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

He's done some very strange things in his time but what makes me doubt these two is the court scripts. Most were published and they included emails back and forth of which Robson quizzed his mum as he couldn't remember, yet in the documentary his story is told Asif he remembers every detail. Also in the court files it is very clear that MJ didn't manipulate the Robson family, it was Wade's mum who begged and begged for support and contacts. Infact MJ didn't contact the Robson's for two years after the first meet and greet that Wade won in a competition as a child. Contact resumed after Wade's mum sent four letters and videos which MJ didn't respond to, she traveled to America and phoned around begging for MJs personal assistants contact details.

If you watched the documentary its interesting to read the facts presented to the court by the Robson family, it's a very different version of events compared to the documentary interviews. The link below has excerpts but there are full links to the court evidence published.

I'm on the fence regarding the allegations, but if they are true then Wade should be suing his mum for putting him in that situation. She's not worth a penny though is she so obviously Wade is arguing that MJ estate and productions are responsible for recruiting boys for MJ to abuse. Just as people do abuse, people lie as well. I guess when your caught telling as many lies as Wade Robson has, and in no way am I including his initial denial of abuse, but people will doubt you.

dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/339-excerpts-from-wade-and-joy-robson-depositions-and-emails

I was groomed. In my grooming, my parents were also groomed. I’m taking issue with the people not getting it about the kids or the parents (lots of “what we’re those mothers thinking?” On social media) - grooming takes a long time and groomers know what they’re doing. MJ was clearly a predatory paedophile who groomed numerous boys. I believe them.

I’m sure your friend would 100% make a safeguarding referral in the circumstances you describe. Just because she believes that MJ isn’t a pedophile doesn’t mean that she thinks that all suspected pedophiles are innocent!

I have no idea if MJ was a pedophile. It is odd that he preferred the company of children, but I can’t assume he is a criminal because of that or make assumptions on his behavior with those children because he was “odd”. Nor can I form a definitive opinion purely based on Leaving Neverland. There are too many holes it it and it appears to be completely one sided.

If these two men are lying, then sure, my god they must be brilliant liars. They were very compelling and believable.

But from my understanding there are a number of things that discredit their claims. I can’t remember everything and its hard cutting through what some fans are making excuses for and what is actual fact. But I’ve read that they cut 45 minutes out of the UK airing of the documentary because holes had been poked in their story after it was aired in the US. I think there was a scene where Robson was burning his MJ memoribella but an auction house confirmed that he actually sold those items a few years ago. So he was burning fake stuff?! There was also the story where Robson describes being at a dinner with the family and deciding to testify because he felt bad for MJ’s kids living without their father. A family member has come forward to say that he was at that dinner and it in fact took place after the trial. Apparently Wade Robson had also set up some sort of fundraising page where he and his wife both describe themselves as sexual abuse victims. But in the documentary, his wife said she wasn’t sure how to support Wade as she had never been through something like sexual abuse. So they’ve changed the wording on the website. If the abuse is true then I’m confused about these lies.

As I say, these two men have given a very compelling story. But it is a one sided story and as I heard someone else say, it’s like hearing the prosecution, making up your mind and then leaving before the defense has the chance to speak. I think we can be smarter than this. This whole thing has a funny whiff about it, if they have spoken so compellingly about these small lies (the dinner, the dramatic burning of his MJ stuff) how do we know that the whole thing isn’t a lie?

I actually hope that they are telling the truth. Because it would be a very sad day for sexual abuse victims if they were lying.

There is also a billionaire dollar I believe lawsuit they are trying to claim from the estate."
No there isn't.

The probate suit was dismissed.
The negligence suit against the companies was dismissed.
The latter is being appealed later in the year - if they were to ever win compensation it would come from the estate luna

Pum the burning of the jacket has been explained up thread, no one claimed it was the real jacket, the viewer YOU presumed it was.

I watched the full documentary with an open mind I had previously seen the Martin Bashir documentary and thought MJ was an odd individual who liked 're company children but truly believed he was a Peter Pan character but bloody hell.not James and wade were completely believable if they are not telling the truth than they are both damn good liars .

@BusterGonad The director was under the impression it was the real jacket. Meaning that he was lied to by Robson. Plus the other apparently lies I pointed out. As I said, it seems fishy.

*apparent 🙄 bloody autocorrect

Pum really, did he say that in an interview or on the docu. That's interesting but it still doesn't sway my judgement. There is way too much dodgy stuff for me to think that he wasn't anything but a filthy paedo. Im looking at Doc Conrad Murray in a whole new light now, it sounds bloody terrible but I think MJ dying was the best thing for everyone.

pum you can't extrapolate that Reed was lied to by Wade. You can conclude that he didn't fact check.
If I were a cynic, I might suggest that it was irrelevant to him as a filmmaker because it was a strong visual anyway and that he would not admit to not knowing the authenticity of the items in interviews because that would admit he might not have done due diligence on many things presented as real within his documentary. But this would be supposition on my part.

Reed told Vice in February, “I wasn’t there when Wade burned those items, but the photographic evidence suggests those were the real deal, yeah.”

“I sold some Jackson items at auction in 2011 to raise money for therapy following a nervous breakdown,” Robson, 36, tells PEOPLE. “After disclosing my abuse to my therapist in 2012 I burned some more items as part of my recovery. The Thriller jacket that I burned in the photos was my custom childhood Thriller jacket that I used to perform in. Those are the images portrayed in Leaving Neverland.”

A propos of nothing at all and adding nothing to the thread whatsoever, aside from an orange klaxon to old timers on here Peter Andre took part in the dance competition that Wade won.

Last night I watched the Oprah interview and YouTube then went to Oprah interviewing MJ live on TV in 1993

He hasn’t done a televised interview for 14 years. He very strongly controlled the narrative around his relationships with boys,the same narrative we’ve all been fed for decades.

Shortly afterwards the Chandler case happened. This was not a coincidence imo.

There’s so much abuse of Wade here but what about James? He is the most believable abuse victim, I can’t believe anyone can suggest otherwise. The Oprah interview happened in front of an audience full of abuse survivors, and it was clear they all recognised fellow survivors in the two men.

As for Wade’s mother, it’s completely irrevelant whether she pursued contact with MJ - plenty of stage mums do similar. At that stage there were no public accusations about MJ, she didn’t know he was an abuser. This is such a victim blaming argument - just because you seek someone out doesn’t mean they are then entitled to abuse your child!

All the MJ sympathizers won't listen to logic Sink they'll look to anyone or anything to blame the abuse on except MJ himself. I haven't watched the Oprah MJ interview (1993) yet. I'll have to add that to my list. I did look at the police videos today, searching Neverland and finding secret rooms that contained loads of toys and safes and general stuff he wanted away from the main house, for whatever reason! Vile vile little man!

In a way Wade’s wife is a victim of abuse too because of the impact it has had on her husband and the father of her child. Maybe that’s what the website meant? It all depends on the context in which it was written, of course some will take it as a stand-alone to try and discredit.

Oprah isn’t innocent in this.

www.lipstickalley.com/threads/blind-item-about-oprah-michael-jackson-and-david-geffen.2137750/

The MJ sympathisers are in some sort of haze and still have their rose tinted glasses of the image of an innocent childlike man, and also the talent that he had. The items found at MJ Neverland Ranch suggest otherwise, and the accounts of the two men in the documentary. Basically, MJ was a wolf in sheep's clothing. No doubt he had a dreadful childhood and was abused by his father, sometimes this follows a pattern. Nobody can by 100% certain that MJ did not abuse boys, there is always that element of doubt, despite him being found not guilty in court.

Hiding in plain sight. I never liked him, I always found the crotch grabbing very disconcerting, even as a young child.

In the documentary, clips of MJ speaking about the kids, made me feel so uncomfortable and his body language towards, it was not in a platonic and innocent way, but had a flirtacious and deeper overtone, than went beyond the platonic into something else. It felt that they were there to help a need within him, a selfish and self gratifying need. He did not talk to them like friends. What grown man, spends a lot of time with young children alone, that is not right, and in a normal Joe Bloggs would raise alarm bells.

But somehow normal concerns were put aside with MJ.

Even if Oprah did fund the documentary, so what? An abuse victim herself who by her own reckoning has made 217 episodes about sexual abuse - seems like the kind of thing you’d be happy to fund. How does this have any impact on the truthfulness of the documentary? Some people are really clutching at straws here.

Some of the reasons given by MJ fans for him not being a paedo are, in fact the very things that enabled it. Although he was a charismatic international talented popstar, He was actually came across as very gentle, innocent, childlike because he had been abused himself as a child. He helped underpriviliged children, let them come to neverland, had children on stage with him because he really connected with kids. All these things helped endear him to kids and be attractive to them, while essentially gaining the parents consent. Thats how grooming works.

At that stage there were no public accusations about MJ

Actually yes there was and Joy Robson still allowed her son to be around MJ. After two accusations she still allowed contact with MJ and bed sharing. I would never allow my children to share a bed with a grown man like that!

SinkGirl why would Oprah spend her birthday taking great joy in watching Leaving Neverland on a known paedophiles yacht she’s not the saint and saviour she paints herself as.

I’m not saying MJ is innocent by the way, it’s just rich coming from some of the people who are condemning him.

Krazy yes just like another famous paedo, Jimmy Savile, but because MJ didn't look like your typical dirty old man people seem to think he isn't one!