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.

I just feel that people who are supportive of MJ are just clutching at straws.

MJ shared his bedroom at night with young boys. He groomed young boys. That can not be disputed. You can't really get over that if you are a rational adult who understands how abuse and grooming works.

I think the people defending MJ are seriously deluded.

I too have trouble separating the artist from the music so can't listen to his songs now.

They are deluded or just dazzled by his talent and public persona.

I think that super-fans have to go through their own acceptance as they were also duped and groomed in a different way. It's hard to let go.

That the documentary highlighted so well was the confusion of the boys

My feeling harmed but feeling loved and being overwhelmed by the attention and having feelings of love for MJ

This is how many who groom work obviously they don’t have the power, money and excitement in their lives that MJ has but they do so very often make the child feel special a chosen one

This documentary can and I believe shall be used to understand the complexities of how children being abused often feel and how grooming so often is done on so many levels over a long period

Grumio I didn't say I was surprised, I tend to try and start off looking at everything through a neutral lens - it struck me immediately how slick the film looked though. I was trying to be objective in my assessment of it and it was one of the first things that struck me. I've heard the director speaking on R4 about his motives which seem very admirable, he says that it's more to show how children and families are groomed - wasn't necessarily crucial that it was about MJ but of course that helps massively in drawing in attention and debate.

@teatimes talking of clutching at straws, being accused of working for the MJ estate to defend him on mumsnet....that did make me lol. Really???

I don’t how people can see the fact the makers are hiding things also? Why?? Why would they leave out the details of seven years during this period when MJ introduced him to his niece? Why do you think they would leave this out of the narrative? Anyone?

I’m confused as to why Wade having a relationship with MJ’s niece means that MJ wasn’t abusing him? I don’t know why they left it out of the documentary, I don’t know how it’s relevant though so if someone could explain.

The maker of the documentary has said it’s not a film about Jackson, it’s a film about grooming and how it takes place and how it affects its victims. There are plenty of things about Jackson and events that happened that won’t have been included because it’s not meant to be a full and complete timeline of all events. It’s the story of how these 2 boys were groomed

Ccmrob, what difference would it have made?

I must admit I couldn't see the connection either but thought I was just being dim.

Ccm what's the relevance? Does it matter if he was dating, single, gay, straight? Why does it matter that he was dating MJs niece? You are seriously deluded and thick to boot.

Its called editing - choosing the most relevant and pertinent parts of the narrative to make a cohesive programme that tells the story. They can't include every conversation or acquaintance the victims ever had with the Jackson family.

I would have thought that was pretty obvious??

ah I knew ccmrob wouldn't be able to resist coming back to try and get the last word on the thread. Interesting that you interpret a question as an accusation. Thats a very defensive position. I also wonder if you have a collection of MJ memorabilia whose rapidly plumetting value you are trying to protect.

Why on earth do you keep wittering on about Brandi Jackson? Are you really saying you think that if someone is going out with someone (and he was 9, that's not really a ringing endorsement of the Jackson's views on child raising) they therefore can't be physically penetrated or sexually abused by someone else? How absurd.

Greenpop21 that is a really good point and explains why the superfans are ignoring the obvious and homing in on Wade and Jimmy trying to catch them out.

I watched the Oprah interview last night and I think Wade and Jimmy completely understand how the fans will be in denial as they were themselves for many years.
The difference between MJ and the likes of Saville is that people loved MJ, most people didn't even like Saville.

The film was 4 hours long, they couldn't put in everything!

Ccmrob thinks being introduced to a girl means that a boy cannot be abused?

As I've said many times, anyone who thought Michael always spoke in a high voice is a bit of an idiot.

Why did he use a high voice in public Triptrap?

Saville was an utter creep, at least MJ had talent. You can see why people would fall for it

Dione to convince us he was innocent and childlike. We were all conned let's face it.

Triptrap wasn't conned. They knew he had a proper deep man voice. So why did he use a high, wee boy voice in public? Why would a man do that?

Absolutely believe the two men. Found the programme heart-breaking and agree that the film shows so well how a whole family can be groomed.
Total respect to them for making this film.

Okay, this is annoying me now.

Innocent until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt... these are terms for a court room. They have no bearing whatsoever on whether a crime actually happened. Almost all reported sex crimes never even get to a court room. That does not mean they did not happen.

How is this hard to understand?

@ccmrob12 can you explain why the relationship (if you can call it that when your talking about a 9 year old) with Mjs neice is relevant and disproves the abuse.