Michael Jackson and the new documentary

[joystir59]

Leaving Neverland, being shown at the Sundance film festival and in the spring on Channel 4....I love his music and have believed he was vilified by the racist media, and by greedy individuals and families after his money; but am really not so sure of his innocence any more. I guess that's my aibu- that we have to listen to his accusers don't we? I was sexually abused as a ternager, and not believed. It was a profoundly damaging experience.

A poster way upthread (can't find it now) said they can separate the artist from any abuse they carried out as long as the abuse doesn't feature in the art.

HOW can you listen to his music and pontificate about his 'genius' while knowing the millions he made from the music enabled him to ponce about in what was basically a honey trap for children and abuse young boys?!

The mind boggles.

Isn't it a bit like Elvis and the guns and morgue stories and Priscilla? Totally amazingly revered and wealthy, able to create an alternative reality (Neverland / Graceland) and nobody to say no.

Laiste well said.

MJ was widely acknowledged to have issues for years before any of these allegations surfaced. The press dubbed him 'Wacko Jacko' and revelled in revealing details like his oxygen tent, pet chimp (perhaps tellingly in the light of these allegations abandoned when it outgrew its cuteness), constant cosmetic surgery interventions and then dangling his baby son over a hotel rail. Of course none of that made him a paedophile but I can't remember any questioning of the purpose of the set-up at Neverland.

I believe he was hiding in plain sight just like so many of the celebrity counterparts of the time.

I must admit I assumed his guilt when he was alive, and when he died I expected many to come forward, like when Jimmy Saville died - especially considering how many children stayed at his home. There were literally hundreds stay there, but only three?? I think haveade accusations.

Jordan Chandler has said little, but I believe retracted the allegations in 2015. He refused to see his dad as an adult, and his dad killed himself 14 weeks after Jackson died. That could be interpreted any way you want it to I guess.

Wade Johnson tried to sue the Jackson estate but was unable to get anywhere and the judge threw it out (after a 7 year battle). Also Wade said in court Jackson did nothing wrong and then changed his story, not saying that he is lying now... But he has at some point so he isn't reliable. Same for the other guy, James Safechuck.

Of the three, they have all made allegations, withdrawn them, made them again... And there hasn't been the flooding of allegations I expected after his death.

It's hard to know what to think, as I said I assumed guilt but actually think he may be innocent now.

"if you're gonna stay silent, fine, but don't make out the man was pure innocence if up to 10 years later you're going to change up your story."

Nice bit of victim blaming there! How about acknowledging that MANY victims find it hard to speak out, for their own personal reasons?

Perhaps instead, the responsibility should be firmly placed on MJ for continuing to abuse, rather than other victims for not speaking up?

Perhaps I'm being harsh but I'm not talking about not speaking out, which I get, it's more the choice that an adult has made to actively step up and defend a paedophile. For so many people who have gone through abuse as children and don't know how to deal with it years later, I can truly understand that they may choose to say nothing forever, for so many reasons. But to step up and defend him? I'm not blaming these boys for being victims, at all. But there are many many grown people who had the responsibility to do something when the opportunity was there.

I think a lot of the victims, and I have no doubt that there are many, were or are still being paid off, as well as signing non disclosure agreements and the like.

This man was an abuser hiding in plain sight, and I've thought that since the original trial years ago when I was only a child myself. His family are despicable also, they enabled him and are still desperate to protect his name so that they can continue to make money off it . Disgusting.

"It's obvious he really liked boys, and when they got to about 15 he would dump them and move on to another child.
He also shared his bed with them, if it was any other adult would we be questioning it?"

And David Bowie really liked 13-15 year old Girls, but that is overlooked and certainly never majorly questioned.

There's even a DB poster on the wall in every shot, in the Slater's house on Eastenders.

I think MJ wasn't quite right, mentally and emotionally. The surgery and behaviour screams that. He may or may not have sex with underage Boys, but I don't think he was mentally well. Unlike Bowie/Mick Jagger and a lot of other Men who had sex with underage Girls.

I hope it doesn't mean a ban on his music.

We are very much picking and choosing our Hero's and Villains, to suit ourselves, these days.

There's even a DB poster on the wall in every shot, in the Slater's house on Eastenders.

The BBC literally had(and probably still has) and covered up a peadophile ring. it's not surprising what they do.

Birdsgottafly David Bowie liking 13 year old girls is abhorrent and disgusting, and he deserved to be prosecuted for it. It makes me queasy that he is just remembered as a musical genius.

However (and I am loathe to say this, but it is true) whilst sex with a 13 year old would now rightfully be classed as rape, it isn't necessarily paedophilia.

Paedophilia, by definition, means being attracted to children who haven't completed puberty. Who have the body of a child.

So sex with a teenage girl isn't necessarily paedophilia. Finding the body of a pre-pubescent child to be sexually attractive, hits a revulsion factor that is almost primal.

Trigger warning, sorry.

@birdsgottafly

His alleged victims have claimed that MJ anally and orally raped them when they were seven years old. Afterwards he told them to hide their blood stained underwear. The abuse was so severe that one child was unable to urinate.

When you repeatedly say 'have sex with underage boys/girls' it legitimises it as a sexual preference intsead of the violent abuse that it is.

Please, don't perpetute that.

Sorry, meant to say, obviously it is just as bad to rape a 13 year old girl. I am saying why I think DB isn't looked upon with as much revulsion as MJ.

All these people saying he was damaged and vulnerable.

Why didn't he use his money to pay for therapy instead of passing the misery on to the younger generation?

Vulnerable my arse. He did it because that was his sexual preference and he knew he could get away with it.

I think as this begins to sink in for people who are/were fans his songs and videos will not be played on radio or TV.
I remember initially when information started to come out about Saville his family were outraged and people were saying that it was unfair that he was not able to defend himself. As the weight of evidence mounted all those people soon kept quiet, I can see this happening in MJ's case.

My sister just sent me this YouTube video. We've been big fans since childhood and I can't bring myself to believe any of it!

These accusations have come out long after his death so we'll never know the real truth however he was investigated vigorously by so many bodies when he was alive, including the FBI. (I think I remember reading the FBI investigated/kept tabs on him for 10 years because of accusations). They never found any evidence, nothing at all. 13 computers seized- nothing.
The only thing they found was adult heterosexual pornography and a few risqué art books amongst a huge collection of books about art.
Yes he was odd but if you were in his shoes you'd probably be odd too. Personally, I don't believe it and until I see damning evidence in a case seeking actual justice rather than million dollar pay outs then I'll continue to believe it's not true.
As far as hush money for previous cases, ask yourself if you would accept a pay out for you child being abused? No matter how poor what amount of money would help you sleep at night knowing that had happened to your kid?
Unless your end goal was money in the first place then no decent parent would accept anything less than justice.

Birdsgottafly

Your post typifies the more disgusting attitudes to all of this.

Firstly, we are not talking about “underage sex” (not that that’s OK) but the rape of children as young as 7.

Secondly...”he may or may not have had sex with underage boys but...” That “but” is appalling. So what if he had “mental issues”? He clearly knew what he was doing was wrong as he worked hard on the children to keep it hidden.

And to the poster who thinks he may be innocent because people now accusing him initially lied - young people lie about abuse all the fucking time. One of the men has said in the documentary that he never felt abused...he felt that he was in a relationship. That’s the kind of brainwashing child abusers engage in.

Pollysproggle

What does the behaviour of avaricious parents have to do with whether a child was raped or not? What a stupid thing to say.

I always thought he was innocent and had some MH issues that made him a child himself, emotionally.

If I’ve been super naive im gutted 😭

@TwitToWoo
I'd say it has a lot to do with gauging whether the accusation were true in the first place, actually.

TwitToWoo I totally agree with you. Being failed by subsequent adults doesn't mitigate the abhorrent behaviour of the first.

I can also see several reasons why the parents may take the money and not proceed further:

A) If you are the type of person who lets you child share a bed with an unrelated man, then your judgement is skewed anyway (perhaps as you have also been groomed by him)
B) not wanting to put your child through a harrowing court case if there is little evidence and a chance that there won't be a conviction anyway
C) They maybe didn't want their own bad choices brought to light
D) That money can buy a hell of a lot of therapy for your abused child.

None of those reasons mean that abuse didn't happen originally.

As for why victims changed their stories, the cognitive dissonance within abuse is massive. To accept they had been abused, would also mean accepting that their parents had unwittingly facilitated it. Plus, denying to others is a way of denying to self too. If something is too huge to process.

Why the hell would these men make the allegations now, for no profit, knowing from first hand exposure, the rabid nature of some of MJ's more "obsessed" fans. Not to mention the risk of being sued to oblivion by his family.

THRILLIST: Still, a lot of people would have a hard time with an underage girl having sex with rock stars.

But you need to understand that I didn’t think of myself as underage. I was a model. I was in love. That time of my life was so much fun. It was a period in which everything seemed possible. There was no AIDS and the potential consequences seemed to be light. Nobody was afraid of winding up on YouTube or TMZ.

Lori Mattix, quoted above, was 15 when she had sex with David Bowie. Whilst I don't condone this at all, it is a world away from Michael Jackson grooming and sexually abusing boys as young as 7. Why the 'whataboutery'?

Nothing excuses what he did (allegedly....).

www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/i-lost-my-virginity-to-david-bowie

As far as hush money for previous cases, ask yourself if you would accept a pay out for you child being abused? No matter how poor what amount of money would help you sleep at night knowing that had happened to your kid?

I suspect (and I am just putting this forward as a possibility) the sort of money that would keep you and your family comfortable for the rest of your and their lives.

If there are others (careful language) it is possible that they are being paid a monthly amount that would stop if the child stepped forward. It would be bad enough stepping forward into this but adding the further guilt of family being put in the poor house.

I grew up listening to MJ music but I wouldn’t listen to it now as I do believe he was a child rapist.

It must be incrediblely hard for anyone who was a victim to come out as the die hard MJ fans have slaughtered anyone who thus far has.
Obviously the me too movement doesn’t appply when referred to an iconic musical genius.

Polly

"My sister just sent me this YouTube video. We've been big fans since childhood and I can't bring myself to believe any of it! "

Do you not think that being a "big fan" and being unable to "believe" might actually be related?

Your arguments are deeply flawed. Rather than focus on why people accepted hush money, try wiping the stardust from your eyes and look to understand why MJ and his legal team felt that paying tens of millions of dollars was necessary in the first place.