Film Leaving Neverland (MJ sexual abuse documentary)

[Ødegaard]

Not at all, it's just an interesting conversation as far as I'm concerned. It's always good to debate different viewpoints. I'm also not saying he's definitely guilty. My view is that the sleepovers were wrong either way and I struggle to believe he is that naive not to see that.

Bashir certainly questioned his motives after spending significant time with him as I remember.

I think it is wrong as well. I do also think that sleepovers are wrong, but at the same time I don't necessarily believe he cannot be too naive to think that it is fine. I've seen too many people with mental disabilities to think it is impossible, but that doesn't mean I believe that he is that naive. I don't know enough about psychology or him to think too much about it.

 

[LuisNaniencia]

I think it is wrong as well. I do also think that sleepovers are wrong, but at the same time I don't necessarily believe he cannot be too naive to think that it is fine. I've seen too many people with mental disabilities to think it is impossible, but that doesn't mean I believe that he is that naive. I don't know enough about psychology or him to think too much about it.

I've seen footage of him rehearsing and he is very commanding and behaves in an adult like way, yet when he's around kids he seems to behave under a different persona. I'm just being an armchair psychologist now though.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

You're reaching. In fact a few of you are. Same shit different day.

No doubt some of you will be arguing elsewhere on here that accusation isn't proof etc etc... I can understand people arguing for the sake of it or playing 'devil's advocate' but consistency would be nice. Just smells like people believe what they want to, as I alluded to in my first post.

Testimony is evidence in court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony

I think the whole #metoo movement has taught us that accusers should be given a voice. Perhaps before that movement I would have made similar arguments in similar cases that you hear the Jackson defenders making where I favoured the accused, for whatever reason.

My own view is that I feel its highly likely that Jackson was a sex offender. He behaved exactly like a predatory paedophile does. I posted earlier in the thread details on the Barry Bennell case and the similarities arre striking. Jackson fitted the criminal profile to a tee which is why the investigators ran with the case in 2005, aside from the allegations.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/nov/25/child-abuse-in-football

I was a kid. Until then, all I knew was he was an amazing coach and his house was like an Aladdin’s cave for kids. For a child in the 1980s, the only time you would normally see fruit machines was in the Blackpool arcades. You walked into Barry’s house and they were all round the sides. He had a juke box and when we stayed overnight he’d wake us up at 8am with “Feed the World” at full volume. There was a pool table. He had these beautiful pyrenean dogs. He had a wild cat. There was a spider monkey flying around the top of the room. He’d go to Swizzels Matlow, a sweets manufacturers in New Mills, and bring back boxes of toffees – drumsticks, refreshers, snap and crackle bars. For a kid it was: “Oh my God, what a place.” You’d put 5p in the games machines and the back was open anyway so he’d give you back the money. Everything he did was for a reason. Kids would be thinking: “I want to go to his house, I want to be here.” He had a waterbed. He drove a Mercedes 190E convertible. You’d go to a room and he had all this Le Coq Sportif stuff lying around. “Help yourself to some boots,” he’d say. Peter Reid boots, they used to call them. “Take what you want, whatever you want.” Monday morning, you were the trendiest kid in school. He told us he was a sales rep for Le Coq Sportif. Or he’d take kids to the Umbro warehouse that a guy called Frank Roper – who had another junior team in Manchester – ran in Cheetham Hill.

I am also wary of the power of his lobby. His fans are rabid in their obsession and seek to discredit and harass his accusers at every opportunity. The accusers are abused and receive death threats. His estate is very rich and use the full force of their resources to go after an accusers. They have an obvious vested interest in keeping the gravy train going. There's a narrative that he's a victim, a damaged and weak man but I feel he had a lot of power, especially over his accusers.

The counter argument is always that the accusers are financially motivated and that or that his sister was corrupted and bitter when she spoke about the families suspicions about his behaviour. There's a chance that could be true of course but I think that the accusers have a right to be heard.

To be clear, I really think that Jackson's behaviour was incredible and it amazes me that people defend point blank and dismiss the allegations out of hand. There's just so much there to cause doubt, masses of it, in my opinion.

 

[Ødegaard]

I've seen footage of him rehearsing and he is very commanding and behaves in an adult like way, yet when he's around kids he seems to behave under a different persona. I'm just being an armchair psychologist now though.

Aye. I've seen that too, and it irks me as well. But he has grown up around music so that could be his thing.

 

[ravi2]

My memory starts in the 90s, and he was still larger than life. To date I've not seen any other artist make fans faint at their concerts, just by showing up.

Elvis and the Beatles had similar effects on their fans.

 

[afrocentricity]

Testimony is evidence in court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimony

I think the whole #metoo movement has taught us that accusers should be given a voice. Perhaps before that movement I would have made similar arguments in similar cases that you hear the Jackson defenders making where I favoured the accused, for whatever reason.

My own view is that I feel its highly likely that Jackson was a sex offender. He behaved exactly like a predatory paedophile does. I posted earlier in the thread details on the Barry Bennell case and the similarities arre striking. Jackson fitted the criminal profile to a tee which is why the investigators ran with the case in 2005, aside from the allegations.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/nov/25/child-abuse-in-football

I was a kid. Until then, all I knew was he was an amazing coach and his house was like an Aladdin’s cave for kids. For a child in the 1980s, the only time you would normally see fruit machines was in the Blackpool arcades. You walked into Barry’s house and they were all round the sides. He had a juke box and when we stayed overnight he’d wake us up at 8am with “Feed the World” at full volume. There was a pool table. He had these beautiful pyrenean dogs. He had a wild cat. There was a spider monkey flying around the top of the room. He’d go to Swizzels Matlow, a sweets manufacturers in New Mills, and bring back boxes of toffees – drumsticks, refreshers, snap and crackle bars. For a kid it was: “Oh my God, what a place.” You’d put 5p in the games machines and the back was open anyway so he’d give you back the money. Everything he did was for a reason. Kids would be thinking: “I want to go to his house, I want to be here.” He had a waterbed. He drove a Mercedes 190E convertible. You’d go to a room and he had all this Le Coq Sportif stuff lying around. “Help yourself to some boots,” he’d say. Peter Reid boots, they used to call them. “Take what you want, whatever you want.” Monday morning, you were the trendiest kid in school. He told us he was a sales rep for Le Coq Sportif. Or he’d take kids to the Umbro warehouse that a guy called Frank Roper – who had another junior team in Manchester – ran in Cheetham Hill.

I am also wary of the power of his lobby. His fans are rabid in their obsession and seek to discredit and harass his accusers at every opportunity. The accusers are abused and receive death threats. His estate is very rich and use the full force of their resources to go after an accusers. They have an obvious vested interest in keeping the gravy train going. There's a narrative that he's a victim, a damaged and weak man but I feel he had a lot of power, especially over his accusers.

The counter argument is always that the accusers are financially motivated and that or that his sister was corrupted and bitter when she spoke about the families suspicions about his behaviour. There's a chance that could be true of course but I think that the accusers have a right to be heard.

To be clear, I really think that Jackson's behaviour was incredible and it amazes me that people defend point blank and dismiss the allegations out of hand. There's just so much there to cause doubt, masses of it, in my opinion.

That's a lot of text I wish you had condensed it. Based on how you start I'll assume it's to do with testimony in court (and read it in full later).

So I'll ask, in a situation when that testimony and others like it aren't enough to convict (maybe even nowhere near), how much stock do you really place in that testimony? Also, are you discounting testimonies that contradict the one you wish to believe?

It's neither here nor there to me as I'm happy to accept that I just don't know and probably never will. I'llI need more than (possibly framed) testimony on a docuseries, to push me towards any type of conclusion....

Edit:
Ok I just finished reading the rest of your post as it wasn't at long as my mobile made it look. I just don't think your viewpoint is balanced you seem to have decided he is a Charlie and are looking at it through that lens. Which is fair enough, it's the same as his stans, only the opposite. I'll leave it at that...

 

[adexkola]

Elvis and the Beatles had similar effects on their fans.

Ah fair. That was definitely before my time.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

That's a lot of text I wish you had condensed it. Based on how you start I'll assume it's to do with testimony in court (and read it in full later).

So I'll ask, in a situation when that testimony and others like it aren't enough to convict (maybe even nowhere near), how much stock do you really place in that testimony? Also, are you discounting testimonies that contradict the one you wish to believe?

It's neither here nor there to me as I'm happy to accept that I just don't know and probably never will. I'llI need more than (possibly framed) testimony on a docuseries, to push me towards any type of conclusion....

As far as I'm aware these two accusers testified in his favour in court in 2005 and helped him escape conviction. They have since changed their stories. From the reviews I read of the documentary all this is addressed and it is a broader story of how grooming and abuse can affect the behaviour of the abused.

I don't think too much weight should be put on the testimonies of Culkin and the other famous kid friend. Just because he didn't abuse them doesn't mean he didn't abuse others. Abusers that get such unfettered access to kids (like Bennell) know how to act appropriately when they need to.

It's a case of drawing our own conclusions from the documentary and you are right to hint that it should be viewed with a healthy degree of scepticism. I agree that it won't prove anything conclusively one way or another. Perhaps more will unfold from here.

 

[esmufc07]

Elvis and the Beatles had similar effects on their fans.

I did indeed.

 

[Shark]

I've read that Wade Robson witnessed in favor of Jackson back in 2005, and is now suddenly changing his tune. Doesn't sound like he's after some money at all..

 

[utdalltheway]

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-47403951

Some messed up reports there from the two guys.
Q: how come some on this thread are so positive that MJ wasn't a kiddy fiddler? I mean, how could you possibly be so sure?