Close to the end of the first episode myself and yeah I’m not sure if I can continue watching. I think that anyone with a shed of doubt on Jackson’s true intentions (myself included earlier in this thread) should watch this first. There’s little to no evidence but it’s just so clear to me that the man was a deeply dusturbed predator and I believe their words and feel absolutely sick to the stomach. To think what it took for them to announce this level of detail to the world is unimaginable. I also feel deeply for Jackson’s kids who had absolutely no choice in being associated with this horrid sicko.
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?
Paxi
Dagestani MMA Boiled Egg Expert
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2017
- Messages
- 27,678
Fair enough.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.
iammemphis
iwillnotaskforanamechangeagain
What i got from the documentary was that this guy, Wade, still loves him alot.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:
The disconnect, as I understand it, is that middle part. How could he want to celebrate his legacy, how could he love him, how could he talk about him fondly, if he had "confronted the truth" and decided what MJ did to him was heinous. That seems a pretty straightforward interpretation of what you've said.
- 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?
Paxi
Dagestani MMA Boiled Egg Expert
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2017
- Messages
- 27,678
I don't know what to think after watching that. I always thought he was just a creepy weirdo.
UncleBob
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2014
- Messages
- 6,330
As far as i'm aware, i've not claimed that it's impossible for a person to love someone that has abused them, feel free to quote me though. Not entirely sure why you claim it's "debating games" and that i'm deflecting questions, it's a simple answer, no i don't believe it's impossible for a person to love someone that has abused them. Rather than complaining about what you for some reason consider to be "deflecting questions" and "debating games", you'd be wise to take a look at the way you ask questions. Instead of simply asking me to clarify what i mean in a straighforward matter, you're asking a loaded question where you insinuate that my point of view is that it's impossible. It's exactly the same in regards to your loaded question about can't possibly want to hurt someone that you love (even if it's in response to them hurting you)?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.
I'm not sure if it's your general style, or if it's because of the subject, but in my experience it rarely leads to intelligent debates.
The disconnect is the combination, not an isolated part of it, in relation to if you believe a person is telling the truth or not.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:
The disconnect, as I understand it, is that middle part. How could he want to celebrate his legacy, how could he love him, how could he talk about him fondly, if he had "confronted the truth" and decided what MJ did to him was heinous. That seems a pretty straightforward interpretation of what you've said.
- 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?
https://www.scribd.com/document/335685460/MJ-Estate-Motion-to-Compel-Robson
He's struggling financially, career is failing and he's started selling off Michael Jackson memorabilia, family issues, and he's refused a part in the Cirque du Soleil. A month before the premiere he launches a lawsuit. Is it unlikely that the timing of the lawsuit is to add pressure on the estate to pay a substantial amount of money (obviously not the sum mentioned in the lawsuit) to prevent negative publicity ahead of the premiere ? Safechuck only discovers he's been abused after Robson's lawsuit attempt. There's the contradictions in the lawsuit compared to what he's saying in the documentary, there's the vast amount of redacted emails between him and his family, him not wanting to turn in other related documents (or the book he was working on). Add it up to what he said in 2005, what he said in the following years, how he explains it in the documentary.
Is it plausible that they are telling the truth, obviously. Is it plausible that they aren't telling the truth, obviously.
If people believe otherwise, no worries. Not sure why people believe that the documentary proves anything, that it's the final nail etc, it's more an emotional response to what they are hearing
Last edited:
Brwned
Have you ever been in love before?
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2008
- Messages
- 50,856
I didn't put words in your mouth or suggest you claimed anything. I offered an interpretation of what you said, to make it explicit rather than implicit, while framing it as a question in the knowledge that my interpretation was only one possible one. And for whatever reason you've chosen to move back to talking around it rather than about it. Hey ho.As far as i'm aware, i've not claimed that it's impossible for a person to love someone that has abused them, feel free to quote me though. Not entirely sure why you claim it's "debating games" and that i'm deflecting questions, it's a simple answer, no i don't believe it's impossible for a person to love someone that has abused them. Rather than complaining about what you for some reason consider to be "deflecting questions" and "debating games", you'd be wise to take a look at the way you ask questions. Instead of simply asking me to clarify what i mean in a straighforward matter, you're asking a loaded question where you insinuate that my point of view is that it's impossible. It's exactly the same in regards to your loaded question about can't possibly want to hurt someone that you love (even if it's in response to them hurting you)?
I'm not sure if it's your general style, or if it's because of the subject, but in my experience it rarely leads to intelligent debates.
The disconnect is the combination, not an isolated part of it, in relation to if you believe a person is telling the truth or not.
https://www.scribd.com/document/335685460/MJ-Estate-Motion-to-Compel-Robson
He's struggling financially, career is failing and he's started selling off Michael Jackson memorabilia, family issues, and he's refused a part in the Cirque du Soleil. A month before the premiere he launches a lawsuit. Is it unlikely that the timing of the lawsuit is to add pressure on the estate to pay a substantial amount of money (obviously not the sum mentioned in the lawsuit) to prevent negative publicity ahead of the premiere ? Safechuck only discovers he's been abused after Robson's lawsuit attempt. There's the contradictions in the lawsuit compared to what he's saying in the documentary, there's the vast amount of redacted emails between him and his family, him not wanting to turn in other related documents (or the book he was working on). Add it up to what he said in 2005, what he said in the following years, how he explains it in the documentary.
Is it plausible that they are telling the truth, obviously. Is it plausible that they aren't telling the truth, obviously.
If people believe otherwise, no worries. Not sure why people believe that the documentary proves anything, that it's the final nail etc, it's more an emotional response to what they are hearing
I find it strange that you consider his claimed love, explicit support and desire to be involved in his legacy as a potentially contradictory factor, if you've truly listened to the victims of abuse. You can dance around it for whatever reason you choose, but it is the case that you included those things as components of a suspicious timeline. Not the only component, not the most important component, but just a component. No more, no less. The other components make total sense and I don't challenge the broader scepticism at all. But I think the implication on that specific part is very unfortunate.
Yeah, I think so. James was much more explicit about it in the documentary and in follow-up talks about it. One of the things he struggles with is that the person he loves is the person he hates, he still sees a lot of good in MJ and instinctively a part of him feels he betrayed him, because he doesn't just exist as a single entity. It might feel incongruous but it's just the reality. Nothing will ever change the fact their mentor and lover was the person that stole their childhood. That doesn't resolve itself into a single feeling or a single action. In that context it's not just reasonable but expected that they will act in ways that are inconsistent with how we'd usually deal with someone that wronged us. Over and over again in this thread you have people placing absurd expectations on how people in this situation should act. More than anything it surprises me that people feel they have the right to even judge that. It's hard to empathise with strangers but come on.What i got from the documentary was that this guy, Wade, still loves him alot.
MJ had been in the limelight his entire life, he never had a proper childhood and he became richer than he could ever imagine. I fully believe he was cripplingly lonely and sought comfort from spending time with children, in essence, to have his childhood.
What I think he did though was develop a penchant for young boys which manifested into abuse and predatory behaviour. I'm not saying what Wade and Jimmy said was definitely true but in my opinion there's quite clearly a pattern of manipulative behaviour described by both of them. He would work his way into the family, garner their trust and use his fame to shock the child into awe and wanting to spend time with him. The most manipulative part was when they mentioned he would call everyone else 'ignorant' (Like he did in that interview a few pages ago, I think with Martin Bashir) and would create a divide amongst the child and their parents by telling them they don't understand.
I don't deny either that MJ was a good friend to these boys, he clearly was and they clearly loved him back, but that doesn't excuse anything he may have done to them sexually at all.
It's unnerving that he had a 'new boy' hanging around with him every 12 months (all roughly the same age).
Personally I believe he was a paedophile, sexual deviant and psychologically manipulative with young boys. I fully suspect there's some background deals from the estate money in order to keep some quiet about it, I don't know the specific ins and outs.
It's been said before with the likes of Savile. You look back on footage and think 'jesus, why did no one notice anything?!', and I get those same feelings watching him in old footage with the children (albeit not as publically crass as Savile, but the behaviour is very suspicious).
There's no way his career could be taken down like Savile's though, it's just too big to fail imo.
What I think he did though was develop a penchant for young boys which manifested into abuse and predatory behaviour. I'm not saying what Wade and Jimmy said was definitely true but in my opinion there's quite clearly a pattern of manipulative behaviour described by both of them. He would work his way into the family, garner their trust and use his fame to shock the child into awe and wanting to spend time with him. The most manipulative part was when they mentioned he would call everyone else 'ignorant' (Like he did in that interview a few pages ago, I think with Martin Bashir) and would create a divide amongst the child and their parents by telling them they don't understand.
I don't deny either that MJ was a good friend to these boys, he clearly was and they clearly loved him back, but that doesn't excuse anything he may have done to them sexually at all.
It's unnerving that he had a 'new boy' hanging around with him every 12 months (all roughly the same age).
Personally I believe he was a paedophile, sexual deviant and psychologically manipulative with young boys. I fully suspect there's some background deals from the estate money in order to keep some quiet about it, I don't know the specific ins and outs.
It's been said before with the likes of Savile. You look back on footage and think 'jesus, why did no one notice anything?!', and I get those same feelings watching him in old footage with the children (albeit not as publically crass as Savile, but the behaviour is very suspicious).
There's no way his career could be taken down like Savile's though, it's just too big to fail imo.
Last edited:
Seriously? if it's true that he had any sexual contact with those boys he was in no shape or form a ''good friend''. Wade is definitely showing signs throughout the documentary of still showing signs of affection towards him but it's not good, it's nothing but a product of Jackson's alleged manipulation. Totally evil to the core.MJ had been in the limelight his entire life, he never had a proper childhood and he became richer than he could ever imagine. I fully believe he was cripplingly lonely and sought comfort from spending time with children, in essence, to have his childhood.
What I think he did though was develop a penchant for young boys which manifested into abuse and predatory behaviour. I'm not saying what Wade and Jimmy said was definitely true but in my opinion there's quite clearly a pattern of manipulative behaviour described by both of them. He would work his way into the family, garner their trust and use his fame to shock the child into awe and wanting to spend time with him. The most manipulative part was when they mentioned he would call everyone else 'ignorant' (Like he did in that interview a few pages ago, I think with Martin Bashir) and would create a divide amongst the child and their parents by telling them they don't understand.
I don't deny either that MJ was a good friend to these boys, he clearly was and they clearly loved him back, but that doesn't excuse anything he may have done to them sexually at all.
It's unnerving that he had a 'new boy' hanging around with him every 12 months (all roughly the same age).
Personally I believe he was a paedophile and sexually deviant and psychologically manipulative with young boys. I fully suspect there's some background deals from the estate money in order to keep some quiet about it, I don't know the specific ins and outs.
It's been said before with the likes of Savile. You look back on footage and think 'jesus, why did no one notice anything?!', and I get those same feelings watching him in old footage with the children (albeit not as publically crass as Savile, but the behaviour is very suspicious).
There's no way his career could be taken down like Savile's though, it's just too big to fail imo.
Last edited:
luke511
Full Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2013
- Messages
- 7,130
According to Michael Jackson this is his most "autobiographical" song, just feels weird watching it. The lyrics are fecked up.
Rhyme Animal
Thinks Di Zerbi is better than Pep.
One thing with Jackson that always seems really, really weird to me (though is something of a digression from the topic), is that I find it really odd how no-one, and I mean no-one, really talks of him of a possible transgender person in a day and age where to be so wasn't as straight forward as it is now...
I mean, the guy day to day had on a women's wig, bright red lipstick, women's blouses, spoke in a female cadence, painted on feminine eyebrows, eye liner, had plastic surgery because he wanted to look like Diana Ross, wore corsets onstage...
I mean, I just find it odd that transgender-issues are basically never mentioned when doing the armchair psychology on him.
Please note - this has nothing to do with the allegations against him, and I'm not linking the two things, just stating that it's weird how we, as an audience don't sometimes see what's right in front of us.
It seems to me that there was a good chance he was dealing with transgender issues, and quite deeply.
I mean, the guy day to day had on a women's wig, bright red lipstick, women's blouses, spoke in a female cadence, painted on feminine eyebrows, eye liner, had plastic surgery because he wanted to look like Diana Ross, wore corsets onstage...
I mean, I just find it odd that transgender-issues are basically never mentioned when doing the armchair psychology on him.
Please note - this has nothing to do with the allegations against him, and I'm not linking the two things, just stating that it's weird how we, as an audience don't sometimes see what's right in front of us.
It seems to me that there was a good chance he was dealing with transgender issues, and quite deeply.
I don't think many of us have ever seen someone explain sexual abuse in such detail before, from the intricate methods MJ had of grooming them and their families, to the details of the acts themselves and how the sexual behaviour escalated. All the little things like the holding hands signal stuff. And... there was two of them.Not sure why people believe that the documentary proves anything, that it's the final nail etc, it's more an emotional response to what they are hearing
Then there's the stuff we know to be true surrounding it all; MJ building a theme park in his back yard, buying kids toys and trips together and flights to come visit him, taking a close liking to several young, similarly looking (and lets be honest good looking) young boys, at a similar age, then moving onto a new younger one every so often, and of course, everyone involved including MJ admitting he slept in the same bed with them - repeatedly.
It's all very, very convincing. It doesn't prove anything but it certainly puts most people further towards the guilty camp, I'd say.
I do agree somewhat with the idea that the sexual abuse seemed to be an extension of his infatuation with young boys.
I can imagine he gave boys sweets and toys and everything else not as a lure to rape then but because he loved to make them happy and loved their affection. That he also liked to rape some of them was an additional interest to him.
I believe he wanted to feed the world and save the earth and love the children. I also believe he enjoyed sexually abusing them and gave little thought to the harm he was causing. There seemed something of a Messiah complex and sociopathy to his behaviour. But he wasn't doing evilness every second of the day.
I can imagine he gave boys sweets and toys and everything else not as a lure to rape then but because he loved to make them happy and loved their affection. That he also liked to rape some of them was an additional interest to him.
I believe he wanted to feed the world and save the earth and love the children. I also believe he enjoyed sexually abusing them and gave little thought to the harm he was causing. There seemed something of a Messiah complex and sociopathy to his behaviour. But he wasn't doing evilness every second of the day.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 62,851
His explanation (that he generally 'loved children') falls down for me by the absence of female children in his constant company - if you sincerely love children, you don't just love boys (or girls) exclusively...
Berbaclass
Fallen Muppet. Lest we never forget
And the fact they were all similar aged boys etc.His explanation (that he generally 'loved children') falls down for me by the absence of female children in his constant company - if you sincerely love children, you don't just love boys (or girls) exclusively...
Says to me like they were specifically sought...
Well maybe worded that incorrectly. I apologise.Seriously? if it's true that he had any sexual contact with those boys he was in no shape or form a ''good friend''. Wade is definitely showing signs throughout the documentary of still showing signs of affection towards him but it's not good, it's nothing but a product of Jackson's alleged manipulation. Totally evil to the core.
He was a complete scumbag.
Sanche7
Full Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2018
- Messages
- 2,796
I haven't seen the documentary yet but I've been reading this thread and a lot of people seem to be asking the same question, why didn't the kids testify against Jackson in 2005?
Well I agree with many who feel the reason was that the kids loved him and admired him and tried to protect him
But it reminded me of something I read a few days ago. A head priest was accused of impregnating an underage teenager. The accusation was from an anonymous call. The police started looking into the case. The girl's father admitted that he was the one raping his daughter. The girl and her mother were interviewed and they did not refute the father's statement and they alleged it was not sexual assault since she was 18. They finally had to do a DNA matching to prove that the baby was indeed the priest's and they had to go through hospital records to prove that she was not 18
Just imagine, a father would rather say that it was him who was raping his daughter than point a finger at a priest. Fear, money whatever be the reason, these things are not as straightforward as many people think, especially when it involves someone like MJ.
Again,I'm not saying he's guilty but you never know what to trust.
Well I agree with many who feel the reason was that the kids loved him and admired him and tried to protect him
But it reminded me of something I read a few days ago. A head priest was accused of impregnating an underage teenager. The accusation was from an anonymous call. The police started looking into the case. The girl's father admitted that he was the one raping his daughter. The girl and her mother were interviewed and they did not refute the father's statement and they alleged it was not sexual assault since she was 18. They finally had to do a DNA matching to prove that the baby was indeed the priest's and they had to go through hospital records to prove that she was not 18
Just imagine, a father would rather say that it was him who was raping his daughter than point a finger at a priest. Fear, money whatever be the reason, these things are not as straightforward as many people think, especially when it involves someone like MJ.
Again,I'm not saying he's guilty but you never know what to trust.
Classical Mechanic
Full Member
Speaking out against Jackson is giving up your life in many ways. His legal team and fans are vicious and unrelenting. Jordy Chandler has disappeared and is supposed to have taken up a new identity.I haven't seen the documentary yet but I've been reading this thread and a lot of people seem to be asking the same question, why didn't the kids testify against Jackson in 2005?
The trans thing never comes up probably because his contemporaries were mainly Prince and Bowie with the likes of Lou Reed and glam rock close by. His style (surgery aside) wasn't odd, just great.
LuisNaniencia
Sky Sports called my bluff
His initial naivety with Saville may make him more attuned in spotting the similarities with Jacksons grooming.Bit rich coming from a guy who spent time with Saville and never twigged owt
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2008
- Messages
- 36,003
- Location
- None of your business mate
- Supports
- The greatest team in history
Imagine being one of the parents having to live with the fact that you basically pimped out your own kid. Unforgivable.
UncleBob
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2014
- Messages
- 6,330
Not sure how i'm talking around the subject when i've clearly stated " it's a simple answer, no i don't believe it's impossible for a person to love someone that has abused them." How is that not a clear answer ?I didn't put words in your mouth or suggest you claimed anything. I offered an interpretation of what you said, to make it explicit rather than implicit, while framing it as a question in the knowledge that my interpretation was only one possible one. And for whatever reason you've chosen to move back to talking around it rather than about it. Hey ho.
If you want to maintain that it wasn't a loaded question, then by all means.
It varies. There's victims of abuse who cut all ties, feel hate, and there's victims of abuse who spend the rest of their lives with the struggle of knowing what has happened is wrong but still loving the person who did it, feeling guilt for thinking that they might have played a part in making it happen as well. My girlfriend and her brother, 1,5 years between them, grew up with a father that was an abusive alcoholic (not sexually), they both more or less had the same experiences but they have two very different views on him and struggle to accept how one maintains a fairly close relationship while the other has more or less cut ties. Emotional response isn't clear cut and given in every situation.I find it strange that you consider his claimed love, explicit support and desire to be involved in his legacy as a potentially contradictory factor, if you've truly listened to the victims of abuse. You can dance around it for whatever reason you choose, but it is the case that you included those things as components of a suspicious timeline. Not the only component, not the most important component, but just a component. No more, no less. The other components make total sense and I don't challenge the broader scepticism at all. But I think the implication on that specific part is very unfortunate.
I don't see why it's unfortunate to debate the subject, as long as it's done in a decent manner, same goes for most things in life. I'm not saying this and that can't possibly be true, i'm questioning something i personally find difficult to believe. Is it plausible that what he's saying about the 2005 trial is true, obviously, high pressure situation with a lot of stress, everything happening a bit too fast, haven't come to terms with what happened in the past etc. Just as his behaviour after the trial and when Michael died is plausible no matter if you believe the truth is A or B. Yet i'm a bit more skeptic when it comes to the period when he is starting to come to terms with what happened, it feels a bit jekyll and hyde that on one side you're starting to discover memories, that you've been abused, and the feelings of betray combined with the love you feel/felt for that person, while on the other side you're doing interviews and pitching yourself to be a part of a huge production in memory of Michael, the book pitching etc. From my point of view, right or wrong, i'd expect him to be at a very different emotional state in the beginning when he's starting to come to grips with what he claims happened.
Massive Spanner
The Football Grinch
We watched the first part last night and that's what baffled me most. The two mother's just kept saying "Well.. it was Michael Jackson! I didn't think anything of it really". Maybe that is the case but I can't help but think they both came across as very fame hungry for their children and as such probably refused to even attempt to look at the negatives and instead their logic was always "the more MJ likes him, the better".Imagine being one of the parents having to live with the fact that you basically pimped out your own kid. Unforgivable.
I have been reading a lot of negative stuff about the two men since and how fame hungry they are, how they've sued before etc. etc. but even with that, there's no fecking way he wasn't a paedo. Sure the documentary is very one sided and I certainly won't take everything they say at face value but.. come on.. he was a paedo, anyone saying he wasn't is an idiot.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2008
- Messages
- 36,003
- Location
- None of your business mate
- Supports
- The greatest team in history
Yeah I found them both very dishonest throughout the entire thing. Just admit you did it for the money and lifestyle ffs. The one that was like "yeah we went to court to defend him and then he coincidentally bought us a house straight after" Uhuh...We watched the first part last night and that's what baffled me most. The two mother's just kept saying "Well.. it was Michael Jackson! I didn't think anything of it really". Maybe that is the case but I can't help but think they both came across as very fame hungry for their children and as such probably refused to even attempt to look at the negatives and instead their logic was always "the more MJ likes him, the better".
Brwned
Have you ever been in love before?
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2008
- Messages
- 50,856
Yes my sister and I have witnessed a lot of traumas within our family and will probably never see our dad in a remotely similar way. At some point you just accept that how people process emotional trauma is unbelievably unique and not worth judging.Not sure how i'm talking around the subject when i've clearly stated " it's a simple answer, no i don't believe it's impossible for a person to love someone that has abused them." How is that not a clear answer ?
If you want to maintain that it wasn't a loaded question, then by all means.
It varies. There's victims of abuse who cut all ties, feel hate, and there's victims of abuse who spend the rest of their lives with the struggle of knowing what has happened is wrong but still loving the person who did it, feeling guilt for thinking that they might have played a part in making it happen as well. My girlfriend and her brother, 1,5 years between them, grew up with a father that was an abusive alcoholic (not sexually), they both more or less had the same experiences but they have two very different views on him and struggle to accept how one maintains a fairly close relationship while the other has more or less cut ties. Emotional response isn't clear cut and given in every situation.
I don't see why it's unfortunate to debate the subject, as long as it's done in a decent manner, same goes for most things in life. I'm not saying this and that can't possibly be true, i'm questioning something i personally find difficult to believe. Is it plausible that what he's saying about the 2005 trial is true, obviously, high pressure situation with a lot of stress, everything happening a bit too fast, haven't come to terms with what happened in the past etc. Just as his behaviour after the trial and when Michael died is plausible no matter if you believe the truth is A or B. Yet i'm a bit more skeptic when it comes to the period when he is starting to come to terms with what happened, it feels a bit jekyll and hyde that on one side you're starting to discover memories, that you've been abused, and the feelings of betray combined with the love you feel/felt for that person, while on the other side you're doing interviews and pitching yourself to be a part of a huge production in memory of Michael, the book pitching etc. From my point of view, right or wrong, i'd expect him to be at a very different emotional state in the beginning when he's starting to come to grips with what he claims happened.
I just don't get why you don't see your point of view (or mine, or anyone else with an outside perspective) is wrong by default. You cannot expect him to act in a way you think makes sense, because you haven't got the slightest understanding of what it feels like. All you can say is what you already have - people deal with things differently, there's no right way to respond. Your assessment of the facts is not just valid but useful. To me it seems blindingly obvious that the opposite is true about the assessment of his emotional state. The victims of this abuse are telling you this over and over and over again. So either you've not listened to enough of them to hear that, or you're choosing to distrust them from an a ridiculously weak position.
Acole9
Outstanding
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2013
- Messages
- 12,507
Watched the first one, very graphic. Almost deliberate. Made me feel sick.
beedoubleyou
Full Member
That's quite unfair. He's spoken about it at length several times and I'm afraid that's just a bit of a silly statement on your behalf really.Bit rich coming from a guy who spent time with Saville and never twigged owt
He wasn't even the great artist so many make him out to be. He was a great singer and entertainer.
I saw someone online gushing about how amazing it was that he'd just hum an idea out, then someone would make it. Anyone can hum an idea (in fact Quincy Jones even says he got these from other people's tracks). It's the producers that really made his music memorable.
Prince was a great artist.
I saw someone online gushing about how amazing it was that he'd just hum an idea out, then someone would make it. Anyone can hum an idea (in fact Quincy Jones even says he got these from other people's tracks). It's the producers that really made his music memorable.
Prince was a great artist.
Paxi
Dagestani MMA Boiled Egg Expert
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2017
- Messages
- 27,678
She also claims that he was a serial cheater, and that he cheated on her with Brittney. Timberlake found out and it all kicked off. Apparently, him and Timberlake were good pals at the time, too.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Just seen this on Twitter. Interesting.
haram
New Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2017
- Messages
- 12,921
Feds have been investigating him for 10 years and he was never found guilty? Doesn’t add up.
LuisNaniencia
Sky Sports called my bluff
What do you surmise from it?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Just seen this on Twitter. Interesting.
I really don’t know tbh. I’ve already made up my mind that the man was a predatory pedophile. However until there’s stone cold evidence there will be vast amount of people coming out and trying to poke holes in his timeline of events. The Jacksons are going to fight back and use what they can but it’s not just about Wade it’s about the other boys in documentary too.What do you surmise from it?
Last edited:
does she say when they dated?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Just seen this on Twitter. Interesting.
What doesn't add up?Feds have been investigating him for 10 years and he was never found guilty? Doesn’t add up.
Paxi
Dagestani MMA Boiled Egg Expert
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2017
- Messages
- 27,678
14-21 iirc. I was listening to one of the podcasts she was on.does she say when they dated?
haram
New Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2017
- Messages
- 12,921
Is he was abusing children why was he never found guilty? Not saying he was innocent, but when the feds get involved, it’s not easy to escape.What doesn't add up?
I've seen it posted elsewhere and the implication seemed to be that it proves that Jackson can't have told them to hate women and somehow now the timelines can't match for some obscured reasons. Is it anything more than a variation on the I can't be racist my best friend is black argument? Because it's all very vague, perhaps deliberately so.
Classical Mechanic
Full Member
It is well known that the song 'Cry me a River' is about Spears cheating on him with Robson.She also claims that he was a serial cheater, and that he cheated on her with Brittney. Timberlake found out and it all kicked off. Apparently, him and Timberlake were good pals at the time, too.
Robson may well be an arsehole desperate for success in his personal life but that doesn't mean he wasn't abused.
She'd have to flesh out the claim of the 'messed up timeline' too, are there any details?
Massive Spanner
The Football Grinch
Maybe the glove didn't fit?Is he was abusing children why was he never found guilty? Not saying he was innocent, but when the feds get involved, it’s not easy to escape.