|
Post by realist on Mar 11, 2019 10:09:59 GMT -5
I watched it with my girlfriend. I don't really know how to feel about it. The stories were disturbing and MJ was clearly not right in the head. But, there are just too many inconsistencies for me to brand a man who is not here to defend himself a monster. He very well could be one, but I'm not fully convinced.....yet. Maybe after a few days to reflect on it, my opinions will change. Maybe I'm just comparing this documentary to the R. Kelly one where you could not walk away from it thinking anything other than R. Kelly is a monster. In the Michael Jackson one, I just feel like something is not quite adding up.
My girlfriend on the other hand bought all of it. She believes those guys 100%, which is completely her prerogative. I simply told her, "The devil could make a documentary about how God is a monster." We would owe it to God to at least hear him/her out and not just believe something because it is on our television screen."
|
|
The Thread Barbi
El Dandy
UEIIII!!!!!
Thread Pirates beware!
Posts: 8,924
Member is Online
|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Mar 11, 2019 10:12:26 GMT -5
Sure, like I said before it doesn't mean he was an abuser or not. I do believe it influences how some think "he couldn't possibly have done it!" True, I can see how people buy into what they see on face value. It's a trusting nature as well as familiarity with someone who we saw grow up on stage.
|
|
The Thread Barbi
El Dandy
UEIIII!!!!!
Thread Pirates beware!
Posts: 8,924
Member is Online
|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Mar 11, 2019 10:21:13 GMT -5
I watched it with my girlfriend. I don't really know how to feel about it. The stories were disturbing and MJ was clearly not right in the head. But, there are just too many inconsistencies for me to brand a man who is not here to defend himself a monster. He very well could be one, but I'm not fully convinced.....yet. Maybe after a few days to reflect on it, my opinions will change. Maybe I'm just comparing this documentary to the R. Kelly one where you could not walk away from it thinking anything other than R. Kelly is a monster. In the Michael Jackson one, I just feel like something is not quite adding up. My girlfriend on the other hand bought all of it. She believes those guys 100%, which is completely her prerogative. I simply told her, "The devil could make a documentary about how God is a monster." We would owe it to God to at least hear him/her out and not just believe something because it is on our television screen." That's where I am with this. Just because someone looks emotional on camera doesn't mean it's true. I can't 100% believe that jewellery was indeed given to James Safechuck by Jackson himself unless it can be proved by tracing it back to purchase, for example. I only have James's word for it, not evidence. I have a feeling, and hope, in a few years this will be regarded as a slam piece much like the Self Destruction of the Ultimate Warrior DVD.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
Celestial Princess in Exile.
Posts: 46,149
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Mar 11, 2019 12:15:20 GMT -5
I honestly have no idea what to make of Michael Jackson. Like, I can easily see him being a manipulative, calculating predator who preyed on children emotionally if not physically, but I can also see him ultimately being a mentally broken man who tried his entire life to reclaim a childhood stolen by his piece of shit father. It's also easy to believe that these two people could exist at the same time. There was somebody at the job I used to work at who years later got busted for his pedophilia. I remember when seeing the article about his conviction, people had commented that he must have been a vicious, calculating manipulator. No. The dude was an idiot (and the girl was 4). Possibly one of the most dim, unintelligent people I've ever encountered. Definitely not a criminal mastermind, just a dumbass who couldn't control himself and did something horrific. Now, MJ was clearly much more intelligent than that guy is, but I can't really wrap around the way his mind may have worked.
|
|
Spider2024
Patti Mayonnaise
Dedicated 6,666th post to Irontyger
I believe in Joe Hendry.
Posts: 39,257
|
Post by Spider2024 on Mar 11, 2019 14:41:32 GMT -5
Also that show has a lot of historical relevance to the series, as Jackson was the first star to appear on the Simpsons, paving the way for literally every guest star since whose name isn’t Al Brooks Forgetting someone? Paul McCartney often does.
|
|
|
Post by The 1Watcher Experience on Mar 11, 2019 15:48:59 GMT -5
The thing that gets me is how Jackson was always bringing a little boy on tour with him. He went out of his way to do this. Constantly sending them notes, calling them and even making them personalized videos. It’s like he was romancing them. Sweeping them away on vacations with their idol. I imagine that would be very intoxicating to a child. You see these two guys saying how they got jealous of other kids that got attention and how they wanted his attention. They wanted that “special” relationship with him.
People talk about the staff always being at the ranch. We don’t know if Jackson gave them time off during some of these encounters. He could have easily sent them away. I strongly believe that if Jackson wanted to be left alone and locked himself in a room with a child that that’s something he could do and not be bothered. People talk about Jackson having two wives but they came along after the allegations came out. They always felt like public relations moves to me.
If Jackson was that interested in women why didn’t he ever bring any on tour with him? How come no other women have ever come forward claiming to have been in a relationship with him? If he loved kids so much, why not bring a little girl on tour with him? It was always little boys.
|
|
Paul
Vegeta
Posts: 9,272
|
Post by Paul on Mar 11, 2019 16:58:52 GMT -5
The thing that gets me is how Jackson was always bringing a little boy on tour with him. He went out of his way to do this. Constantly sending them notes, calling them and even making them personalized videos. It’s like he was romancing them. Sweeping them away on vacations with their idol. I imagine that would be very intoxicating to a child. You see these two guys saying how they got jealous of other kids that got attention and how they wanted his attention. They wanted that “special” relationship with him. People talk about the staff always being at the ranch. We don’t know if Jackson gave them time off during some of these encounters. He could have easily sent them away. I strongly believe that if Jackson wanted to be left alone and locked himself in a room with a child that that’s something he could do and not be bothered. People talk about Jackson having two wives but they came along after the allegations came out. They always felt like public relations moves to me. If Jackson was that interested in women why didn’t he ever bring any on tour with him? How come no other women have ever come forward claiming to have been in a relationship with him? If he loved kids so much, why not bring a little girl on tour with him? It was always little boys. The only use Michael had for a woman is her uterus.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Mar 11, 2019 17:57:40 GMT -5
About the staff at the ranch. He had hideaways, like a closet in a closet, that he liked to "cuddle" with the boys in. He also had alarms put in the floorboards so he could know when people were coming toward his bedroom. If you have a large staff are you going to want to hear them everytime they are on the same floor as you? He also was accused by one maid who brought her son to work. So it isn't like all staff are on the same page.
|
|
|
Post by nickcave on Mar 11, 2019 20:42:40 GMT -5
I idolized Michael Jackson as a kid and he was the artist that sparked my love for music so it’s been difficult for me to come to terms with the fact that he was an abuser. There’s just too many red flags for me to ignore. If you strip Michael’s fame away and you read that Joe Schmo was hanging out with little boys that were not his children, sleeping in beds with them and writing what reads like romantic love letters to them with odd nicknames you would not be giving him as much leeway or benefit of the doubt that Michael has received.
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,304
|
Post by The Ichi on Mar 11, 2019 20:54:00 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm way back to square one in not knowing what to believe anymore.
|
|
The Thread Barbi
El Dandy
UEIIII!!!!!
Thread Pirates beware!
Posts: 8,924
Member is Online
|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Mar 12, 2019 2:42:07 GMT -5
The thing that gets me is how Jackson was always bringing a little boy on tour with him. He went out of his way to do this. Constantly sending them notes, calling them and even making them personalized videos. It’s like he was romancing them. Sweeping them away on vacations with their idol. I imagine that would be very intoxicating to a child. You see these two guys saying how they got jealous of other kids that got attention and how they wanted his attention. They wanted that “special” relationship with him. People talk about the staff always being at the ranch. We don’t know if Jackson gave them time off during some of these encounters. He could have easily sent them away. I strongly believe that if Jackson wanted to be left alone and locked himself in a room with a child that that’s something he could do and not be bothered. People talk about Jackson having two wives but they came along after the allegations came out. They always felt like public relations moves to me. If Jackson was that interested in women why didn’t he ever bring any on tour with him? How come no other women have ever come forward claiming to have been in a relationship with him? If he loved kids so much, why not bring a little girl on tour with him? It was always little boys. How many sexually charged women threw themselves at him where ever he went? Maybe that's why he didn't take one on tour with him, I don't know. I do think he was psychologically damaged. In the Martin Bashir interview, he describes being a child on tour, and pretending to be asleep while his brothers got it on with groupies in the same room. He heard everything, and kind of looked disgusted at the whole concept of sex in the interview. Add his father to the mix and it's a recipe for disaster. Then again, what about his whirlwind friendship with Elizabeth Taylor? Or his love of Diana Ross? Seemed like he was comfortable with older,mothering women, or with small children, but never anyone his own age. None of it is a defence to any allegations, but there isn't anything beyond reasonable doubt.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,121
|
Post by Mozenrath on Mar 12, 2019 2:52:32 GMT -5
I don't know if Michael abused kids or not sexually, but I do think that even the agreed upon, established parts of his relationship to kids was unhealthy. In what is yet another thing society owes an apology to Corey Feldman for, it does really seem like Michael would bore of these kids and end contact, and if he was an abuser, obviously he could toss them aside for that reason, but if he was trying to be a mentor or friend, it is still a shitty thing to do to a kid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 3:36:05 GMT -5
Right I’ve posted in this thread before but after watching both parts of this documentary, this is my stance on it.
I don’t believe Michael Jackson was a pedophile. And I’m going to tell you why.
1. This documentary was based on/inspired by a book released by Victor Gutierez in 1996 titled “Michael Jackson was my lover”.
Now if you read this book, it’s basically pro-pedophilia. Comparing being attracted to kids is like being attracted to the same sex and other ridiculousness. The man who wrote this book is sick in the head. He pushes the narrative that Jackson wasn’t an abuser but he was infact “in love” with these kids. It was a relationship like every other.... and funny enough, this is the narrative they’re pushing on this documentary. Ironic isn’t it?
In fact, that Dan Reed guy that directed the thing rubs me the wrong way. I wouldn’t be surprised if he believed in this “pro pedophilia” nonsense.
2. There’s too many inconsistencies in their stories. Wade Robson has constantly defended Jackson in the past. Even standing up and swearing under oath that he was never sexually involved with him. Safechuck was the same. So what’s changed? Oh that’s right, Robson was DENIED the chance to choreograph a Jackson show years ago and now he’s been offered silly money to do this documentary. He managed to contact another child from Jackson’s past and get him to agree to it too. This makes complete sense.... cause why was Robson so adamant that he was never touched before? Why was he doing Jackson dances on his MTV show? Why did he want to go to his funeral? Why did he want to choreograph his show? It makes no damn sense.
3. Jackson was a child in a man’s body People don’t want to hear this but it’s the truth. Jackson never grew up. He loved video games, he loved pranks, he loved fun fairs and candy and all that other childlike stuff. People cannot comprehend that because it sounds strange. And to society... it is.
But think about it for a second. Put yourself into Jackson’s mind and think about why he wouldn’t think this stuff would be deemed inappropriate.... he’s probably been milked like a cow by any adult that’s ever came into this life. Including his own father. Kids were seen as “real people” to him... people who could relate to him and understand him. There’s nothing wrong with talking to a kid on the street... but how many of you guys would do that? Exactly. Nobody would. Because it would look dodgy.
Jackson was naive and thought that spending the day with a kid, going to fun fairs, getting snacks and toys and “having a sleepover” was entirely socially acceptable. While that’s all innocent in theory, people are always gonna get the wrong idea about that.
So here’s my theory... Jackson said that Robson’s mother reminded her of his dad Joe. He even nicknamed her “Joe” according to a family member. That speaks volumes to me. Robson’s mother wanted to milk MJ for all he was worth... she wanted her son to be like him and Wade wanted that too. He said it himself that he asked him to help with his dancing.... Jackson saw right through this, got fed up with being used and turned his attention to Macaulay Culkin. Somebody who wasn’t looking for any benefits, someone who was just happy to chill at Jackson’s place and play video games and do pranks all day. Basically, Robson was jealous of this.
But having said all that, Jackson still set Robson up with his cousin Brandi. He ended up dating Britney Spears and split her and Timberake up. He had a show on MTV purely because of his connections with Jackson. And he f***ed all that up because of his own doing. When Jackson died, he still defended him... until the Jackson family turned against him and wouldn’t give him any more gigs.... As time passed and he became more and more irrelevant, he needed to do something. And this opportunity came up. It’s a no brainer when you’re broke, right? Jacksons dead. He doesn’t know. He won’t care.
What spoke volumes to me was at the end of the documentary, when they’re burning their Jackson “memorabilia”. It turns out that the red Thriller jacket Robson was given by MJ? That wasn’t even the jacket that was burning at the end. It was Robson’s ‘impersonator’ jacket that he used to perform in. So think about that for a second... this guy sexually abused him from 7-14 but he still has the Thriller jacket somewhere. And let’s say he sold it... then why create the “symbolic image” of burning a fake one at the end? Maybe it’s because it’s all f***ing lies, like the rest of the documentary?
That’s just my take on it. Nobody knows for sure. But I focused on Robson cause Safechuck strikes me as a guy who just went along with Robson for the money. I think this documentary and both guys in it will be found out after this has all blown over. I dread to think of the backlash they’re gonna receive if my theories are correct. They won’t be able to show their faces again and rightfully so.
|
|
|
Post by Display Name on Mar 12, 2019 3:49:53 GMT -5
I’m with you, Negan..for the reasons you posted and then some. The dude was messed up, no f***in’ doubt about it, but I don’t think he was a pedophile. In fact, because he was so child-like and judging by stories from his past, I don’t think he was interested in sex at all. Possibly even scared of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 3:56:41 GMT -5
I’m with you, Negan..for the reasons you posted and then some. The dude was messed up, no f***in’ doubt about it, but I don’t think he was a pedophile. In fact, because he was so child-like and judging by stories from his past, I think he wasn’t interested in sex at all. Possibly even scared of it. That’s the impression I get aswell. And I said this to my sister. Michael Jackson never struck me as a sexually active dude or a guy who would even think about sex at all. Even the way he talks about women is an innocent childlike way... “Oh she’s pretty/beautiful/etc”... it’s never sexual in a way that maybe lots of guys would talk about women.
|
|
|
Post by DZ: WF Legacy on Mar 12, 2019 4:05:07 GMT -5
The doc definitely could've used another side to it, and it was a little sensationalist to burn stuff at the end. I think the right thing for these guys to do, if they are going to seek damages, is to donate any money outside of lost work compensation and legal fees to children's charities.
The thing is about him being an innocent man who functioned like a little boy: the dude had extreme fetish porn. Like, women getting beaten, BDSM...the cover of it was gross and I clicked off of it because someone's ass was either bloody or shitty and I didn't want to find out which, lol. Hey, it was perfectly legal, so I don't hold that against him or think it's suspicious like the little boy books are, it just goes against the idea that he's this fragile little boy inside. He may be boy-like, he may enjoy childish things, but he's a grown man with desires.
Whether he molested kids is certainly not proven, but the guy was a habitual liar about his life. He looks people directly in the eye and lies about his skin treatment, his surgeries, the truth about his kids, his romances, the drugs, and so many other things. The tabloids spread lies, too. So it gets intertwined into that sometimes, admittedly. But not always.
The Terry George stuff seems damning to me. The guy is multi-millionaire and has never had any desire to gain any money from it. His story is fairly mild, no touching, just talking on the phone as friends, then once time it turned into him talking about how he was masturbating when Terry was 13. He came out about it in the 90s and desired no compensation. He even speaks positively of him, saying he was generous and kind. After Michael died, he didn't even really mention it as much from what I can tell.
LaToya's old interviews are really convincing, though she's retracted everything, claiming her ex put her up to it. She said Michael's mom called him a f*****t, ignored Joe sexually abusing the girls (never claimed he did this to Michael), and that Joe beat the ever living hell out of Michael. Michael fought back, she said. Threatened to not perform if he kept hitting him. She felt Michael was abusing kids sexually, too. Again, it's all retracted, so who knows. That whole family is messed up, tons of excessive plastic surgery and whatnot. When Joe died, they even defended the way he behaved. f***in' Stockholm syndrome.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Mar 12, 2019 4:45:51 GMT -5
I'm just putting this out there. whether you believe he did it or not, "he was a child in a man's body" is NOT a defense. he was a grown-ass man, and he knew better than to have these inappropriate relationships with children. his "I'm just a big kid" thing was a calculated persona to deflect blame that he was a colossal creep. it's kinda like the recent stuff with Vic Mignogna in a way; whether he sexually assaulted them or not he was still inappropriate with them and he deserves to be called out as a creep for it. I don't care if he had a rough childhood or he liked to pretend he was a child who didn't know better. defend MJ based on real reasons, not some cockamamie "he's just a big kid" bullshit. it's logic that actively offends me, both as a victim of sexual abuse and as a god-damn adult.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,077
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Mar 12, 2019 5:45:44 GMT -5
I'm just putting this out there. whether you believe he did it or not, "he was a child in a man's body" is NOT a defense. he was a grown-ass man, and he knew better than to have these inappropriate relationships with children. his "I'm just a big kid" thing was a calculated persona to deflect blame that he was a colossal creep. it's kinda like the recent stuff with Vic Mignogna in a way; whether he sexually assaulted them or not he was still inappropriate with them and he deserves to be called out as a creep for it. I don't care if he had a rough childhood or he liked to pretend he was a child who didn't know better. defend MJ based on real reasons, not some cockamamie "he's just a big kid" bullshit. it's logic that actively offends me, both as a victim of sexual abuse and as a god-damn adult. Yeah, it's hard to square that with the absolute demanding perfectionist he was as a performer, and the ruthless and shrewd businessman he can be. You can't have the rest of his life like that, but when it comes to one aspect, he was a "child" he can be awkward, weird, f***ed up, whatever but not a child.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 5:53:34 GMT -5
I'm just putting this out there. whether you believe he did it or not, "he was a child in a man's body" is NOT a defense. he was a grown-ass man, and he knew better than to have these inappropriate relationships with children. his "I'm just a big kid" thing was a calculated persona to deflect blame that he was a colossal creep. it's kinda like the recent stuff with Vic Mignogna in a way; whether he sexually assaulted them or not he was still inappropriate with them and he deserves to be called out as a creep for it. I don't care if he had a rough childhood or he liked to pretend he was a child who didn't know better. defend MJ based on real reasons, not some cockamamie "he's just a big kid" bullshit. it's logic that actively offends me, both as a victim of sexual abuse and as a god-damn adult. Nobody’s saying it wasn’t inappropriate. I’m just arguing the fact that in his mind, it was completely innocent. Jackson, like it or not WAS a man child. Whether that makes him a “creep” or not is entirely subjective. It’s absurd to say “he’s a calculated predator who PRETENDED he was childlike”. That reeks of an opinion of somebody who doesn’t understand there’s legitimately guys like that out there. And they’re not all having sex with little kids. Let me just say, if this was a woman... let’s use Princess Diana as an example. Nobody would bat an eye at her spending days out with kids and having sleepovers and doing the things Michael Jackson has done. They would just say “Awww she’s so thoughtful and caring!”
|
|
The Thread Barbi
El Dandy
UEIIII!!!!!
Thread Pirates beware!
Posts: 8,924
Member is Online
|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Mar 12, 2019 6:03:16 GMT -5
Right I’ve posted in this thread before but after watching both parts of this documentary, this is my stance on it. I don’t believe Michael Jackson was a pedophile. And I’m going to tell you why. 1. This documentary was based on/inspired by a book released by Victor Gutierez in 1996 titled “Michael Jackson was my lover”.Now if you read this book, it’s basically pro-pedophilia. Comparing being attracted to kids is like being attracted to the same sex and other ridiculousness. The man who wrote this book is sick in the head. He pushes the narrative that Jackson wasn’t an abuser but he was infact “in love” with these kids. It was a relationship like every other.... and funny enough, this is the narrative they’re pushing on this documentary. Ironic isn’t it? In fact, that Dan Reed guy that directed the thing rubs me the wrong way. I wouldn’t be surprised if he believed in this “pro pedophilia” nonsense Looking up Dan Reed, this is the most prolific work he's done. His other works are late night smut documentaries covering paedophiles and hookers on Channel 4. The fact it's him and the two blokes on every chat show makes it obvious he's relishing the attention. There are rumours that the documentary is funded by Harvey Weinstein, but these are unfounded but sort of make sense at the same time, especially with friend Oprah Winfrey bandwagon.
|
|