Leaving Neverland: Michael Jackson and Me

[SachaStark]

Anybody else planning to watch tonight? Part 1 of 2, 9pm, Channel 4.

I'm very intrigued to watch. I remember the Martin Bashir documentary being aired years ago, and the various backlashes/criticisms that happened afterwards.

ccmrob12 I have and I still believe them. I liked Jackson before all this. I’d been to the thriller musical,loved his music,DS loves his music. I started watching the documentary wanting him to be innocent, I’ve always thought these boys claims were for monetary gains. I’ve researched both sides of this. I believe them.

I definitely believe he was a paedophile and a damaged person. However I don't know if anyone heard on the radio a debate and someone said that the mother couldn't have danced and cried at his death (as he couldn't hurt children anymore) because her son didn't tell her until much later? Is that true?

@Hughes12345 a consistent story for a start. I haven't seen one yet. All we have is a story that couldn't possibly have they way they said because of other events.

Again, I highlight the Saville case as fair account of historic sexual abuse. The victims gave facts that matched and couldn't be contradicted due to other events. Which can't be said for this case.

I'll ask you seeing as you seem quite passionate on this, why did they leave out key events from this documentary. I would class a 7 year relationship a key event.

There isn’t any point arguing with ccmrob. She’s an apologist for child sex abuse and paedophilia, blinded by fandom for MJ. I’m not sure what kind of “evidence” she wants or thinks that it’s common to get in sex crimes cases due to the private and secretive nature of the offending. If there was an actual video and buckets of forensic evidence she’d still find a way to assert it was all made up just to extort money.

YouBumder you’re right. I won’t reply anymore.

Of course the publicity shot is trying to sell the documentary - people who make films want people to watch them, or they wouldn't make them. It's perfectly normal for a documentary film-maker - or any other type of film maker to issue a PR shot with a film. There are a couple of different ones being used with this film.

The newspaper picture editors choose which picture to out with the story - and most of them are using images of MJ with children, as they think they will attract more clicks.

I genuinely think many of the MJ fandom would still defend MJ if a graphic photo appeared of him actually penetrating a child. They are that deluded. They would say he had a difficult childhood / didn’t know right from wrong / thought he was acting out of some sort of love / blah blah whatever crap they spout. There are some who will delude themselves forever with this.

Noeuf James had told his mum that Jackson was a ‘bad man’ no further detail. I think she’d filled in the blanks herself. Many people believed he was a paedophile at the time of his death even without a personal disclosure from one of his victims.

You see how you have jumped to conclusions, I'm not a she. What other conclusions have jumped to on this matter? You assume a lot in that statement verging on slander.

I've already made my points without attacking anyone and yet you still go back name calling.

If there was actual evidence, then we are talking a different matter, don't be so absurd. MJ would be in jail and he would have no fans (except the crazy ones). If I was defending him after that then could accept that labels you have given.

I have given my reasons for not believing these two accounts, in THIS case. It is not the case that feel the same way in others and for other victims of abuse.

I thought you were probably male ccmrob12.

Perfectly normal for the director to be in the publicity shot for that particular Guardian article, as he wrote it.

If this was any other man in the world there would be no debate. But it’s Michael Jackson, an icon to many, and for so long portrayed as a Peter Pan figure, the child who never grew up. So sleepovers with children is explained away because he was a ‘innocent soul’ ‘childlike’. If Barry Smith at number 43 was inviting boys into his terraced house to hang out for movie nights in his bedroom the police would be called in an instant.

🤣 you do know this is mumsnet 🤣 it’s a pretty fair assumption to make. That’s really made me chuckle.

let me ask you again ccmrob12 did you join MN just to post on this thread?

Because you were the 8th person to post on it, on Wednesday, and you have posted 56 times on it since.

And not posted on any other threads since then.

AIBU to think you have some sort of agenda?

I believe they both were abused.
I have no personal experience of abuse so can't comment personally, but I do agree with Oprah that the word 'abuse' doesn't explain it. It's so incredibly damaging.

I believe the 2 Corey's - Haim and Feldman were abused too.

Unfortunately these things are almost impossible to prove.

The testimony of victims IS evidence. What part of that do you not understand? You accept the testimony as fact of people who say they haven’t been abused as evidence of MJ’s innocence. Why not these guys?

Apologies for “misgendering” you. Being “mumsnet”, most posters are indeed female, not all of course, so it’s not that massively wild an assumption though, out of the 2 choices available. Have you just joined here to post on this thread to support MJ?

Whatever his agenda is-it isn’t working.

flo you mean Ian Watkins not Hopkins (sounds pedantic I know but just in case there is a Hopkins out there. Poor H from Steps who shares the name Ian Watkins had a rough time of it at the time)

cc nude photos were found on the police list - one was easily explained (publicity shots iirc for the band 3T) but the one that was possibly Jonathan Spence found at Jackson's family home (he didn't purchase Neverland until 88 so Spence had slept over at his parents' house) would have been problematic to say the least had the Judge allowed it into court. A staff member also passed a lie detector test regarding finding a photo but failed it with regard to being asked to destroy it. There was I think a photo of Kendall in his dressing gown and possibly a snap of his brother bare-chested. Nneither were not naked from the waist down/exposed. Still dodgy though.

As you might know, I have been prolific on both threads and can confirm that some posts, now deleted, have been heated. I give people a pass as it is such an emotive subject.
I do not defend Michael in the sense that I think he is innocent - I would have called not proven if such a thing existed in the states and I do think, even if Wade's testimony had been against him in 2005, you would have been looking at a hung jury.
I think his relationships with children was unhealthy, replacement of favourites is in itself a form of abuse, and he did himself no favours in not changing his pattern of behaviour M.O so I have no sympathy for him or his reputation, just sympathy for his kids and the children affected by him.
But I do think there is a lot of misinformation out there and if I see a factual error, lack of creditable source or something which is blatantly wrong I will point that out as as you say, that is how the legal process works. We are near the end of both threads now and I wish everyone on them the best for the future, particularly any triggered by the events of the last week.

I’m in my mid 40s now so was quite young when the “Peter Pan” /boy who never grew up schtick was doing the rounds as justifying him spending so much time in a private theme park type establishment with wee boys, who he admitted sharing his bed with. I wonder how I’d have viewed it if it had happened when I was the jaded old cynic I am now.

@YouBumder - It would be evidence if it were reliable. I will say it again, he keeps changing his story and contains it parts which can't be true (do to other events) and other parts which were left out. That's why I don't believe in this case. What's the problem?

I actually found this thread while searching about the documentary and signed up to post my views. Is that against the rules? If it is I apologise? Didn't notice that when I signed up? I'm not trying to wind anyone up, but surely every discussion on the forum has two sides?

I always thought ccmrob12 was male.

Are you being paid by the MJ estate ccmrob12 to do damage control? Its not working.

If its just that you're a MJ fan and cant handle the truth about him then you actually have my sympathy.

They can’t win though. If they’d had an absolute perfect recall of events and timelines all these years later they’d have been accused of making it up and it all being too perfect and rehearsed. I actually think discrepancies make it more likely they are telling the truth and not less.

People really need to stop deciding Macauley was molested by Michael. Seriously, that is really unfair on him. And no it is not obvious because of his life. He was a child star who was abused by his father FFS. Stick to facts and leave out the bloody assumptions about people who deny they have been abused and have not put themselves out for questionning over it. Its not on!

Oblo If Corey Feldmen - someone who has been sexually abused by others and told people, someone who campaigns and fights for victims of sexual abuse, someone who says he has to listen to others due to this- says Michael didn't lay a finger on him I fully believe him.

Again, people need to stop assuming about others who have no part in this.

Agree with TripTrap.

I think another interesting question is what we do about MJ's musical legacy.

Not a superfan, but I saw MJ in concert at Wembley (Thriller tour) and took my kids to see Thriller Live a few years ago. Still love most of the music, nothing better to get you on a dance floor.

I think the evidence of child abuse is now overwhelming, but does that mean I can't continue to enjoy his music? I really don't know. There must be other examples of flawed artists whose talent & legacy has endured?

Savile is a bit different because no-one could call him talented. At least not in the realms of genius like MJ.

I can't believe ccmrob is still going. Other than wilfully blind Jackson fans and some members of his own family, surely no-one can think he is innocent now.