Leaving Neverland - New Michael Jackson abuse doc

[FlamesAddiction]

A victim denying abuse isn't really evidence of anything. After Sheldon Kennedy came out as a victim of Graham James, Theo Fleury denied he was a victim for a long time. You make it sound like it is so easy for a victim of sexual abuse to just be open about it.

And yeah, when the first allegations came out, only his fans were surprised. I didn't find it shocking at all.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Psytic

Why is it only the financially unstable ones that seem to have been assaulted? No testimony from his ex wives or gfs or his 3 kids,there were hundreds of kids at the ranch, but he some how only got these two alone consistently and only did things to them.

That's like saying you're skeptical that a woman was raped by a guy because there are women he hung around with who he didn't rape.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Psytic

Yes and I dont doubt he surrounded himself with children and lived vicariously through them to recoup the childhood he never had but I'm not getting the feeling conclusively he treated them any more than like his own children which MJ then had and raised at the ranch. None of his children came forward with any allegations or stories of misbehavior in the household while they grew up at the ranch either.

The insinuation was MJ replaced the two of them with Barnes and Culkin and both are on record saying he never did anything sexual to them either. These two in the doc also denied any issues until their careers hit the skids.....I feel like MJ just wanted to have kids of his own and so eventually thats what he did... Coincidentally these two have had their careers hit the toilet and as mentioned they wanted to direct MJ's Cirque show as adults in 2011 and were denied, why run back to MJ years later? In 2012, Robson had a nervous breakdown, triggered, he said, by an obsessive quest for success. His career, in his own words, began to “crumble.” That same year, with Robson’s career, finances, and marriage in peril, he began shopping a book that claimed he was sexually abused by Michael Jackson. No publisher picked it up.Then moved on to this. It just seems a little strange like they hit the skids and started looking for ways tomake money after being denied access to MJs inner circle/lucrative work not only as children but as adults. Why didnt they interview Barnes or Culkin or Feldman? Why is Barnes defending MJ and sueing these two for portraying him as being sexually assaulted by MJ after replacing them as MJs new "fav." What about Sky Ferreiria? When Pressed further on the dynamics of her relationship with Jackson when she was a child, Ferreira disclosed that she visited Jackson’s houses, including his Neverland Ranch, “a lot” – but she didn’t witness any of the alleged abuse which was recently detailed in the controversial documentary Leaving Neverland “It wasn’t just because I was a girl,” she said. “I was around a lot of kids.”
"Aaron Carter appeared during their live show on Monday to speak out about Leaving Neverland and his own experience with Michael Jackson.
Aaron was very upset with allegations from the documentary and revealed that he had an amazing time with Jackson.Carter says that he spent a lot of time with Micheal Jackson and that nothing inappropriate ever happened, even revealing that like so many other young boys, he had spent nights in Jackson’s bedroom."

Why is it only the financially unstable ones that seem to have been assaulted? No testimony from his ex wives or gfs or his 3 kids,there were hundreds of kids at the ranch, but he some how only got these two alone consistently and only did things to them. Why did the FBI investigations and two unannounced raids on Neverland not make it in the documentary? Is it because they came up with no evidence outside of the fact he had a porn collection and the kids might have got into it? I just would have liked a balanced approach so I could make an educated decision. Im still on the fence. It wasnt very well done in my opinion and clearly had an agenda.

You want a good documentary (not MJ related) watch Wild Country. Both sides are equally portrayed so you can actually make an educated decision on the facts.represented.

I honestly understand why this stuff doesn't make sense to someone who hasn't really experienced anything like it, but I'm going to use my own life to explain.

I'm going to try make this short, because I don't feel like going into details, for obvious reasons. Obviously a massive amount of information is left out, I'm trying to keep it relevant. (I will also simplify a lifetime of stuff.)

I had #### parents, in a way that will leave a person seriously emotionally scarred and mentally unstable. Out of three siblings, I'm the one that got by far the worst of my parents.

I have also often been in need of financial aid, because I've been such a mess that for example studying was (and is) just impossible for me, which has lead to constant trouble finding a steady job that pays a living wage. (Multiple mental health issues also aren't exactly valued in the job market.)

When I was in need of money, my parents would provide that. (To some extent. That too was pretty messed up at times, because they used it as leverage, often in quite toxic and unhelpful ways.) I would accept their help because I felt it was only right they helped pay for the mess they created. But I also emotionally felt constantly in debt to them.

Much of my adult life I didn't even think about it that much. That just was my life, my normal. I was a mess that "would never get better", and there was some grim satisfaction in sort of constantly rubbing my problems in their faces, instead of keeping my distance to them like my siblings did.

It was only after I had enough financial independence that I was able to talk honestly about my history and my relationship to my parents with others, without always making excuses for them. Basically I had to stop feeling like I need them to think clearly. While I had been on some level aware that much of my problems go back to my upbringing, I thought that was the past I could do nothing about. I hadn't even realized how I had prolonged my problems by "living off" people who had poisoned my life and kept doing it when given the chance, and hadn't really noticed how much I had actually excused and flat out lied about them to make myself feel better about being dependent on them.

Because I wasn't technically abused and my parents aren't famous, I didn't sue them or try to write a book, I just completely cut them out of my life.

So, I absolutely understand why someone would keep living off their abuser, and only start re-evaluating their relationship to said abuser from a genuinely adult perspective once that dependence is cut.

By my experience, that's exactly how people behave.

EDIT:
I don't really expect you to get it. This is just stuff you that can't really be explained, because much of it has to do with the way abusive experiences distorts what is "rational" and "normal" behavior and thinking.

You kind of just have to accept that it makes sense to them, even if it doesn't make sense to you.

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

A victim denying abuse isn't really evidence of anything. After Sheldon Kennedy came out as a victim of Graham James, Theo Fleury denied he was a victim for a long time. You make it sound like it is so easy for a victim of sexual abuse to just be open about it.

And yeah, when the first allegations came out, only his fans were surprised. I didn't find it shocking at all.

The documentary didn't provide anything conclusive that makes me think he did do it. With the history of these two it could have been, or could not have been motivated by financial gain who knows? MJs dead and cant defend himself. If anything the first accuser for which he went to trial and was acquitted for feels more like the smoking gun to me since Chandler told his therapist of what had happened and the therapist reported it to the police with no financial motivations... these two though im on the fence due to their history.

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by Itse

I honestly understand why this stuff doesn't make sense to someone who hasn't really experienced anything like it, but I'm going to use my own life to explain.

I'm going to try make this short, because I don't feel like going into details, for obvious reasons. Obviously a massive amount of information is left out, I'm trying to keep it relevant. (I will also simplify a lifetime of stuff.)

I had #### parents, in a way that will leave a person seriously emotionally scarred and mentally unstable. Out of three siblings, I'm the one that got by far the worst of my parents.

I have also often been in need of financial aid, because I've been such a mess that for example studying was (and is) just impossible for me, which has lead to constant trouble finding a steady job that pays a living wage. (Multiple mental health issues also aren't exactly valued in the job market.)

When I was in need of money, my parents would provide that. (To some extent. That too was pretty messed up at times, because they used it as leverage, often in quite toxic and unhelpful ways.) I would accept their help because I felt it was only right they helped pay for the mess they created. But I also emotionally felt constantly in debt to them.

Much of my adult life I didn't even think about it that much. That just was my life, my normal. I was a mess that "would never get better", and there was some grim satisfaction in sort of constantly rubbing my problems in their faces, instead of keeping my distance to them like my siblings did.

It was only after I had enough financial independence that I was able to talk honestly about my history and my relationship to my parents with others, without always making excuses for them. Basically I had to stop feeling like I need them to think clearly. While I had been on some level aware that much of my problems go back to my upbringing, I thought that was the past I could do nothing about. I hadn't even realized how I had prolonged my problems by "living off" people who had poisoned my life and kept doing it when given the chance, and hadn't really noticed how much I had actually excused and flat out lied about them to make myself feel better about being dependent on them.

Because I wasn't technically abused and my parents aren't famous, I didn't sue them or try to write a book, I just completely cut them out of my life.

So, I absolutely understand why someone would keep living off their abuser, and only start re-evaluating their relationship to said abuser from a genuinely adult perspective once that dependence is cut.

By my experience, that's exactly how people behave.

EDIT:
I don't really expect you to get it. This is just stuff you that can't really be explained, because much of it has to do with the way abusive experiences distorts what is "rational" and "normal" behavior and thinking.

You kind of just have to accept that it makes sense to them, even if it doesn't make sense to you.

This is making a very large assumption about my personal history someone you've never met on the internet. I appreciate you sharing but everyone reacts differently, the way you reacted doesn't validate their story more or less, just as my own reactions don't. We don't know if its true or if they rehearsed a script so that they could collect royalties from HBO. This hasn't brought forward anything new to the contrary. Its still allegations with no dna or any verifiable evidance. In the me too era I'm proud we can all speak out, but it has also created a dangerous climate that any allegation is taken as fact and their are numerous people that have been implicated that have turned out to be innocent.

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

That's like saying you're skeptical that a woman was raped by a guy because there are women he hung around with who he didn't rape.

I was critiquing the film and asking for more information the documentary was lacking facts.It was literal unanswered questions that could have been explored

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Psytic

This is making a very large assumption about my personal history someone you've never met on the internet. I appreciate you sharing but everyone reacts differently, the way you reacted doesn't validate their story more or less, just as my own reactions don't. We don't know if its true or if they rehearsed a script so that they could collect royalties from HBO. This hasn't brought forward anything new to the contrary. Its still allegations with no dna or any verifiable evidance. In the me too era I'm proud we can all speak out, but it has also created a dangerous climate that any allegation is taken as fact and their are numerous people that have been implicated that have turned out to be innocent.

To me, your questions about the victims financial and job situation sound like they are coming from someone who does not understand what they are talking about.

Sorry, but it's true. I don't mean to assume your life has been all roses, I'm just saying I have a hard time seeing how someone with experience of having to rely financially on someone who has or is hurting you would ask "why are they only coming out when they stopped getting money".

I explained my situation to point out why does it work like that. Because in my experiences and the experiences of some of my friends, that's basically how it always works. People find excuses to not bite the hand that feeds them, if nothing else.

That's just typical human behavior.

It doesn't mean they were or weren't abused, but it does make some of your questioning invalid. Its not suspicious, it's normal. It doesn't confirm anything, but it also shouldn't be treated as something that weakens their credibility, which is what you did.

Besides: even if someone started making stuff like this public out of greed, it doesn't make that previous crime go away. Victims are still victims even if they are ####ty people, and even ####ty people deserve justice, and there is nothing legally wrong with them getting a payday out of it. (In the US legal system.)

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by Itse

To me, your questions about the victims financial and job situation sound like they are coming from someone who does not understand what they are talking about.

Sorry, but it's true. I don't mean to assume your life has been all roses, I'm just saying I have a hard time seeing how someone with experience of having to rely financially on someone who has or is hurting you would ask "why are they only coming out when they stopped getting money".

I explained my situation to point out why does it work like that. Because in my experiences and the experiences of some of my friends, that's basically how it always works. People find excuses to not bite the hand that feeds them, if nothing else.

That's just typical human behavior.

It doesn't mean they were or weren't abused, but it does make some of your questioning invalid. Its not suspicious, it's normal. It doesn't confirm anything, but it also shouldn't be treated as something that weakens their credibility, which is what you did.

Besides: even if someone started making stuff like this public out of greed, it doesn't make that previous crime go away. Victims are still victims even if they are ####ty people, and even ####ty people deserve justice, and there is nothing legally wrong with them getting a payday out of it. (In the US legal system.)

I haven't weakened their credibility beyond the fact I dont take things at face value. We can't prove or disprove anything that was said. Allegations are allegations it may or may not have happened. There are factors that dont lend to their story. To just dismiss them as "we just don't get it " is hypocritical because your only using that arguement to rationalize their story but not applying it to MJ. If we're willing to give them the benefit of the doubt then MJ should get the same until proven otherwise is all im saying. I definitely dont understand him and he was a strange and polarizing person which makes him easy to dislike but we have to accept that maybe the same applies to him and he could also be innocent and the one misunderstood. We dont know.

[Yoho]

So is the only thing that will convince you is an actual video of the alleged assaults taking place Psytic?

Something tells me even then you would question the videos authenticity.

Curious what it would take for you pull down your MJ posters off your wall.

[Strange Brew]

I haven’t watched the documentary and don’t think I will. The allegations sicken me and I don’t know what I will get out of watching it.

My one issue with documentaries on occasion is that you don’t always get a balanced view. People are talking about this doc like it is a criminal conviction for Jackson, but is there a prosecution and a defense being presented? Or is it purely from the accusers POV?

[CliffFletcher]

Leaving Neverland does not pretend to be a balanced documentary about the allegations. It's not even really about Jackson. All it is - and all it purports to be - is the account of two men who say they were sexually abused by Jackson as children. That's it.

So no, it's probably not a good source to learn about Jackson, the allegations, and trials. Lots of articles available for that.

[dino7c]

The doc isn't really a "smoking gun" though like some seem to think. They are currently suing his estate for hundreds of millions of dollars...everyone involved had financial gains from the doc.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by dino7c

The doc isn't really a "smoking gun" though like some seem to think. They are currently suing his estate for hundreds of millions of dollars...everyone involved had financial gains from the doc.

True. Nor should it be seen as a defense of the victim's parents. This was also an opportunity to try and diminish their role.

There are a lot of reasons to believe Jackson was an abusive pedophile, but not because of this documentary alone.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by dino7c

The doc isn't really a "smoking gun" though like some seem to think. They are currently suing his estate for hundreds of millions of dollars...everyone involved had financial gains from the doc.

Of course they did. You have to. These things dont get made for free.

I was always dubious about the financial claims against the Jackson Estate, but I felt a really good point was made in Oprah's post-documentary autopsy:

Thats just how the system works.

You cant get anywhere without money being involved. You cant sue the Jackson Estate for 'The Truth.'

No lawyer would take it on, no Judge would hear it and no news outlet would report on it.

Without money involved there is nothing.

I felt the same way. I thought that suing for money absolutely destroyed his credibility, but looking at it within the context of the system it operates within it makes total sense.

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by Yoho

So is the only thing that will convince you is an actual video of the alleged assaults taking place Psytic?

Something tells me even then you would question the videos authenticity.

Curious what it would take for you pull down your MJ posters off your wall.

I beileve in due process. I don't need to be a fan but I need more than this to bring me off the fence. I'm just not swayed to join the group think going on in here based solely on allegations.

Since were all fond of applying our own experiences ill give you one of mine. When I was a teenager I dated a girl and her best friend dated my best friend. I did not get along with my gfs best friend at all like cats and dogs because she was the drama queen type, always the center of attention and crying wolf for attention. Well I decided I would split with my gf as I just wasn't that in to her. She was heart broken she thought I was her soul mate. Her friend wanted to get back at me for breaking her heart and started spreading nasty rumors about me saying that she had seen bruises on her arms in the past (which was made up bull####) and so I must have been abusive my best buddy even questioned me and stopped talking to me (he was a bit under her thumb). My ex actually stood up for me and said no that's crap we broke up and the rest was made up to get back at him... but some people just thought well victims defend their abusers..

So here I was with this terrible reputation whispered in hush tones behind my back for something that's not true that my ex even confirmed wasnt true . I even had other girls I used to date debunk it but in the words of Cliff Fletcher in this thread "just because you didn't do it to one girl doesn't mean you didn't do it". So that didnt absolve me in some people's minds. Its almost like once the allegations made the doubt will always linger in the back of peoples minds. Eventually I moved on from that circle and dated many other girls and met my wife, but imagine if I was famous and that bs followed me every where.

Allegations with out fact are very very dangerous things that can destroy lives just as much the alleged victim's. We are in a very dangerous time that any one can make any claim and your automatically guilty whether you actually did it or not. He may very well be guilty but he deserves the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Psytic

I beileve in due process. I don't need to be a fan but I need more than this to bring me off the fence. I'm just not swayed to join the group think going on in here based solely on allegations.

Since were all fond of applying our own experiences ill give you one of mine. When I was a teenager I dated a girl and her best friend dated my best friend. I did not get along with my gfs best friend at all like cats and dogs because she was the drama queen type, always the center of attention and crying wolf for attention. Well I decided I would split with my gf as I just wasn't that in to her. She was heart broken she thought I was her soul mate. Her friend wanted to get back at me for breaking her heart and started spreading nasty rumors about me saying that she had seen bruises on her arms in the past (which was made up bull####) and so I must have been abusive my best buddy even questioned me and stopped talking to me (he was a bit under her thumb). My ex actually stood up for me and said no that's crap we broke up and the rest was made up to get back at him... but some people just thought well victims defend their abusers..

So here I was with this terrible reputation whispered in hush tones behind my back for something that's not true that my ex even confirmed wasnt true . I even had other girls I used to date debunk it but in the words of Cliff Fletcher in this thread "just because you didn't do it to one girl doesn't mean you didn't do it". So that didnt absolve me in some people's minds. Its almost like once the allegations made the doubt will always linger in the back of peoples minds. Eventually I moved on from that circle and dated many other girls and met my wife, but imagine if I was famous and that bs followed me every where.

Allegations with out fact are very very dangerous things that can destroy lives just as much the alleged victim's. We are in a very dangerous time that any one can make any claim and your automatically guilty whether you actually did it or not. He may very well be guilty but he deserves the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise.

That's fair, and I do think that since none of us are actually the jury that needs to make the call on this case, it's fine for people to refuse to judge people in cases where it really doesn't matter.

(Oh, and BTW I've had a similar scare in my life. Even if that didn't go anywhere, the possibility did freak me out a bit.)

It's not like your opinion or mine on Michael Jackson has any effect on anything.

That said, that goes both ways.

I mean, based on what I've seen and heard I think Jackson was probably a pedophile, and that does kind of ruin his music for me, because that association is just a downer. Since my feelings only affect a few song choices in a party now and then, I also don't think I should hold myself to a particularly high standard here.

Besides, even if he didn't have sex with them, I still feel like his relationship to those kids was unhealthy and icky to a point where I just don't want to think about it, and ultimately that's what makes the difference.

I don't even think boycotting a dead musicians music because of his crimes in his private lives is in any way useful or necessary. I just don't like playing songs that make me think of a weirdo possibly abusing kids.