To be disappointed that people who should know better are minimising grooming?

[GunpowderGelatine]

After watching the Leaving Neverland documentary, in which I 100% believe the victims (I mean come on MJ was the most obvious pedophile ever!) I posted a link to a Guardian article that stated that if MJ was alive they'd be sure a jury these days would find him guilty. I accompanied with "I believe the victims". I don't usually post these kinds of things on social media but I'm disappointed that so many people on my friends list have bleated on about his innocence whilst admitting they haven't watched the documentary.

A friend commented to say that both the boys in the documentary previously stated they'd never been touched by MJ and are therefore liars. When I replied to essentially say that the power of grooming, they were coerced into lying for the man who abused them but who they also love, she replied saying it's BS, they're after money. This friend is a "superfan". She's also a year 2 teacher. She teaches children the same age as Jackson's victims, and I'm shocked that she's denying the effects of grooming. I'm extremely tempted to ask her if one of her pupils said they were sleeping in the same bed as a perfect stranger, a single man who is successful and buys them presents and gives them envelopes of cash, would she make a safeguarding referral?

I guess I'm so disappointed that people are still deluded and dazzled because he was a legendary musician - as if being good at your job and being an abuser are mutually exclusive. But I certainly expected better from an infant teacher

I think what truly horrified me was MJ dangling Blanket off a balcony when he was a small baby. Like the baby was some sort of toy. His children procured by surrogate parents with spark from an unknown man. A ‘wife’ who was a brood made, quickly dispensed with.
How anyone could. believe the man wasn’t completely off his trolley is beyond me. I’ve never admired him and found the documentary sickening.

Sperm not spark!

I thought it very telling when one of the mothers said MJ bought their hoisr for them and it might seem like a coincidence but it was ent .

House*

I believe them. 100%. Why on earth would anyone voluntarily open themselves and their families up to this shitstorm if it weren't for finally being ready to speak their truth? You'd think post Savile and #metoo people would be much more enlightened as to how these things occur, but seemingly not

Totally believe them.

And I was a big MJ fan in the 80s.

So many lives broken. Angry and sad in equal measure.

This can't be resolved, presumably. Emotionally, I mean none of us will ever know, presumably? Because you can't prosecute a dead person, in the eyes of the law.

I don't know enough about law, to know what happens when wade filed a 1.6 billion claim against the Jackson estate. And Safechuck filed another claim. But I'm assuming it the likelihood of it being found in wades favour is slim?

So, there is no/little chance of closure?

Which just leaves us all, in quite a mess, I guess?

Hopefully they will find some closure being believed? The whole thing is very complex in so many different levels I understand how the families were taken in by MJ but how can the parents have thought it was fine to their very y young children with him?

It’s your opinion and your Facebook you can believe what you like

I’m a non believer because they said it took them to 30 to ‘realise’ they were groomed. That is an adult and way past adult years.

There is also a billionaire dollar I believe lawsuit they are trying to claim from the estate.

Statory limitations reset the moment you ‘realise’ you were groomed.

And of course they lied previously.

So don’t be mad at people who don’t believe it and they don’t need to watch a 2019 documentary on someone else’s opinion to form their own.

*I don't know enough about law, to know what happens when wade filed a 1.6 billion claim against the Jackson estate. And Safechuck filed another claim. But I'm assuming it the likelihood of it being found in Wade's favour is slim?

So, there is no/little chance of closure?*

You asked about legalities.
According to the law, a person can bring a childhood sexual abuse case against non perpetrator entities until their 26th birthday.
Wade is 36.
But an exception allows lawsuit against third parties (MJ Companies), if they knew or had a reason to know about the unlawful sexual conduct of their employee/ representative/ agent (MJ) and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it.

The judge said this could not be pursued because Michael had been the 100% sole shareholder of the MJ Companies during his lifetime. Based on the Corporations Code, no one other than Michael Jackson had the legal ability or authority to control Michael Jackson. Furthermore Neverland Ranch and all of the other residences were owned by Michael personally. This means that the MJ Companies couldn’t control who visited Michael at his homes.

(taken from the following source, it is a pro MJ site but the article itself sums up why the suit was rejected December 2017.)
dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/354-robson-case-dismissed-for-good-judge-s-ruling-explained

Judge's ruling here
www.scribd.com/document/367639167/Robson-Summary-Judgment-Ruling

As for closure, that is far more difficult to gauge, because some might say that you don't ever get closure - that you have to deal with the effects of abuse every day for the rest of your life - the same as a bereavement.
Others might argue that Jackson's death closed a chapter but that it was only through being listened to, heard and believed that the healing process could begin and that they are only at the early stages of that journey.
To have their stories out there, to have disclosed to spouses and siblings, to be supported and believed by many - that might help them in the short term. Long term therapy and $ to be able to afford such therapy will be needed - such therapy might have been ongoing but perhaps they can now both access more specialist help for post traumatic stress.

If the appeals process takes 1-2 years then their appeal will be heard later on this year - whether the documentary or the public reaction to it means they win the right to bring their case to court, remains to be seen. The argument regarding liability/accountability of the company board of directors (Branca, Gallin and Gelfand) still does not hold water but perhaps they can find a way of pursuing a civil suit despite time having run out - iirc, Robson's argument that psychological damage prevented him bringing a case earlier and Safechuck's argument that he did not/could not recognize what happened to him as child sexual abuse until 2013/4 - neither were considered mitigating factors against statute of limitations. Perhaps the documentary and public perception of the nature of abuse will have changed that, perhaps not.

*It’s your opinion and your Facebook you can believe what you like

I’m a non believer because they said it took them to 30 to ‘realise’ they were groomed. That is an adult and way past adult years.

There is also a billionaire dollar I believe lawsuit they are trying to claim from the estate.*

bella. What do you think happened on those multiple occasions when MJ shared his bed with young boys?

Why did his so-called “lost childhood” mean that he needed boys in his bed?

Under which circumstances do you think it’s ok for non-related children to sleep in an adult’s bed?

I spent significant time on the other two threads on this subject (both went to 1000 posts for anyone who has insomnia) here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3518728-why-are-people-still-deluding-themselves-about-michael-jackson
and here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/telly_addicts/3525990-Leaving-Neverland-Michael-Jackson-and-Me

To answer your OP AYBU to be disappointed that 'people who should know better' are minimising grooming? Teachers are trained in child protection issues - not to promise confidentiality, not to question a child who discloses so as not to taint evidence/lead a witness but to remain supportive while passing on to the lead teacher i/c of safeguarding (usually a senior teacher or deputy head with responsibility for pastoral care).

Most teachers have a reasonable knowledge of these issues and we believe the child first and foremost but it is not our job to investigate, it is our job to reassure and pass upwards.
Most teachers have a decent education, can apply critical thinking and like to have informed opinions - often you will teach children the difference between fact and opinion and about the validity of sources. In English children are taught to use P. E. E. paragraphs:
Point. Evidence. Explain.

So I can understand to a certain degree your disappointment if your teacher friend is blinkered, in denial, won't watch victim testimony or shuts down reasonable argument. I can also understand your concern because of their role in safeguarding.

But you are forgetting three things:

Teachers are human and therefore fallible. You can hold them to a higher standard because of their role/loco parentis (albeit look what happened with the parents in question) but they still have the right to hold a different opinion to you.
Superfans themselves could be considered to have been groomed and/or coming to terms with events. This might take some more time than others.
Your teacher friend might have done more research than you credit them with and is basing their judgement on different criteria to you.

Having heard how powerful and familiar the stories from the victims have been for victims of abuse, and how some have been triggered by them, I am aware that the new evidence in the form of personal witness testimony is deemed by many to be beyond doubt.
That said, any trial by media in the court of public opinion makes for a
poor precedent legally so we defer to judges who will make those decisions - but I hope that Wade and James are buoyed by the wave of public support they have had and I hope that Jackson's children, who are also victims in this, (they cannot help who their father was and will need at some point to confront what he might have been) are receiving support.

"He is literally the only adult man on the planet who has this mysterious 'child like" personality which means he is a fully functioning adult yet the mind and complete innocence of a child"

This has always bothered me. An ex-colleague of mine, who was a massive Michael Jackson fan, tried to excuse the baby/ balcony incident on the basis that "he was just like a child and that's the kind of thing a child would do" . My DC and their little friends would have known not to do that to a baby when they were two years old, and they would have been upset to see an adult do it - they wouldn't necessarily have understood the permanency of the consequences of dropping a baby from a height, but they would definitely have been very distressed for the baby. I just don't buy that the guy was (clearly) able to function fully as an adult in an adult business and yet selectively have the understanding of a toddler when it suits his fans' case.

I believe them too.

OP I was expecting this to be a bunfight about people not shaving their legs/maintaining their eyebrows to an adequate standard! (Minimising their personal grooming)

I’m a little disappointed, I have to say

I've only watched the first half. Will watch the 2nd tonight.

What struck me was that you could call MJ the ultimate pedophile. He groomed and abused boys in broad daylight. He groomed and abused boys in front of their mothers. He groomed the mothers and the families. He groomed the media. He groomed his fans. And he is still grooming people, with his little boy act they have been groomed to believe, they are so blinded (groomed) that they can't see the wood for the trees.

I'm afraid that if someone like Bella or his other super fans, were to admit that he might be guilty, they would have to admit that they were fooled (groomed) too. And that is just too difficult.

MJ groomed everyone, including his fans. He’s still doing it now even though he’s dead (through his legacy). He was a very sneaky paedophile. I totally believe Wade and James. It was obvious they were telling the truth.

I have only watched the first half so far and it’s harrowing watching.

@bella if only it was just their opinion, it’s their testimony. Do you think all of the women that came forward about Harvey Weinstein were lying because it took them so long and why did many of those originally deny? He didn’t even groom them, this is much much worse. Watch the documentary, if you still have the same opinion then fine but just because Donald Trump says there is no climate change doesn’t make science wrong, we are in a world where it is easy to deny the obvious.

James Safechuck Looks so broken.

Nobody who has watched that documentary with an open mind would ever doubt their story.

I have deleted all MJ from my playlists and will stop listening to any radio station that plays his music. I will also be complaining to any shop or restaurant that plays his music.

Can't believe all the protests...Maybe they are paedophiles too.

@PigOnStilts
"The sour part of me thinks its because they're males."

We know that David Bowie and Mick Jagger, drugged and had sex with 13/14 year old Fans, regularly.

We know Bill Wyman's groomed Mandy Smith and had under age sex with her.

The Media liked to promote 'the Wild Child', aka any under age girl who didn't have the protection of her Parents and could be used as you wanted.

There's many successful Men whose thing for underage Girls, is being ignored. At the time it wasn't thought of as today, by many. Tom Jones is constantly under suspicion.

I thought MJ was guilty when the story first broke, back in the 90s. I didn't need to watch the documentary.
I do think some of the parents were culpable as well and should have been in court alongside Jackson. The mothers of Ian Watkins (potential) victims were rightfully charged and punished.

Birdsgottafly
we know thaf David Bowie and Mick Jagger drugged and had sex with 13/14 year old Fans, regularly
Where is your source for this?

I found it interesting today to read Aaron Carter calling these two men liars. If you google his name with MJ, he gives contradictory reports of his time with Jackson. In one interview, he recalls being given alcohol and his mum calling the police.

"I thought MJ was guilty when the story first broke, back in the 90s. I didn't need to watch the documentary.
I do think some of the parents were culpable as well"

I thought everyone knew. As they did in the cases I mentioned and could do a long list.

The Families, at the time, were happy to be paid off.

The 80's was a decade when MPs having 'rent boys' was usual, hardly any of them were over 20, many were under 18 and previously homeless. As did many other rich Men. Vanessa Paradise was photographed naked, aged 14 for an Album Cover. Brooke Shields was wanted by Hefner for the cover of Playboy. There's a sexual picture of her, aged 10 that Prince had hanging in his Studio (he also liked them underage/young), but he was also seen as quirky rather than sinister.

Peter String fellow didn't restrict underage Girls in his club, either.

If you're that way inclined, I suppose you stick with people who normalise it. I can remember 'intellectuals' citing Victorian Child Brothels and how we've highered the age of consent, to put forward that we've always done it.

feelingverylazytoday, they both admitted it. Crissie Hynde justified it by saying, more or less "what did the groupies think was going to happen, put yourself out there and you get used".

Jagger and Wyman were open about their sexual behaviour.

BTW, if you Google Chris's Hynde, she's very much a rape apologist, as is Mary Beard.