Leaving Neverland

[sistermagpie]

12 hours ago, doodlebug said:

i think the common denominator for this situation is a kid that lacks positive parental attention.  It is pretty obvious that both Wade and Jimmy’s mothers put their own desires far ahead of their childrens’ needs.  Wade’s father was mentally ill and thousands of miles away.  Since Jimmy’s father have a deposition on MJ’s behalf in the civil suit, I suspect he was also more interested in what MJ could do for him than in what MJ was doing to his son.  

I wonder if it's slightly different in these situations since MJ didn't exactly target these boys the same way. He's not the priest who knows which altar boys have a busy single mom and no dad and aren't getting a lot of attention. Both boys came to him through their performing--James was in a commercial and Wade's mom called all over the place until she could beg Michael to see him again. (James' "audition tape" even gave a false impression of him being a big MJ fan that he wasn't.)

So yeah, the parents were definitely something that would factor in. But it might not have been as much about the kid being lonely, exactly. Both boys had two parents with pretty ordinary lives before Michael, it seemed. But the fact that these parents were willing to hand him over to Michael--that would be key. The star factor might have been a big part of it--how starry-eyed were the kids and the parents from the start?

Also with Wade, his mother had taken him away from everything familiar including his father (even if that father was emotionally unavailable at that time) and his brother. So when he got to LA he'd probably have been more vulnerable than he'd been in the past. 

I could be wrong, though. Maybe both kids did have a special vulnerability before that. 

One other thing is I wonder if Chantal's role in the family is to be really supportive of mom. They were the two women Michael was less interested in and I wonder if Chantal was often the sympathetic listener to her mother. I don't remember her ever giving an opinion on her mother's choices and when the truth comes out she's the one who worries her mother's going to kill herself, which is a little reminiscent of Michael's sensitivity.

12 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

Robson has said in other interviews, that, after his second nervous breakdown, when he finally got into serious therapy and began talking with his counselor about the abuse; he was unable to dance or choreograph or do any sort of performing because it triggered him since his dancing career was so completely tied to Michael.  As everyone knows, Wade was a huge MJ fan as a tiny kid, which is what got him into dance in the first place and lead to his first meeting with Michael when he was 5.  Anyway, Robson says he was unable to dance, even privately; let alone work as a dancer or choreographer, for about 5 years; that he could feel Michael in his body, hear his words to him whenever he tried and it was unbearable.  He recently said he only began dancing and working on choreography again in the past year and a half and he's doing ok with it now.

So, it appears that Michael Jackson ultimately was the reason he's not been around much recently.  BTW, Robson had that second nervous breakdown while working on the Cirque du Soleil tribute to Michael Jackson show.  Hmmmm...........  He also says, that despite the Jackson family's assertion that he was fired from the show, that he resigned because he was emotionally unable to work.

I had wondered if that was exactly what happened, that he'd really had to withdraw to get better. It's all the more infuriating that MJ took his dance away from him. His dancing started with Michael, sure, but it seemed like people around him made it more Michael focused than it needed to be. He was in that dance troupe that had him do the MJ thing in every single show instead of encouraging him to be more eclectic to find his own style. He even permed his hair to look more like the guy. Mom tracked down MJ when he was 7. Can't help but think that if Michael was left on his own he wouldn't have been so completely MJ-focused.

Wade never said anything about whether he talked to his mom about Michael's obvious loss of interest when they got to LA. It seemed like mom again encouraged him to continue to beg for crumbs from Michael instead of encouraging him to separate himself from Michael on his end.

That's a thing that always seems so bad to me, that it never occurs to these parents that there's anything unhealthy about this--a kid whose entire life revolves around one person--even without the sexual abuse.

[Calamity Jane]

On 3/10/2019 at 7:37 AM, TigerLynx said:

Early on Jackson was smart.  He was giving money to children's charities, and visiting children in the hospital in the various cities he toured in, before he ever built Neverland.  Lots of people have favorite charities.  Originally, it looked like MJ wanted to help children, and several of the children invited to Neverland had cancer or other illnesses.

A good friend's son was diagnosed with leukemia as a child and was present at some charity event of MJ's, probably in the mid to late eighties.  Meeting MJ was a big deal for them.  Some of the children, my friend's son included, were invited to Neverland Ranch.  It sounded kind of awesome to my friend, but her son absolutely refused to go and said MJ gave him the creeps.  She often wondered what might have happened if he hadn't had that very strong, visceral reaction, and because of that she never had any doubt that MJ was molesting kids.  

I've only watched Part I so far, need to take a pause before Part II, not actually sure I'll be able to finish, really.  I know there seem to be some credibility problems, but those two young men seemed very believable to me.  

[doodlebug]

2 minutes ago, Calamity Jane said:

A good friend's son was diagnosed with leukemia as a child and was present at some charity event of MJ's, probably in the mid to late eighties.  Meeting MJ was a big deal for them.  Some of the children, my friend's son included, were invited to Neverland Ranch.  It sounded kind of awesome to my friend, but her son absolutely refused to go and said MJ gave him the creeps.  She often wondered what might have happened if he hadn't had that very strong, visceral reaction, and because of that she never had any doubt that MJ was molesting kids.  

I've only watched Part I so far, need to take a pause before Part II, not actually sure I'll be able to finish, really.  I know there seem to be some credibility problems, but those two young men seemed very believable to me.  

If you found Part I difficult, don't watch Part II until you're ready.  It is far more graphic and also includes a whole lot of detail about the suffering of the 2 men as they became adults and ultimately realized what had happened to them.  Very intense.  It is hard to doubt their credibility after watching it all.

[ruby24]

I noticed in the Gayle King interview how Wade said when he was about 12 he did start to feel a little more uncomfortable that it seemed like all MJ wanted to do with him was molest him whenever they saw each other. But he felt like he had to do what he wanted or he might lose his friendship. So on some level he did know that their "friendship" was based on that, which is really sad.

But that made me think about Jordan Chandler, because he was already 12 when MJ met him. And the court documents from that case detail that Jordan actually did ask him not to touch him at first, after he tried to, and not to kiss him, after he first did that. And that Michael would cry and tell him there's nothing bad about it and that other boys would do it for him (he names Jimmy and Brett Barnes). 

And according to Gavin Arvizo's testimony he also asked him not to at first, when he first put his hand in his pants. So I wonder if with a kid who's already 12 (rather than 9 or 10, like Jimmy) if there actually is some hesitation or instinct that they shouldn't do that once Michael starts with the sexual touching. Because James and Wade both say they didn't think that at all, but they were also younger.

[Kostgard]

In this LA Times interview, Wade confirms that he did suddenly walk away from his career (didn't specify the thing about which project he was working on), told his managers that he was done, picked up his family and moved to Hawaii. While he's getting back into dance through teaching, right now he's saying that he's not interested in choreographing for big stars again. Maybe he will be one day, but right now it sounds like it is probably still too triggering.

This LA Times piece also has more info. Again, it is horrible to see how this abuse messed them up. Goes into more detail about the issues James was experiencing - after his son was born, he was worried that he would do to his son what MJ did to him (I don't think that means he actually felt the urge. I think that is an understandable worry - that you won't be able to help perpetuating the cycle. In the film, Wade's wife said she asked him if he was having trouble discerning what was proper behavior around their son and what wasn't, which again, is completely understandable). James also said he was diagnosed with PTSD and anxiety and depression disorders. Again, all completely makes sense.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Kostgard

[Robert Lynch]

My parents' just turned grey upon seeing this documentary. It's like everything died inside and they can no longer trust this man. Really something else to see my parents who grew up with the Jackson 5. It's like everything they enjoyed, they can't anymore. Really something. Took a while to get them to see this.

[Scarlett45]

6 hours ago, doodlebug said:

Robson has said in other interviews, that, after his second nervous breakdown, when he finally got into serious therapy and began talking with his counselor about the abuse; he was unable to dance or choreograph or do any sort of performing because it triggered him since his dancing career was so completely tied to Michael.  As everyone knows, Wade was a huge MJ fan as a tiny kid, which is what got him into dance in the first place and lead to his first meeting with Michael when he was 5.  Anyway, Robson says he was unable to dance, even privately; let alone work as a dancer or choreographer, for about 5 years; that he could feel Michael in his body, hear his words to him whenever he tried and it was unbearable.  He recently said he only began dancing and working on choreography again in the past year and a half and he's doing ok with it now.

So, it appears that Michael Jackson ultimately was the reason he's not been around much recently.  BTW, Robson had that second nervous breakdown while working on the Cirque du Soleil tribute to Michael Jackson show.  Hmmmm...........  He also says, that despite the Jackson family's assertion that he was fired from the show, that he resigned because he was emotionally unable to work.

This breaks my heart most of all. That the greatest joy of his life (dancing, I’m taking about After the love of his wife and child) was corrupted by that piece of shit. I’m so mad. 

[Umbelina]

Confession first.  I've read all the reviews and interviews now, and almost all of this thread as well, but I don't have HBO, and haven't seen the special yet.

6 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

So yeah, the parents were definitely something that would factor in. But it might not have been as much about the kid being lonely, exactly. Both boys had two parents with pretty ordinary lives before Michael, it seemed. But the fact that these parents were willing to hand him over to Michael--that would be key. The star factor might have been a big part of it--how starry-eyed were the kids and the parents from the start?

The Oprah Special (full show here)  explained so much to me, not just the two men, but what SHE had to say as well about her own abuse, and certainly the men in the audience who were sexually abused as children. 

Several times they talk about the "grooming" that went on with the parents well before the children were groomed at all.  As she and they point out, MJ had a huge advantage/head start simply because of who he was.

The grooming of both parents and kids is not exclusive to MJ, but he of course, had much more of a jump on other abusers.  Abusers almost always know the family, and the kids.  A cop, a priest, a massive star, and trusted uncle, the helpful scout master...they share that grooming of parents as much as MJ did.

Quote

For all the people who talked about sexual pleasure of children in their posts...

These parts of Oprah's show REALLY address that, and do it so well.  Oprah really wanted to make very clear that child rape is very different than adult rape.  It's generally not violent, it's a slow grooming, full of statements of love, and generally a very slow seduction, and children simply do not have the words or experience to process what is happening to them, or to their bodies.

Where adult rape can be very violent, and certainly in child abduction/rape/murder cases it's probably closer to adult style rape?  Most of the cases like MJ's (and yes, there are many, as the size of the audience and the stats confirm) may not have his "star power" but it is often a trusted family friend or relative who commit long term sexual abuse.

Children are especially confused because even if part of them senses something is wrong, it can feel very good, so many complicated things for a child's mind to try to process.  I think that's why these two guys took years, well into adult hood to come to terms with "anything that Michael could do would be bad."   He was loving, hell, he "married" one of them, if it hurt he immediately stopped and was (or played) upset.  This was a long and slow seduction, and he became the most important "love" figure in their lives as well.

Oprah really wants to drive home that it "feeling good" is something people, and especially parents, never want to think about or say out loud.  I agree with her that leaving that part out shames the child, and even the now-adult, and talking openly about that is a very important step in the honesty it takes for childhood victims to ever move on. 

Having your "whole childhood be a lie" can't go away easily, unless these victims are allowed to express all of their truths.

--

All that said, I definitely believe them, and the other videos that are up slamming them, calling them much worse than liars?  Make me sick.

[Razzberry]

I got so angry watching this. Toward ALL of them except Wade and Jimmy.  A thirty year old man sleeping with young boys, I mean, come on.  Common sense, people.  In LA we had a saying "Not guilty by reason of celebrity". Don't even get me started on the scummy defense attorneys. Mesereau, Geragos, Cochran...always there to pervert justice and keep predators on the streets for the right price.

[kicotan]

7 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

The star factor might have been a big part of it--how starry-eyed were the kids and the parents from the start

Personally, I believe the “star factor” is the biggest part of it...and it should be a cautionary tale for every parent out there to teach their kids NOT to idolize someone just because they like their music, their movies or their fashion sense.

The way ordinary everyday adult folk idolize celebrities is something I can’t wrap my head around.  Add into the mix the stage mom/dads that want their child to be a “star” and I’m even more gobsmacked.  

There are plenty of celebrities that shun media exposure, tuck their kids far away from Hollywood(including Sasha Baron Cohen), pay security firms to make sure they aren’t in the public eye because of the “crazies” that come out of the woodwork, etc. ~ remember Steven Speilberg’s Stalker?

There is something fundamentally wrong with folks who sell their children into celebrity.

[Umbelina]

On 2/28/2019 at 10:30 AM, Giant Misfit said:

Really interesting in-depth interview with filmmaker Dan Reed.

And here's an old clip of LaToya from the Today show reinforcing that the mother told her about Michael's abuse, including showing her checks written to several of the children's families: (WARNING! LaToya very casually recounts her mother calling Michael a f***** several times in this interview.)

Wow, thanks for posting that. 

I was only tangentially interested in this story, mostly because a friend of mine had a small ranch near Neverland, and the locals had a lot of stories (they all believed the kids, some knew the maid, etc.)

I always believed the kids though, I just didn't obsess about every revelation and missed La Toya, and probably a lot more that I'm discovering in this thread.

Speaking of the maid, there is a recent interview with her, on Youtube, and I've closed it, posted the wrong link, sorry.  She seems believable to me as well, and talks about a lot of stuff, including finding semen crusted underwear in his closet. 

On 3/4/2019 at 12:42 PM, maggiegil said:

This was suggested to me on youtube probably as I watched the trailer on there. I don't understand the cognitive dissonance of acknowledging that he had inappropriate relationships with boys, sleeping, showering with them etc. but refusing point blank to entertain the idea that he could have molested them. It really shows the power of celebrity.

Any other man who did what he admitted he did with young boys just even sleeping in the same bed as them would in no way get any kind of benefit of the doubt. If you watch the Bashir documentary, hes grooming his victim and I believe it happened to the men in the doc too.

How come the victims motivation can be called into question but the familys motivation to protect their cash cow isn't being questioned.

This made me want to vomit, and sadly, there is MUCH worse crap on You Tube and Twitter defending MJ and vilifying the kids and parents.

Honestly, what is wrong with these people?  Is groupiehood that hard to break?

On 3/4/2019 at 3:40 PM, Scarlett45 said:

I think the saddest thing about MJ and others like him is that they get inside the head of their victims and prey on their very real human needs of love, attention, affection, validation etc. They make these kids think that the abuse is a small price to pay for all the things (material and otherwise) the abuser can give them. The mind trip that stays with them has to be just as bad if not worse than the physical assault. 

They are children, they don't know what is wrong or right, MJ was an idol of theirs, and MJ seduced the parents as well.  This wasn't what we typically think of as rape.  It was a very long and carefully crafted seduction of both parents and the children.

As the (now men) say, it started with "normal" roughhousing play, and an arm around them on a ride at Neverland.  Add in MJ's well rehearsed "I was never allowed to be a child, feel sorry for me" which was all the more powerful since it was true.  Then, maybe a week in, touching a leg, slowly and carefully leading to sex.  The boys say that MJ would stop immediately and cry, apologize, justify, teach, sulk, be humble and back off a bit.  Slowly but surely he kept moving the line until full on sex was happening.

As Oprah points out, there is also pleasure, with MJ, a pro pedophile, encouraging that and brainwashing them about how love works, and something that feels so good can't be wrong.

What 5 year old can counter that kind of relentless love/pleasure/fun at Neverland?  Seriously.  He was charismatic and also taking them to concerts, encouraging their talent, giving them presents, being focused on them and how important they are to him.

On 3/4/2019 at 4:17 PM, qtpye said:

He also was very smart by feeding into the mothers’ egos. One mother talked about how MJ wanted to be part of their family and said he always wanted a mother like her. Next, we hear the son talking about how MJ used to listen in on the phones when she was arguing with her husband and talk about how all women were bad. He seemed to have a lot of misogyny in him from what I can tell.I think some of it stems from resentment that his own mother did not protect him from his father.

I also think he justified his own attraction to young boys because he considered adult women to be “dirty jezabells” and young boys were pure and innocent in his own sick mind. This is not an uncommon mindset in some ultra religious households. 

I also wonder about possible fear of AIDS or other STDs? 

He certainly wouldn't be the only man to choose young virgins partly for that reason.  No condom or STD tests needed.

As for the mothers of the two boys in the film?  I'm certainly not giving them a pass, but why all the talk of the mothers and not much about the fathers culpability?

Also, they are not unique.  There are far too many stories about parents (not just mothers) not believing kids about Grandpa, or the church scout leader, or the priests.  Abusers, the pros at it, are very very good with ingratiating themselves in to the parent's lives.  MJ just had more ways of doing that because he was so famous and so rich.

On 3/4/2019 at 4:49 PM, kathe5133 said:

I've read all the comments, but haven't watched.  I was never a fan.  Vocally, he was just not that talented.  Boy soprano, one trick pony in my opinion.  He was a good dancer, but there are many, many out there who are better.  Never understood the idolotry.  He was a weirdo.  Pure and simple.  I plan to watch this evening, but I think the fact that all of this will most likely just confirm my "weirdo" theory, may make it too infuriating to sit through 4 hours, but I'm a documentary junkie so I know I can't resist.

I liked his music enough but I was never a huge fan either.  Watching the MTV awards during his moon walk performance with a friend changed that quite a bit.

I, like most of the world, was blown away by that performance.  He was amazing and the other performances were so weak in comparison.  He OWNED that audience, including me.  I've had few other experiences being WOWED like that. 

I used to work as an usher for concerts when I was in high school, so I've seen a lot of live performances, most just OK, or even pitiful really.  Believe it or not, PINK FLOYD live way back when were completely amazing from beginning to end, mesmerizing in that same way.   Other than that?  Queen and Freddie Mercury reached that level a few times for me, as well as George Michael's performance in the Freddie Mercury tribute concert, and I remember watching Frank Sinatra at some point (can't remember) who had that kind of magic at times.  I'm sure there were others, but the point is, MJ won me over that night.

Do I think he had a rotten childhood?  Yes.

Do I think that in any way justifies his crimes against children?  No.

MJ, to me, was just another pedophile, one with enough money to perfect his game, but other than that?  No different than the rest of them.  His "moves" were the same as most, but he had the money, the fame, and an amusement park and zoo to make it much easier to succeed, over and over again, and the rabid fans to cover for him.

I'm having a hard time frankly with so many "stars" of music, stage, and screen being exposed.  Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they are, but will I never watch another Kevin Spacey movie?  No, I just watched a DVD I already owned again, he's a compelling actor IMO.  Knowing what I know about Woodie Allen now?  Does that mean watching Annie Hall or dozens of other movies of his makes me complicit in some way, or supports his actions?  No.  I kind of feel the same way about MJ.  I'm not going to feel guilt enjoying the products/entertainment they provided, and I probably won't buy anything they have anything to do with again, but ...

It's complicated, and I know others have made different choices, but in some way, I can, without too much effort, separate the men and their crimes/lives from the art they've produced. 

Edited March 12, 2019 by Umbelina
typos

[Scarlett45]

2 hours ago, Umbelina said:

These parts of Oprah's show REALLY address that, and do it so well.  Oprah really wanted to make very clear that child rape is very different than adult rape.  It's generally not violent, it's a slow grooming, full of statements of love, and generally a very slow seduction, and children simply do not have the words or experience to process what is happening to them, or to their bodies.

I think in 2019 we have realized that adult rape isn’t often violent, or doesn’t involve incapacitating drugs like roofies or a lot of alcohol. We are finally at the point where rape for adults is “sex without consent” not “sex with the use of utmost force”- why are we so slow to understand child rape in this way?

(not attacking you asking a rhetorical question)

[Umbelina]

20 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

I think in 2019 we have realized that adult rape isn’t often violent, or doesn’t involve incapacitating drugs like roofies or a lot of alcohol. We are finally at the point where rape for adults is “sex without consent” not “sex with the use of utmost force”- why are we so slow to understand child rape in this way?(not attacking you asking a rhetorical question)

I think most adult rapes are violent.

With adults it's a crime of control, and also, ADULTS.  Adults understand far more than children about sex, and have more personal power.

As someone who went through several attempted rapes (believe me, I was lucky) I can say that all were violent, all but one were men I knew, best friend's fiance, my cousin's best man, my boss, etc.  Most left bruises, I was thrown across a room.

With children, other than stranger abductions, I think most pedophilia is very much like MJ's, without the perks of riches and endless toys/amusements/pathos/fame.  They are slower seductions.  As so many say now, "stranger danger" is much less likely than the guy next door, the bishop or priest of the family church, the cop who patrols the neighborhood, the scout leader or football coach, grandpa, an older cousin, a father.  Do some of those men use force and/or threats?  Of course.  They don't have MJ's resources.   Most though?  I don't think they are that far off from what MJ did.

Ditto the parent's not being as concerned as they probably should be.  They deny of refuse to let themselves go there about men THEY trust.

My mother was different than most mothers back then, she warned all of us what to watch out for, to scream, to fight, but most importantly to TELL her.  When an old man grandfather of a child care place crawled into bed with me during the one and only "overnight" there, and started to touch me, at about 6 years old, I was not confused, I was pissed, and scared and fought.  When he then crawled into bed with my 4 year old sister and tried the same thing?  I fought like crazy, woke my 5 year old brother, and together all three of us attacked him, hit, bit, scratched, chased him out, and then barricaded the door with big dressers until my mother arrived in the morning.  We huddled together crying and would not open the door until she arrived.

We TOLD her immediately.  Why?  Because we knew what it was and that she would believe us.  Which she did.  Violence ensued, who knew my petite and attractive mother had it in her?  We found out the details later, since she put us in the car.  Other kids told us at school.

If you are a parent, talk to your kids.  I know most do now, but not all.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Umbelina

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Confession first.  I've read all the reviews and interviews now, and almost all of this thread as well, but I don't have HBO, and haven't seen the special yet.

The Oprah Special (full show here)  explained so much to me, not just the two men, but what SHE had to say as well about her own abuse, and certainly the men in the audience who were sexually abused as children. 

Several times they talk about the "grooming" that went on with the parents well before the children were groomed at all.  As she and they point out, MJ had a huge advantage/head start simply because of who he was.

The grooming of both parents and kids is not exclusive to MJ, but he of course, had much more of a jump on other abusers.  Abusers almost always know the family, and the kids.  A cop, a priest, a massive star, and trusted uncle, the helpful scout master...they share that grooming of parents as much as MJ did.

Oh yeah, and they know how to use that, including Michael Jackson. I was thinking about Wade's parents leaving him with Michael at Neverland while they continued on their vacation (can't remember if Mom stayed with him or not, but even if she did she was isolated from them). On one hand it's crazy--you just left your kid with somebody you just met. But otoh, even without the star worship clearly going on, they feel like they *do* know him because he's Michael Jackson. They know the basics. They watched him grow up. I remember watching the Jackson5 Saturday Morning cartoon when I was little.

2 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Oprah really wants to drive home that it "feeling good" is something people, and especially parents, never want to think about or say out loud.  I agree with her that leaving that part out shames the child, and even the now-adult, and talking openly about that is a very important step in the honesty it takes for childhood victims to ever move on. 

One of the things that so impress me about the men is how open and honest they are about how they felt about things in the moment. Even about testifying at the trial. Even in the Oprah interview James clarified that he didn't refuse to testify because it was the right thing, but because he thought he would be outed. But also regarding the sex they would just say things they liked. Wade even openly said he looked forward to the sex because that meant everything was "okay" with Michael. When he saw Michael disappearing with another boy he knew that used to be him and missed that.

It's part of what makes them so believable compared to the defenders who keep claiming their behavior is shady or about money or whatever. They really don't seem to be hiding anything, including not feeling like they have to pretend they didn't like things they liked at the time, or at least didn't dislike.

5 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

As for the mothers of the two boys in the film?  I'm certainly not giving them a pass, but why all the talk of the mothers and not much about the fathers culpability?

Hell yes. Wade's father seemed to have been onboard with leaving him at Neverland that first trip--and I think his grandparents were there too. Even if Mom was the one who argued for it, it's still his son. Later I think he mostly gets a pass because he was clearly incapable of parenting on any level, but that just emphasizes how he wasn't doing his job as a parent. It's not like it just wasn't his responsibility.

But Stephanie Safechuck is taking all the heat from their family when it seems like the father was right alongside her the whole time. He just didn't do the documentary. I doubt either mother could have avoided blame by not doing the movie. There's no reason he shouldn't have full responsibility too. Stephanie Safechuck mentions her marriage going south while all this was happening, but it seems they were both still sharing those palatial hotel suites and agreeing to let James neglect school together. No way that guy wasn't just as involved--but James seemed to have felt more comfortable finally telling the truth to his mother. (Wade probably made a good decision telling his mother in a therapy session.) She watched the movie with him--I wondered why Oprah didn't ask if his father saw it since she asked about the mothers.

5 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I'm having a hard time frankly with so many "stars" of music, stage, and screen being exposed.  Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they are, but will I never watch another Kevin Spacey movie?  No, I just watched a DVD I already owned again, he's a compelling actor IMO.  Knowing what I know about Woodie Allen now?  Does that mean watching Annie Hall or dozens of other movies of his makes me complicit in some way, or supports his actions?  No.  I kind of feel the same way about MJ.  I'm not going to feel guilt enjoying the products/entertainment they provided, and I probably won't buy anything they have anything to do with again, but ...

It's complicated, and I know others have made different choices, but in some way, I can, without too much effort, separate the men and their crimes/lives from the art they've produced. 

I agree. I don't feel complicit if I don't feel repulsed by the work anymore. If I feel that way then I'll stop watching/listening/reading whatever. But I think in general I don't tend to link the work so much to the person behind it or want to know much about them personally. I was never a real MJ fan, but I still like the songs I liked before and I still associate them more with nostalgia than pedophilia.

And nothing's ever going to make me not rewatch LA Confidential.

[Scarlett45]

On 3/11/2019 at 9:23 PM, Umbelina said:

I think most adult rapes are violent.

With adults it's a crime of control, and also, ADULTS.  Adults understand far more than children about sex, and have more personal power.

As someone who went through several attempted rapes (believe me, I was lucky) I can say that all were violent, all but one were men I knew, best friend's fiance, my cousin's best man, my boss, etc.  Most left bruises, I was thrown across a room.

With children, other than stranger abductions, I think most pedophilia is very much like MJ's, without the perks of riches and endless toys/amusements/pathos/fame.  They are slower seductions.  As so many say now, "stranger danger" is much less likely than the guy next door, the bishop or priest of the family church, the cop who patrols the neighborhood, the scout leader or football coach, grandpa, an older cousin, a father.  Do some of those men use force and/or threats?  Of course.  They don't have MJ's resources.   Most though?  I don't think they are that far off from what MJ did.

Ditto the parent's not being as concerned as they probably should be.  They deny of refuse to let themselves go there about men THEY trust.

I am very sorry you went through those experiences. As someone who’s never experienced sexual assault/rape (or attempted sexual assault or) I don’t pretend to be an expert- I just didn’t want any young person reading my posts or posts here and question if they were raped because there was not a weapon, any violence or bruising. Or think the rape wasn’t “that bad” because they didn’t have physical injuries, no.  (For the recorded I’m not insinuating you were saying that in the slightest .)

Bolded section (mine)- AMEN.

[ombelico]

I've been thinking about the extent to which the recalcitrance to acknowledge and accept that MJ was a true pedophile stems from his original start as a beloved and adorable child star. It's so easy to think of pedophiles as being so out there, so weird, so "other," that it just brings a lot of cognitive dissonance to see that little kid singing "A-B-C" and think that he grew up to be a pedophile. But acknowledging what appears to be the truth in this case is actually a good illustration of the fact that these people have to come from somewhere. MJ's story is obviously an extreme in so many aspects, unlikely to be duplicated again (fortunately), but I think there are also lessons in there about the cycle of abuse, the problems when family members and associates bury their heads in the sand, and the danger of not listening to your gut instinct and thinking "so-and-so would never do that."

[Umbelina]

9 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

And nothing's ever going to make me not rewatch LA Confidential.

I know what you mean!  For me, and I know other disagree with this choice, but it's Midnight In The Garden of Good and Evil with Spacey.  Knowing what we now know, and because of that particular story, it's a little extra creepy, but for some reason I find his performance in that movie so incredibly compelling.   Even though there are certain other performances in that movie that probably could have been better, his is so masterful.

Ditto Woody Allen movies, or many of them...and hell, even Roman Polanski! 

It's become endless now, there are so many sexual creeps out there.

I won't miss Cosby though, I don't know why, but while his show was OK, he always kind of gave me the creeps on some level that made absolutely no sense to me.  With his show I enjoyed his "wife" much more.

4 minutes ago, ombelico said:

I've been thinking about the extent to which the recalcitrance to acknowledge and accept that MJ was a true pedophile stems from his original start as a beloved and adorable child star. It's so easy to think of pedophiles as being so out there, so weird, so "other," that it just brings a lot of cognitive dissonance to see that little kid singing "A-B-C" and think that he grew up to be a pedophile. But acknowledging what appears to be the truth in this case is actually a good illustration of the fact that these people have to come from somewhere. MJ's story is obviously an extreme in so many aspects, unlikely to be duplicated again (fortunately), but I think there are also lessons in there about the cycle of abuse, the problems when family members and associates bury their heads in the sand, and the danger of not listening to your gut instinct and thinking "so-and-so would never do that."

Agree, in so many ways he grew up in front of us, the extremely talented, shy young boy we watched for so long.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Umbelina

[sistermagpie]

2 minutes ago, ombelico said:

I've been thinking about the extent to which the recalcitrance to acknowledge and accept that MJ was a true pedophile stems from his original start as a beloved and adorable child star. It's so easy to think of pedophiles as being so out there, so weird, so "other," that it just brings a lot of cognitive dissonance to see that little kid singing "A-B-C" and think that he grew up to be a pedophile. But acknowledging what appears to be the truth in this case is actually a good illustration of the fact that these people have to come from somewhere. MJ's story is obviously an extreme in so many aspects, unlikely to be duplicated again (fortunately), but I think there are also lessons in there about the cycle of abuse, the problems when family members and associates bury their heads in the sand, and the danger of not listening to your gut instinct and thinking "so-and-so would never do that."

Also there's the image of the child molester as a creepy looking guy when often it's the opposite. The predator is a guy who looks wholesome and is great with kids, not a socially awkward greasy-looking guy that puts kids off. Not that there aren't exceptions, but it's not hard to see the logic. If you're hunting children you're going to become very good at charming both children and parents and people who work with children.

MJ was much creepier, of course. (My favorite tweet on the subject was Dana Gould saying, "Leaving Neverland. Hard to believe that a glow-in-the-dark skeleton who dressed like Napoleon and lived in an abandoned amusement park with other people’s children and a feral chimp could have such a dark side.") But his celebrity counteracted all of that. He was recognized internationally as a person who cared about children. As he said, he would never "harm" them.

5 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

I won't miss Cosby though, I don't know why, but while his show was OK, he always kind of gave me the creeps on some level that made absolutely no sense to me.  With his show I enjoyed his "wife" much more.

I was never into the show but as a kid I loved Fat Albert and my parents had some of his albums that I thought were hilarious. I even had a Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids lunchbox! But I never thought of him as a paternal figure so it didn't shatter any image of him.

In this day and age we just know so much about everyone eventually it's better to not put anyone on a pedestal.

[ruby24]

12 minutes ago, Umbelina said:

Agree, in so many ways he grew up in front of us, the extremely talented, shy young boy we watched for so long.

Well, this is part of the sadness of the whole thing too. Because with the kind of pedophile he was (the "fixated" category, as someone brought up earlier the different classifications), he most likely WAS trapped at the age where he himself experienced trauma at the hands of an adult (or multiple adults). So what he grew up to become is because of that as well. It's tragic, really. 

I had a conversation with someone who still thinks that Macaulay Culkin may have been cover, using a high profile kid to not abuse so that he could always have him as a defender, but I really don't know. He spent too much time with him. All the trips, the phone calls, the exact same grooming techniques. And the biggest thing to me is that unlike some of the other boys, Macaulay actually did come from an abusive household, he says to this day that his father was physically and mentally abusive, that he left scars on him, that he hit him and his siblings and his mother. 

So frankly, that would make him even more susceptible to Michael's kindness and love and attention, wouldn't it? And it would make Michael identify with him more too. He probably found that out pretty fast and jumped on it- he wouldn't have had to work that hard at separating him from his parents emotionally, the way he did the others. Plus, the three Neverland workers who testified to seeing it take place with him, and that Jordan Chandler named him in his deposition along with Wade, James, and Brett Barnes as the boys Michael told him would masturbate for him, etc.

I just think that if he were to ever come forward this whole thing would probably be settled for good, as far as all these deniers go. I mean, some of the die hard crazies would continue, but can you imagine the media reaction if he were to admit to this? I don't think the press would do as much victim blaming in his case. (Of course, the attention is probably a big reason he might not come forward either- also he doesn't have kids and that seems to be a big reason as to why Wade and James were able to accept what happened to them).

It's just really hard for me to believe that Michael managed to not abuse him over the others, given that he was one of the "favorites" and how many nights he slept alone with him in his bed. James said in one of the interviews that he thinks how he operated was once he was attracted to the kid, he met the family and sussed out the family situation, seeing how he could manage to maneuver his way in. And I just bet a whole bunch of money that once he found out how awful Macaulay Culkin's father was towards his own child, he knew it would work with him, despite the risk that his own fame carried.

[AgentRXS]

3 hours ago, ruby24 said:

I just think that if he were to ever come forward this whole thing would probably be settled for good, as far as all these deniers go. I mean, some of the die hard crazies would continue, but can you imagine the media reaction if he were to admit to this? I don't think the press would do as much victim blaming in his case. (Of course, the attention is probably a big reason he might not come forward either- also he doesn't have kids and that seems to be a big reason as to why Wade and James were able to accept what happened to them).

I don't see that happening. Macaulay just got his life back together recently after an alleged heroin addiction. He is close to the Jackson children.  Even if we are in a moment when the media would be sympathetic to him, I could see why he wouldn't want to be to the permanently linked to the story forever. Right now, people will speculate because the documentary is the hot topic, but eventually people will stop talking about his connection with Michael, especially if he continues to share nothing. Once his story is outed, he will forever be "MJ victim, Macaulay Culkin". I could see why he would pass on that.

Maybe he will one day, though when MJ's life and death is further in the past. Maybe another 20 years or so. I just don't see it happening as long as any story involving MJ still gets A-list international press, for better or for worse.

[Umbelina]

On 3/5/2019 at 8:54 AM, NeenerNeener said:

The kid that got the settlement changed his name and dropped off the radar. Gavin Arvizo was contacted by the film makers, but never responded, at least according to some things I read online last night.

https://www.thewrap.com/gavin-arvizo-michael-jacksons-2003-accuser-is-considering-law-school-family-friend-says/ 

Yeah, he wants no part of this, and is trying to move on with his life.  I feel for him.

[biakbiak]

4 hours ago, ruby24 said:

think that if he were to ever come forward this whole thing would probably be settled for good, as far as all these deniers go. I mean, some of the die hard crazies would continue, but can you imagine the media reaction if he were to admit to this? I don't think the press would do as much victim blaming in his case.

I really, really doubt it. We know absolutely nothing about what Macaulay knows or what his experiences were but I guarantee if he spoke out against MJ and said he was abused the MJ stans would be calling him a washed up hasbeen looking for attention/money grab. A lot of these people could see a tape of MJ admitting to or even raping children and they would say it was doctored and a lie. 

Edited March 12, 2019 by biakbiak

[Umbelina]

38 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

I really, really doubt it. We know absolutely nothing about what Macaulay knows or what his experiences were but I guarantee if he spoke out against MJ and said he was abused the MJ stand would be calling him a washed up hasbeen looking for attention/money grab. A lot of these people could see a tape of MJ admitting to or even raping children and they would say it was doctored and a lie. 

What is the upside for Macaulay to tell the public now?  There is none.  Hopefully if it did happen to him he has been able to process it somehow.

I found this review SO interesting.  I'm about 1/2 way through it.  Both guys kind of went into all of this huge MJ fans, both had prejudices about Wade, one talks about how he celebrated when MJ was acquitted.

They talk openly about the show, their reactions, their realizations, both did additional research and had several "aha!" moments more from the Oprah show in some ways, and from part two of Leaving Neverland.  What I like about it is that their minds were kind of made up before watching, but they have considered what they've seen and read now, and for the most part, completely changed their mind.

One guy even realized the sexual play with his friend's older sister when he was 12 was also abuse.   I just liked these guys and they way they openly processed through their feelings and opinions, in a way, it's kind of like PTV posters calmly talking things out without the dug in positions.

ETA, only the first half is about MJ, the show, and Oprah's special, after that it's general star/music talk.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Umbelina

[Simon Boccanegra]

19 hours ago, biakbiak said:

I guarantee if he spoke out against MJ and said he was abused the MJ stans would be calling him a washed up hasbeen looking for attention/money grab.

Agreed. It would be the same thing Robson and Safechuck are facing. They would "impeach" him with his prior statements to the contrary, and they would believe the version they want to believe. 

Other topic: I have a more optimistic feeling about James Safechuck than some here do. I don't really see him as broken or despairing or anything like that. I think what we were seeing on the Oprah show was just someone who's not a public personality and is kind of shy and not accustomed to talking in front of big studio audiences. I also found him reasonably articulate. I am with most here in finding him an enormously sympathetic person, but I think he's going to be okay. 

 

"Just promise me, whatever we say
Whatever we do to each other
For now we take a vow to just
Keep it in the closet" 

"In the Closet," 1991, one of many MJ songs I imagine people are hearing in a different way these days, no matter how many "she" and "her" pronouns there are.

[Umbelina]

On 3/7/2019 at 11:37 AM, car54 said:

I think it is telling that both men opened up to what happened after becoming fathers themselves.

My guess is that feeling that powerful love of a child made them face what happened to them and how their parents failed to protect them.   I think both of them want to do better by their children.

Also, I looked at Wade's IMDB and unless I'm reading it incorrectly he has no recent work as a choreographer or dancer.      My impression was that one of the reasons he tried to auction off some of his memorabilia was to help pay for the expenses he had.      I have a feeling that while some people in the business may pay lip service to "believing the victims", that it will be hard for him to get that sort of job working for someone else again.    Too much baggage.

Wade addresses this in the Oprah interview (on youtube it's about at 14 minutes in.) 

He says, and it's completely understandable, that as a kid you really don't realize how young your were, or have sympathy or empathy for yourself, but when he had his child he could see himself in his child.  Oprah comes in with "your whole childhood becomes a lie."  James still has trouble connecting to himself, and says if his son had never been born, he'd still be living in silence.

I think that's very true, I was talking to someone about things I was responsible for at a young age (oldest kid) and her daughter walked in who was exactly the age I was from that particular story.  It really hit me then, "holy cow!  You were a baby!  How did you do that?  How was it even expected of you?"  Until that moment, it all felt completely normal to me, and in some cultures, perhaps it is, but not in ours really.

[Robert Lynch]

Now Aaron Carter is on the attacking Wade and Jack bandwagon. Excuse me, but wasn't Aaron abused as well? 

[biakbiak]

6 minutes ago, Robert Lynch said:

Now Aaron Carter is on the attacking Wade and Jack bandwagon. Excuse me, but wasn't Aaron abused as well? 

I am fairly certain Aaron has never confirmed that and abuse by MJ or Lou Perlman is all speculation.

[Robert Lynch]

I am sure you are right, but it makes me angry they will still attack these two who had to go through this abuse. Sorry if I have to vent this out. But Aaron did drugs, so I roll my eyes for him thinking he would even punch Wade in the face if he ever sees him. I actually thought that since he made that bisexual claim, he reported that he was only 17 when he had sex with a man. After all, Aaron is in the music business.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Robert Lynch

[Umbelina]

I accidentally ran across the complete show on YouTube, it's a compressed video (small part of the screen) but still.

It's making me so very sad.  These boys were so young, and I honestly can't understand how anyone could listen to them, and the details they share about the sexual abuse, and not believe them.

Now, on top of everything else they are dealing with, the constant attacks and death threats are their new reality.

Oprah's show was enlightening and had "feel good" moments and watching her validate them was healing, watching other men talk about their own abuse from the audience also seemed to help them a bit.

This documentary though? 

Is just absolutely devastating and sad for me.  It feels more like doing homework I dislike, and I'm only an hour in at it's nearly 5AM here!  I know if I turn it off now, by morning HBO will have the video taken down, so it looks like I'm sticking it out.

Those poor little boys, and now, poor young men, still dealing with all of this, and being called liars and worse. 

I just want both of them to finally get a break, and I don't think that will happen for either of them soon.

[qtpye]

9 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Wow, thanks for posting that. 

I was only tangentially interested in this story, mostly because a friend of mine had a small ranch near Neverland, and the locals had a lot of stories (they all believed the kids, some knew the maid, etc.)

I always believed the kids though, I just didn't obsess about every revelation and missed La Toya, and probably a lot more that I'm discovering in this thread.

Speaking of the maid, her is a recent interview with her, including finding semen crusted underwear in his closet.  http://www.gistsupport.org/about-gist/for-new-gist-pages/

This made me want to vomit, and sadly, there is MUCH worse crap on You Tube and Twitter defending MJ and vilifying the kids and parents.

Honestly, what is wrong with these people?  Is groupiehood that hard to break?

They are children, they don't know what is wrong or right, MJ was an idol of theirs, and MJ seduced the parents as well.  This wasn't what we typically think of as rape.  It was a very long and carefully crafted seduction of both parents and the children.

As the (now men) say, it started with "normal" roughhousing play, and an arm around them on a ride at Neverland.  Add in MJ's well rehearsed "I was never allowed to be a child, feel sorry for me" which was all the more powerful since it was true.  Then, maybe a week in, touching a leg, slowly and carefully leading to sex.  The boys say that MJ would stop immediately and cry, apologize, justify, teach, sulk, be humble and back off a bit.  Slowly but surely he kept moving the line until full on sex was happening.

As Oprah points out, there is also pleasure, with MJ, a pro pedophile, encouraging that and brainwashing them about how love works, and something that feels so good can't be wrong.

What 5 year old can counter that kind of relentless love/pleasure/fun at Neverland?  Seriously.  He was charismatic and also taking them to concerts, encouraging their talent, giving them presents, being focused on them and how important they are to him.

I also wonder about possible fear of AIDS or other STDs? 

He certainly wouldn't be the only man to choose young virgins partly for that reason.  No condom or STD tests needed.

As for the mothers of the two boys in the film?  I'm certainly not giving them a pass, but why all the talk of the mothers and not much about the fathers culpability?

Also, they are not unique.  There are far too many stories about parents (not just mothers) not believing kids about Grandpa, or the church scout leader, or the priests.  Abusers, the pros at it, are very very good with ingratiating themselves in to the parent's lives.  MJ just had more ways of doing that because he was so famous and so rich.

I liked his music enough but I was never a huge fan either.  Watching the MTV awards during his moon walk performance with a friend changed that quite a bit.

I, like most of the world, was blown away by that performance.  He was amazing and the other performances were so weak in comparison.  He OWNED that audience, including me.  I've had few other experiences being WOWED like that. 

I used to work as an usher for concerts when I was in high school, so I've seen a lot of live performances, most just OK, or even pitiful really.  Believe it or not, PINK FLOYD live way back when were completely amazing from beginning to end, mesmerizing in that same way.   Other than that?  Queen and Freddie Mercury reached that level a few times for me, as well as George Michael's performance in the Freddie Mercury tribute concert, and I remember watching Frank Sinatra at some point (can't remember) who had that kind of magic at times.  I'm sure there were others, but the point is, MJ won me over that night.

Do I think he had a rotten childhood?  Yes.

Do I think that in any way justifies his crimes against children?  No.

MJ, to me, was just another pedophile, one with enough money to perfect his game, but other than that?  No different than the rest of them.  His "moves" were the same as most, but he had the money, the fame, and an amusement park and zoo to make it much easier to succeed, over and over again, and the rabid fans to cover for him.

I'm having a hard time frankly with so many "stars" of music, stage, and screen being exposed.  Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they are, but will I never watch another Kevin Spacey movie?  No, I just watched a DVD I already owned again, he's a compelling actor IMO.  Knowing what I know about Woodie Allen now?  Does that mean watching Annie Hall or dozens of other movies of his makes me complicit in some way, or supports his actions?  No.  I kind of feel the same way about MJ.  I'm not going to feel guilt enjoying the products/entertainment they provided, and I probably won't buy anything they have anything to do with again, but ...

It's complicated, and I know others have made different choices, but in some way, I can, without too much effort, separate the men and their crimes/lives from the art they've produced. 

I have come on here and posted that I hold the fathers just as responsible as the mothers. Wade’s father is no longer here to face the music but Jimmy’s dad is just as responsible as his wife. He was a garbage man that loved the life of luxury that being around MJ brought and ignored all the signs that this was wrong. Don’t even get me started on the house MJ bought them.

Edited March 12, 2019 by qtpye

[Robert Lynch]

What is makes all the more sad is that while Janet wasn't abused by Joe, she was more abused by the men in her life that she married or dated. Remember James DeBarge? Jermaine Dupri! Or her recent one with that Arabic millionaire who gave her a child? She was reported being abused by him more than once and he was so controlling that there are reports that he vowed to take his son away from her since the divorce happened. 

The reason I say this is because I been to her concert last year and there is a new song about abuse and she sings live in it. She demonstrates through dance about the struggles and everything she went through. I was this close to her and I could see the pain in her face. Tears streaming down her face, she owned that dance and you could tell the way those dancers played a role in it. It was pretty incredible to see. I can't describe it, but her vocal emotions were there. You heard the pain. It was an awesome concert, though.

[Umbelina]

Thank you so much to whomever posted this link!

https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/leaving-neverland-mothers-joy-robson-michael-jackson.html

I clicked on it but hadn't read it until now.  It was spot on about the mothers, in depth, and very interesting.

This is a relatively random quote, not the best, but interesting from that article.  The link to her deposition is in that article.
 

Quote

That doesn’t mean they don’t feel it: Joy’s 2016 deposition from Wade Robson’s lawsuit against the Michael Jackson estate is well worth reading. Among other things, it describes Joy searching the ranch for her son on Mother’s Day and being reprimanded by Jackson (on more than one occasion) when she made her distress known to the staff. It’s a depiction of how an enormous power differential might disable parental vigilance. Jackson is to blame for creating that dynamic, in addition to everything else.

But I don’t personally understand how a mother could repeatedly wake her little boy up in the middle of the night to take him to the house of a 35-year-old—and send the child straight to that man’s bed. I don’t especially believe that women who admit to noticing that Jackson had a new little boy “friend” every few months—and even used the phrase “we’ve been dumped” to express that—weren’t at least conscious of the risks. I don’t think these women are oblivious—in part because they were canny and driven stewards of their sons’ careers. Nor, on the other hand, am I at all persuaded that they were consciously pimping out their sons.

[lovinbob]

On 3/10/2019 at 3:30 PM, Shakma said:

 I'm pretty sure a few people talked about Michael speaking with a deeper voice when not so many people were around.  Liza Minnelli had an anecdote about how Michael was talking to her then-husband on the phone one day, and when she picked up, she couldn't even tell it was Michael because his voice was so different.  People said the same thing about Marilyn Monroe and her breathy-baby voice.  IDK.

There was a moment in this movie where they showed a clip of Jackson--I think it was when he was defending himself in his statement from Neverland, wearing the red shirt--where his voice is a lot deeper and less wispy than in his regular public speech. It came off as natural (not put on). When it suited his purpose, he didn't need to sound high pitched and breathy.

On 3/10/2019 at 5:51 PM, TigerLynx said:

I don't think they are uncommon at all.  Despite everything that is now known about MJ, Cosby, Weinstein, Spacey, etc., there are still people who defend Roman Polanski - a guy who was convicted of drugging, raping, and sodomizing a teenage girl.

Honestly, thinking about how recently people have defended Polanski--it is freaking insane. 

10 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I agree. I don't feel complicit if I don't feel repulsed by the work anymore. If I feel that way then I'll stop watching/listening/reading whatever. But I think in general I don't tend to link the work so much to the person behind it or want to know much about them personally. I was never a real MJ fan, but I still like the songs I liked before and I still associate them more with nostalgia than pedophilia.

And nothing's ever going to make me not rewatch LA Confidential.

I have been thinking about this a lot. Even having been horrified by this documentary, I find it easy to separate the music from Michael's crimes. But for some reason, movies by people like Woody Allen feel different for me. I guess because they feel so autobiographical and reflective of Woody Allen's twisted world view (thinking specifically about Manhattan, which completely creeps me out).

[doodlebug]

Quote

As for the mothers of the two boys in the film?  I'm certainly not giving them a pass, but why all the talk of the mothers and not much about the fathers culpability?

In the case of both fathers, I suppose it's at least in part because they didn't participate in the documentary. We didn't hear their version of events, what was done to groom them, what they did to protect their kids.

While it is true that Wade's father was present at that first visit to Neverland and, at the very least, didn't object to leaving Wade alone with Michael for a week; the guy was also known to be bipolar/schizophrenic and ultimately committed suicide.  It was Wade's mother who brought him back to LA to stay.  From what we heard, his father didn't want them to leave, didn't want the divorce.  Except for a huge custody battle, which he probably would've lost because he was mentally ill and because MJ would've undoubtedly paid the legal fees to keep him with his mother; I don't know what else the father could have done.  Wade admits that, after leaving Australia, he only saw his father sporadically, every couple of years, and they were estranged at the time his father died when he was in his early 20's.

As for James' father, I presume he declined to be interviewed which means he's a coward, IMO.  As awful as James' mother is, she was willing to speak publicly about her role.  I think she's a bit delusional and didn't realize how damning her own words would be; but she spoke up.  We know that James' father gave a deposition defending Michael before the settlement with Jordy Chandler and family and we know he accepted a lot of gifts, including a house which just coincidentally, according to James' mother; was paid off right after dear old dad testified.  I think if he had done the documentary, we'd feel the same about him as the moms.  Actually, I feel the same about him without even hearing what he has to say.

[TexasGal]

7 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

As for James' father, I presume he declined to be interviewed which means he's a coward, IMO.  As awful as James' mother is, she was willing to speak publicly about her role.  I think she's a bit delusional and didn't realize how damning her own words would be; but she spoke up.  We know that James' father gave a deposition defending Michael before the settlement with Jordy Chandler and family and we know he accepted a lot of gifts, including a house which just coincidentally, according to James' mother; was paid off right after dear old dad testified.  I think if he had done the documentary, we'd feel the same about him as the moms.  Actually, I feel the same about him without even hearing what he has to say.

Not defending James’ father at all, but didn’t they say at some point that his father had gotten sick?  Maybe he wasn’t interviewed because of that.  Or maybe because he’s a POS father who still thinks that MJ is the greatest thing ever.

As an aside, James’ wife reminds me very much of someone I used to work with - they look alike and have similar mannerisms.  It was very confusing for me to watch her speak because I would start thinking it was the person I know.

[doodlebug]

Quote

They are children, they don't know what is wrong or right, MJ was an idol of theirs, and MJ seduced the parents as well.  This wasn't what we typically think of as rape.  It was a very long and carefully crafted seduction of both parents and the children.

The other thing that separates child sexual seduction and abuse from adult sexual abuse is that the perpetrator generally hopes to continue to have access to the child.  That is, IMO, a big reason why they seduce the child and family.  If they hope to have ongoing opportunity to molest the kid, they've got to get mommy and daddy convinced that they are harmless, even asexual, and that they love the child in a parental/familial way so the parents step back and give them the chance to be alone with the child.  They also need to keep the kid happy, to convince them that they love them best of all, give them the attention and time that mom and dad cannot.  They need the kid to WANT to be with them both in order to continue the abuse and to avoid the kid telling someone what is happening.  The pedophile hides in plain sight.

In the case of adults, most sexual assaulters aren't thinking about ongoing access to their victim.  Even in the case of date rape, or non-stranger assault; they aren't worried about the next time in many cases.  And, of course, in marital and relationship abuse; the abuser does ultimately often end up trying to play the victim; he's had a hard life, his father beat him, if only she hadn't been so mean to him....  But, don't worry, it will never happen again.  Until it does.

[Robert Lynch]

Janet's silence enrages Jackson family

Good. She is the smart one, anyway. 

[qtpye]

40 minutes ago, Robert Lynch said:

Janet's silence enrages Jackson family

Good. She is the smart one, anyway. 

No wonder she is the only other Jackson to have a real career.

[Kostgard]

1 hour ago, doodlebug said:

As for James' father, I presume he declined to be interviewed which means he's a coward, IMO.  As awful as James' mother is, she was willing to speak publicly about her role.  I think she's a bit delusional and didn't realize how damning her own words would be; but she spoke up.  We know that James' father gave a deposition defending Michael before the settlement with Jordy Chandler and family and we know he accepted a lot of gifts, including a house which just coincidentally, according to James' mother; was paid off right after dear old dad testified.  I think if he had done the documentary, we'd feel the same about him as the moms.  Actually, I feel the same about him without even hearing what he has to say.

Yeah, I've been thinking it is odd that no one has asked James about his father, which makes me think interviewers were told ahead of time he won't be answering questions about him. I almost feel like maybe he's still in huge amounts of denial and can't deal. The last thing I remember anyone in the film saying about him was that in 2005 when the second case came up, James's mom said the dad was all, "Well, it's time to defend our friend again" and seemed to want to go in that direction. They didn't really touch on his reaction after James refused to testify and told his mother not to testify. I don't know if he has health problems or not (I think he was significantly older than James's mom since when they married he already had kids that James said were significantly older than he was and had left the house when he was very young, so he was basically an only child), but I can see where he just might be in deep denial. He accepted A LOT of money from MJ, and maybe he can't face the role he played in this.

I'm glad Janet is staying silent. Smart thing to do is just stay out of it.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Kostgard

[ruby24]

5 minutes ago, Kostgard said:

He accepted A LOT of money from MJ, and maybe he can't face the role he played in this.

Exactly. This is the case where Latoya had said back in the early 90s to having knowledge that MJ had given a family whose father was a "garbageman" at least two million dollar checks.

We know who that must have been.

This whole film is helpful in terms of prevention and education, because I think little kids need to be taught the basics of needing to tell their parent if anyone EVER touches them in their private parts, even if it's someone they love, even if they think it feels good. That's that part that prevents them from doing it for so long, I think, like Wade said. The hardest thing he struggled with when he first admitted it was confusion over how it could have felt good if he was so little and what that said about him.

This causes shame to kids as they grow older, we have to educate them not to be ashamed over this, that they just HAVE to tell someone else if it's ever happened for any reason, even if it's a person they love. When I was in elementary school, they did teach us at some point about telling a grown-up if anybody ever touches you or tries to make you touch them, even if it's "grandpa" or somebody, but I never remember them warning that it could feel good or you might like it. I think that part has to become part of the lesson/warning, so that kids will know.

[sistermagpie]

9 hours ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

9 hours ago, biakbiak said:

I guarantee if he spoke out against MJ and said he was abused the MJ stans would be calling him a washed up hasbeen looking for attention/money grab.

Agreed. It would be the same thing Robson and Safechuck are facing. They would "impeach" him with his prior statements to the contrary, and they would believe the version they want to believe. 

Yeah, I think MC's fame in some ways would just count against him. He'd be seen as trying to get back in the spotlight and any struggles he's had in the past whether it's drugs or his own abuse at the hands of his father, would be used against him. It would be just another cautionary tale about him.

7 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Until that moment, it all felt completely normal to me, and in some cultures, perhaps it is, but not in ours really.

Yeah, I thought that was a great insight from him, that he needed the perspective of seeing a child through his own eyes as an adult to see things clearly. Because as a kid you just see yourself as a person who's fully capable of understanding your own life--why wouldn't you?

That's why I loved/hated that detail where Wade said that first night at Neverland he woke up and Michael was crouched in the corner crying (no doubt he'd woken him up on purpose for this show) and he distinctly remembered fearing he was turning into a werewolf like in Thriller. 

50 minutes ago, Kostgard said:

Yeah, I've been thinking it is odd that no one has asked James about his father, which makes me think interviewers were told ahead of time he won't be answering questions about him. I almost feel like maybe he's still in huge amounts of denial and can't deal.

That was my feeling. The mother talked a bit about their marriage having problems during her interviews, but his absence seems very significant. Even if he was sick you'd think he'd come up, but it seems like he just hasn't chosen to publicly take responsibility, which he could do in some fashion even if he wasn't well.

I found Wade's interviews about his father another separate tragedy. He did at some point want to reach out and thought maybe he would have a better relationship with him. But I could completely understand his reaction when his father came to visit and his behavior, because of his mental illness, just made things worse. I respected how Wade just honestly said that the behavior made him angry and he just wanted him to go away--he didn't try to make himself more sympathetic by claiming he was frightened and sad (which he probably was as well) and didn't know how to help him. It was so realistic, especially when set beside Shane's pov of an older sibling who could see a tragic situation he was pretty helpless to change.

[methodwriter85]

I'm kind of half and half on this. I could see it going either way with Culkin.

I was re-watching the "In Living Color" sketch where Jonathan Taylor Thomas plays Mac trying to fend off Michael's advances with booby traps and I just thought, "Good for you for doing this sketch. You just ensured you would NEVER get invited to the Neverland Ranch." JTT seems like he had pretty solid parents and therefore never would have been targeted even though he had the look Michael seemed to like so much.

Anyway, someone pointed out this news report where the singer was spotted buying a wedding ring in a Simi Valley Zales, buying a wedding ring for "Sheryl Crow". You can see what is likely Jimmy Safechuck along his side there, I'm assuming to "help him" pick out the wedding ring. Holy shit.

Because I'm sure that Michael Jackson went out to a mall store to get a wedding ring for Lisa Marie Presley. Holy shit.

Edited March 12, 2019 by methodwriter85

[Kostgard]

4 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

Anyway, someone pointed out this news report where the singer was spotted buying a wedding ring in a Simi Valley Zales, buying a wedding ring for "Sheryl Crow". You can see what is likely Jimmy Safechuck along his side there, I'm assuming to "help him" pick out the wedding ring. Holy shit.

Oh, man. That is stomach-turning. Simi Valley was the town the Safechucks lived in, so...yep. This is what we are witnessing.

I mean...yikes. You can actually see one of the worst parts of James's story in action. 

And yeah - there were all sorts of stories about MJ and Sheryl Crow (I remember reading some tabloid claiming they were moving in together). All probably planted by MJ himself.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Kostgard

[TigerLynx]

3 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

I'm kind of half and half on this. I could see it going either way with Culkin.

I could to.  One reason I could see Culkin not being one of MJ's victims is because Culkin was still around MJ after he became an adult, and was godparent to one of MJ's children.  Whereas, when the boys MJ molested aged out, he eventually dropped them.  Also, the cynic in me believes that at least some if not all of MJ's entourage knew what he was up to, and advised him to stay away from certain kids because they didn't want the money train to stop.  The more control MJ tried to take of things himself, the more he screwed up (personally and financially).

[sistermagpie]

45 minutes ago, Kostgard said:

And yeah - there were all sorts of stories about MJ and Sheryl Crow (I remember reading some tabloid claiming they were moving in together). All probably planted by MJ himself. 

Wasn't there a quote about James where he said that *he* had a crush on Sheryl Crow during the tour and Michael was very focused on James' crush? He even got James a photo of her without make-up to prove she wasn't really that pretty.

[biakbiak]

2 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

He even got James a photo of her without make-up to prove she wasn't really that pretty.

I realize that this is not the point but he needed a photo of her without makeup to prove that?

[sistermagpie]

Just now, biakbiak said:

I realize that this is not the point but he needed a photo of her without makeup to prove that?

IKR?

I took it as part of the misogyny he seemed to always be teaching the boys. Women are deceitful and make-up is part of that. The person James thought was attracted was a womanly trick. She didn't really look how he thought she looked.

[Umbelina]

13 hours ago, Robert Lynch said:

Now Aaron Carter is on the attacking Wade and Jack bandwagon. Excuse me, but wasn't Aaron abused as well? 

13 hours ago, biakbiak said:

I am fairly certain Aaron has never confirmed that and abuse by MJ or Lou Perlman is all speculation.

That article says he didn't meet MJ until he was 15, so it's possible that nothing did happen with him, and all he saw was the "wonderful MJ" side.  ???

I think it's very possible that MJ was incredibly astute and a complete "pro" about his pedophilia.  There may have been a ton of boys around most of the time, but I don't think he was slapdash about his choice of victims.  He was careful. 

He had to be able to seduce the parents as well, with charm, with pathos about "being my real family," with money, with dazzle, with whatever it took.  The kid had to be the kind that would keep his mouth shut no matter what, the razzle-dazzle stuff was in many ways already handled before MJ met parents or the kids, as they were fans of his already.  Those earliest days of watching the potential victims were crucial, as were the first moves he made on them.  I'd bet many boys were ruled out early, they talked too much, or their parents seemed less likely to give up control, or they freaked out when the first genital touching happened, and MJ had to gaslight them with whatever story worked, and move on.

After all, there was no shortage of potential targets, if the family or child didn't fit into the easily controllable roles MJ needed?  He could move on to the next in line.

[kathe5133]

Aaron Carter?  Is there a drug he hasn't used?  He's talking about what people will do for money or fame?  I can just see MJ's people.  "No. Dude, we're good....."

[Umbelina]

1 hour ago, biakbiak said:

I realize that this is not the point but he needed a photo of her without makeup to prove that?

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

IKR?

I took it as part of the misogyny he seemed to always be teaching the boys. Women are deceitful and make-up is part of that. The person James thought was attracted was a womanly trick. She didn't really look how he thought she looked.

The idea that MJ criticized others for wearing makeup, and accused them of artifice is really the height of hypocrisy.