as many occasions as possible. This is not a disputed fact. This is not attacking the character of someone who is now deceased. Jackson himself admitted this. It's baffling that, as Theroux said in his tweet, how many people want to allow themselves to be wilfully blind on the reality of the depravity of the entire situation.