Michael Jackson

[Fierce_LiNk]

So, the Leaving Neverland documentary is now available to watch. I've got it recorded and am just finding the time (and the strength) to sit down and watch it. The allegations towards Jackson sound horrific and this documentary almost certainly will alter his legacy and the way that people respond to not only the person himself, but also his music. Especially with reports of many stations moving to ban any songs by him.

Has anyone else seen this yet? If so, thoughts? 

[Goafer]

I've not seen it yet, but ll the people I have heard speak about it have said that they've had a hard time believing the victims, as some seemed far too happy to talk about it casually. One victim apparently had a lot to do with post-death tribute events to Michael, which does indeed seem odd for someone who was allegedly abused by him.

I'll give it a watch at some point and form my own opinion. Currently, I do think he would be a very easy target for fraudulent accusations due to his eccentricity, but I wouldn't want to doubt any victims without seeing it first.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Goafer

[Hero-of-Time]

A few people at work were on about it so I gave the first episode a watch and I doubt i'll watch the second. My opinion is just based on what I saw and then second episode may address certain things that I bring up, so apologies if that is the case.

There's no doubt than Jackson was a bit of an eccentric character and certain allegations made against him may be true but in this first episode there is zero evidence that the events described took place other than what the two guys say. It's a question of their word against his except now he's not around to defend himself. I question why it's taken so long for these two stories to come out. Allegations about Jackson doing this kind of thing were made YEARS ago when he was still around, so why not bring up your story then? I find it convenient that they are choosing to talk about this now after Jackson has passed away. One of my mates was telling me how the Australian guy is known to be a bit of a dick, has been blacklisted by many people in Hollywood and is pretty much bankrupt. You have wonder whether this plays into why he's speaking out about this now?

A couple of things didn't add up for me. One guy said explained how Jackson would want to keep everyone at distance while they fooled around with each other, yet the other guy said him and Jackson were happy to fool around while his mother was in the next room. Also, one of the guys said how he got paid in jewellery for performing sexual acts and then went on to show the jewellery. I may have missed something here but if that was the same jewellery that was given to him by Jackson, and if the events that occurred were so traumatising, then why are you keeping a hold of such things as keepsakes? Surely you would bin them?

If these things do turn out to have happened then I feel the parents need to be held accountable. I don't care if the person with your kid is a celebrity or not. Let them sleep over with a grown man who you don't really know outside of what you've seen on TV is just ridiculous. Both sets of parents came across as pretty selfish and looked as if they were happy to use their children in order for them to lead the life of the rich and famous.

Honestly, I think the witch hunt that has started over this is just ridiculous and it's another example of the reactionary world we live in. We have people calling for the banning of his music, the episode of The Simpson that features Jackson is to be taken off TV and Jackson's family have been targeted. People are so quick to judge and are wanting to be seen as being upset. It reminds me of the witch hunt with Cliff Richard. The guy was innocent but you had people on social media calling him out and wanting his head on a platter purely because someone claimed he had done something. It didn't matter that there was no evidence, people just wanted his head on a platter.

With this, if a full investigation had been done and hard hitting evidence had been found then you could understand the outrage but as it stands it's simply one word against....well no one at this point. 

[MindFreak]

2 hours ago, Hero-of-Time said:

If these things do turn out to have happened then I feel the parents need to be held accountable. I don't care if the person with your kid is a celebrity or not. Let them sleep over with a grown man who you don't really know outside of what you've seen on TV is just ridiculous. Both sets of parents came across as pretty selfish and looked as if they were happy to use their children in order for them to lead the life of the rich and famous.

Exactly this! If this happened, the parents definitely knew something about it but were paid to shut up. It's not normal to let your kids sleep over with grown ups without kids. Why on Earth should that happen?

2 hours ago, Hero-of-Time said:

There's no doubt than Jackson was a bit of an eccentric character and certain allegations made against him may be true but in this first episode there is zero evidence that the events described took place other than what the two guys say.

Isn't that exactly what is happening all the time at the moment? Allegations towards celebreties making people hate them and spoiling their careers based on absolutely nothing. Keven Spacey is a fine example of this, unfortunately.

Jackson may or may not have done something but disregarding his entire production and career based on this would be so sad. Some people want his music to be banned based on this and doing that would really be a shame - even if he did it.

[Glen-i]

3 hours ago, MindFreak said:

Jackson may or may not have done something but disregarding his entire production and career based on this would be so sad. Some people want his music to be banned based on this and doing that would really be a shame - even if he did it.

There's a well known quote about how the "death of the author" may be the only way art can be truly appreciated.

Now it doesn't mean literal death, but how once a piece of art is out there in the public, the author or creator no longer owns it and it should be enjoyed or studied without the author's views clouding your judgment.

Of course, this is incredibly subjective and there's arguments for and against taking this view. But generally, I'm for "Death of the Author" because otherwise, I wouldn't be able to enjoy anything as much as I tend to do.

Even if Michael Jackson is guilty, I'm not going to let that change my view on his music. I like his songs, and say what you will, they are high quality artworks. Dragon Quest's composer may be a complete scumbag, but I'm not gonna skip Dragon Quest XI on Switch because of that. (And so on)

Unfortunately, in this age of social media, outrage is far more likely to confine art to the depths of obscurity. And that's not how it should be handled.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Glen-i

[killthenet]

3 hours ago, MindFreak said:

Isn't that exactly what is happening all the time at the moment? Allegations towards celebreties making people hate them and spoiling their careers based on absolutely nothing. Keven Spacey is a fine example of this, unfortunately.

In the wake of the initial allegations Spacey released a statement where he basically admitted to committing sexual assault but excused it by saying it was because he was a closeted homosexual. He was rightly called out for trying to gloss over the allegations by coming out as gay and for basically saying his actions were excusable because he was in the closet - that he was driven to assault a minor simply because he was a closeted gay man rather than because he was a terrible person. 

In regards to Michael Jackson I haven't watched Leaving Neverland yet and I probably won't, I know it's going to be a harrowing watch and I'm not really in the mood to listen to several hours of detailed stories about people's trauma. It's the same reason I'll probably never watch Surviving R Kelly. It is good for the victims to be sharing their stories though and that they are finally being listened to. @Hero-of-Time you mention that one of Jackson's victims talks about jewellery that he was given for performing sex acts and how you think it is strange that he still has it, you have to remember that these people absolutely idolised Michael Jackson - to the point that they defended him when he faced a court case on allegations of child abuse - that their view of things was so warped that they believed the abuse that Jackson perpetrated on them came entirely from a place of love. You can't possibly know how much being a victim of abuse does to your state of mind, how much it warps the things you believe. Just look at victims of horrific physical and emotional domestic abuse - they don't immediately leave their partner as soon as the abuse begins, their life is so entwined with them that they can't possibly see a way out, 'brainwashed' by love to the point of believing the abuse is somehow their fault, that they're doing something wrong. There is no logic in the thought processes of the abuse victim, even while Jackson faced accusations from other quarters the victims sharing their stories now would have felt that they were special, that what Jackson did with them was because he loved them - they hadn't seen it for the despicable abuse of power that it was until recently.

6 hours ago, Hero-of-Time said:

There's no doubt than Jackson was a bit of an eccentric character and certain allegations made against him may be true but in this first episode there is zero evidence that the events described took place other than what the two guys say

Welcome to 99% of sexual assault cases, is it any wonder that so many assaults go unreported and so few of those that go to trial end in a conviction? This is the immediate reaction of most people who would rather look for a nefarious reason as to why the victims finally feel able to share their stories than be willing to listen to them and believe them. 

[Hero-of-Time]

17 minutes ago, killthenet said:

Welcome to 99% of sexual assault cases, is it any wonder that so many assaults go unreported and so few of those that go to trial end in a conviction? This is the immediate reaction of most people who would rather look for a nefarious reason as to why the victims finally feel able to share their stories than be willing to listen to them and believe them. 

So are we supposed to just believe every single story that comes out about sexual assault cases? The whole business in Hollywood that occurred last year showed that yes certain things were going on over there but some people were just looking to cash in a falsify information for their own gain and rightly got called out for it. It happens numerous times with sexual assault cases over here as well. They've been many incidents where individuals have been plastered in the tabloids for false

It's absolutely tragic that these kinds of attack happen in the world, it really is, but i'm simply not willing agree with every claim that is made.

[Kav]

I reckon Michael Jackson was most definitely a paedophile... the only question mark for me is whether he did sexually abuse the kids or not (I’m inclined to believe he probably did)... but I reckon he got off on kids for sure.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Kav

[martinist]

I was up untill 4am on Sunday watching this. I suppose the guy was into kids, he acted kinda wierd as an adult with all the Peter Pan stuff and being around all those kids. I guess he was into kis and going by what was said in that documentary they make it pretty obvious. Then again Hitler killed a lot of people but the guy painted some damn fine art. When I'm saying is the guy may have been raping kids but he still made good music. Not to take away the seriousness of what he may have done.

[Ashley]

11 hours ago, Hero-of-Time said:

A few people at work were on about it so I gave the first episode a watch and I doubt i'll watch the second. My opinion is just based on what I saw and then second episode may address certain things that I bring up, so apologies if that is the case.

There's no doubt than Jackson was a bit of an eccentric character and certain allegations made against him may be true but in this first episode there is zero evidence that the events described took place other than what the two guys say. It's a question of their word against his except now he's not around to defend himself. I question why it's taken so long for these two stories to come out. Allegations about Jackson doing this kind of thing were made YEARS ago when he was still around, so why not bring up your story then? I find it convenient that they are choosing to talk about this now after Jackson has passed away. One of my mates was telling me how the Australian guy is known to be a bit of a dick, has been blacklisted by many people in Hollywood and is pretty much bankrupt. You have wonder whether this plays into why he's speaking out about this now?

A couple of things didn't add up for me. One guy said explained how Jackson would want to keep everyone at distance while they fooled around with each other, yet the other guy said him and Jackson were happy to fool around while his mother was in the next room. Also, one of the guys said how he got paid in jewellery for performing sexual acts and then went on to show the jewellery. I may have missed something here but if that was the same jewellery that was given to him by Jackson, and if the events that occurred were so traumatising, then why are you keeping a hold of such things as keepsakes? Surely you would bin them?

If these things do turn out to have happened then I feel the parents need to be held accountable. I don't care if the person with your kid is a celebrity or not. Let them sleep over with a grown man who you don't really know outside of what you've seen on TV is just ridiculous. Both sets of parents came across as pretty selfish and looked as if they were happy to use their children in order for them to lead the life of the rich and famous.

Honestly, I think the witch hunt that has started over this is just ridiculous and it's another example of the reactionary world we live in. We have people calling for the banning of his music, the episode of The Simpson that features Jackson is to be taken off TV and Jackson's family have been targeted. People are so quick to judge and are wanting to be seen as being upset. It reminds me of the witch hunt with Cliff Richard. The guy was innocent but you had people on social media calling him out and wanting his head on a platter purely because someone claimed he had done something. It didn't matter that there was no evidence, people just wanted his head on a platter.

With this, if a full investigation had been done and hard hitting evidence had been found then you could understand the outrage but as it stands it's simply one word against....well no one at this point. 

Some of this was discussed in the second part.  The Australian's mother was criticised and her family did ostracise her somewhat for her role in it (I don't recall as much about the other mother, but I think the Australian mother more actively pursued her son to be close to MJ which is why she faced more criticism).

One of them defended Jackson during the court case ~95 (forget when exactly) and he said that he did so at the time essentially because of Stockholm Syndrome of sorts.  He knew what MJ had done to him, but he couldn't wrap his brain around it being a bad thing (to him) and felt he had to defend MJ.  Or something like that, I'm probably not doing a good job of explaining it!  It seemed to be Stockholmy though.

According to the accusers the events weren't traumatising at the time (they were confusing, but not traumatising) which is why they didn't get rid of the gifts.  The second part did end with a bonfire though.

9 hours ago, MindFreak said:

Isn't that exactly what is happening all the time at the moment? Allegations towards celebreties making people hate them and spoiling their careers based on absolutely nothing. Keven Spacey is a fine example of this, unfortunately.

As @killthenet said he was criticised for trying to use his sexuality to scapegoat it at the time, but much like Wienstein (and Singer) that wasn't the first accusation and seems to fall into a pattern of "known secrets" in Hollywood.

4 hours ago, Hero-of-Time said:

So are we supposed to just believe every single story that comes out about sexual assault cases? The whole business in Hollywood that occurred last year showed that yes certain things were going on over there but some people were just looking to cash in a falsify information for their own gain and rightly got called out for it. It happens numerous times with sexual assault cases over here as well. They've been many incidents where individuals have been plastered in the tabloids for false

It's absolutely tragic that these kinds of attack happen in the world, it really is, but i'm simply not willing agree with every claim that is made.

Not that you were suggesting that there's a lot of false claims out there, but I did see some statistics earlier that I think is worth sharing:

Quote

In 2005, a study was conducted for the British Home Office on the reporting of sexual assault to the police – the most exhaustive research ever undertaken on the matter. The researchers found that, of 216 false complaints, a mere six cases led to arrest. Only two actually resulted in charges, which were eventually dropped. In the US, the data tells a similar story. The National Registry of Exonerations states that only 52 men convicted of sexual assault since 1989 – when the records started – later had convictions overturned because accusations against them were not true. As the writer Sandra Newman discovered in 2017, 790 people were exonerated for murder over the same time period. This makes for quite the comparison. None of these statistics were cited in Theroux’s film.

As @killthenet said (I keep starting sentences that way...) the sad reality of the vast majority of these cases are its just two conflicting personal accounts.  They are often done at a time when the victim is vulnerable and not able to do something that would provide evidence (i.e. film it, which obviously in itself would be a mental mindfuck to the victim) and it would be something that given the choice they would escape from as soon as possible (i.e. can't collect anything that would provide evidence) and has been shown to be so emotionally and mentally damaging that it is shut out; entirely or partially.  Which is why some don't get discussed for years - even decades  - later.  Fight or flight kicks in and flight can be easier to deal with than fight (I'm talking about after the assault here). Sometimes it just comes back in later life as something can trigger it.  In the second part one of them talks about how becoming a father made him re-evaluate his relationship with MJ as he couldn't help but picture MJ doing to his child what he did to him (although obviously not possible) and it made him think "if I feel like this about the thought of him doing this to my son, why do I not feel like that about what he did to me?"  Again, it's a kind of mental distancing that victims do, perhaps need to do, in order to cope.

[Sheikah]

 

 

 

 

There's no doubt than Jackson was a bit of an eccentric character and certain allegations made against him may be true but in this first episode there is zero evidence that the events described took place other than what the two guys say. It's a question of their word against his except now he's not around to defend himself. I question why it's taken so long for these two stories to come out. Allegations about Jackson doing this kind of thing were made YEARS ago when he was still around, so why not bring up your story then? I find it convenient that they are choosing to talk about this now after Jackson has passed away.

 

 

I haven't seen the documentary yet, but I thought it was interesting to look at your points here - couldn't everything you said in the quote above be pretty much applied to Jimmy Savile? Both JS and MJ are no longer around to defend themselves, the victims came forward decades later (for understandable reasons), and they are not backed up by hard evidence (mostly their word vs the accused). The main differentiator seems to be that JS seemingly affected more people. Would you defend JS using the same arguments? Not having a go, just curious.

 

In cases like this where there's never going to be hard evidence I think patterns are generally important. If a lot of people are coming forward with separate but very similar accounts then you either believe in the collective accounts or you believe in conspiracy. Although it's not ideal that MJ isn't around to defend himself, like with Savile, I don't think it does justice to victims if we assume the accused cannot be culpable simply because they're no longer alive.

[Hero-of-Time]

18 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I haven't seen the documentary yet, but I thought it was interesting to look at your points here - couldn't everything you said in the quote above be pretty much applied to Jimmy Savile? Both JS and MJ are no longer around to defend themselves, the victims came forward decades later (for understandable reasons), and they are not backed up by hard evidence (mostly their word vs the accused). The main differentiator seems to be that JS seemingly affected more people. Would you defend JS using the same arguments? Not having a go, just curious.

 

In cases like this where there's never going to be hard evidence I think patterns are generally important. If a lot of people are coming forward with separate but very similar accounts then you either believe in the collective accounts or you believe in conspiracy. Although it's not ideal that MJ isn't around to defend himself, like with Savile, I don't think it does justice to victims if we assume the accused cannot be culpable simply because they're no longer alive.

Yup, they could easily be applied to Savile and any other case that has similar circumstances. It's a tricky thing to balance when it's simply one word over another, even more so when the accused are deceased.

Let's be clear here, I'm not defending anyone. It's simply you either believe what people are saying or you don't.

It just seems that in this day and age many are quick to jump the gun ( I use the Cliff Richard fiasco as an example again ) and more and more times it seems that it's guilty until proven innocent rather than it being the other way around.

Anyway, that's all I say in regards to this matter and I'll leave the thread. I was hesitant to post in this thread in the first place as I figured my opinions may be seen as controversial.

I'll head back to the gaming boards. 

[killthenet]

@Hero-of-Time the issue with the Cliff Richard allegations was that it was at the height of the Operation Yew Tree investigation (so when the media was ready to jump on anyone in the entertainment industry who was accused) and a member of the Berkshire Police force tipped off a local BBC news reporter that a raid was going to take place at Cliff Richard's house, leading to the BBC News Channel showing live coverage of the raid. If the Police had been able to do their job without interference or media attention then Cliff wouldn't have had to pursue legal action against them and the BBC. There probably would have been some media coverage of the raid after the fact but it certainly wouldn't have been as damaging to Cliff's reputation as it turned out to be. 

 

Edited March 11, 2019 by killthenet

[lostmario]

Good video which puts Wade Robson's accusations into question.

 

[Fused King]

Man, this documentary along with the Oprah interview really did a number on me.

MJ's live was a living paradox. He inspired millions, seemed like a caring and gentle soul, but due to his own upbringing he likely treasured the innocent and the carefree something he may not have had much of in his own life.

I always viewed MJ as indeed an eccentric, gentle man with a love for children because he himself had never had a childhood. Sure he may have held slumber parties in Neverland and yes, maybe some cuddling or hand holding happened, but I could never imagine MJ actually getting off on sexual acts. I thought him to be more of a platonic lover, perhaps even towards children, which is weird still, but knowing his background it's understandable why he surrounded himself with children the way he did.

That notwithstanding, these men, their stories and what their families went through seem genuine to me. Especially the psychological and sexual confusion where they had to square the abuse with their love for Michael, something that apparently took them a long time. I agree that it's good to be skeptical, but seeing their lives and families in turmoil due to their experiences with MJ does not seem like something one would make up.

To me it's a tragic story of a damaged soul who passed on his damage to others, whilst still inspiring millions in the public sphere with his amazing performances and lyrics.

I still adore his music, but even without the story presented in the documentary, MJ's life has a kind of tragic undertone reflected in his god-like status and physical change. 

I guess I need to start watching some rebuttal videos now...

 

[Grazza]

In all likelihood, Michael Jackson was a child molester.  None of us knows for sure, but on the balance of probability, I'd say he was guilty.  I grew up loving his music in the '80s and don't want to hate him at all, but I can't ignore my instinct.

 

I remember being a young teenager in the early '90s when the first allegation was made.  Although I wasn't quite sure what to think at the time, I did stop buying his music, even though I really liked some of the post-allegation stuff.  Many made out Michael Jackson to be some sort of "Peter Pan" who never grew up.  Whilst I can understand that, I still think you'd keep boundaries between yourself and children.

 

What cemented my opinion was the Martin Bashir documentary of the early '00s.  Seeing Jackson holding hands with a young boy made me think he saw them as lovers.  As a small boy myself I played computer games with my friends and talked about films, but we didn't behave as though we were in relationships with each other.  I very much got the impression of a superstar who, yes, helped many with his money, but also extracted a sordid price.  Presumably he could not form relationships with other adults, and so got his kicks in other, sneaky ways.  It's a dark subject and I hope I'm wrong, but as I say, few people alive actually know.

 

I must admit I thought this would be a "Jimmy Savile" moment, where people finally feel they can see the (probable) truth about a star they genuinely loved (Jackson, not Saville), but I must say I am surprised to see how much support he is getting on social media and amongst my workmates.  Which is fair enough - hopefully they're right and I'm wrong.  But generally, I think this is about reverence.  I've long thought that there is a human need to revere famous figures and ignore transgressions, both sexual and non-sexual.  Apart from legal restrictions on what you can say, which is a factor, I often feel celebrities and authority figures have some sort of psychological hold on us.  We need to feel that some amongst us are important, almost as though they have magic powers, and don't see the truth (a bit like The Emperor's New Clothes) until we feel we have been given permission to.  Historically, we have been way too trusting towards Catholic priests, Rabbis, Scout leaders... Whilst I am the biggest advocate of civility and manners, perhaps we could do with a lot more irreverence.

[MindFreak]

Why hasn't there been a lawsuit and a trial following those allegations? I really want that to happen so there can be a formal investigation from professionals.

[bob]

Wasn't there already a trial and he was found not guilty? You can't be tried for the same crime twice in America, so I think that might be it?

[Ashley]

6 hours ago, bob said:

Wasn't there already a trial and he was found not guilty? You can't be tried for the same crime twice in America, so I think that might be it?

There was another trial but I would assume you can be tried for the same kind of thing but with different circumstances (ie new evidence or, in this case, different accusers).