Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Giant Misfit

Leaving Neverland

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I think there is a misconception in this country that the vast majority of citizens detest and disapprove of child sex abuse.  I don't think the frequency of that abuse reflects that assumption.  I think we have a society of liars and fake people, who pay lip service to abolishing child sex abuse, while secretly supporting or condoning it.  I'm not sure when this reality will be realized.  As more survivors speak out, the more it will be revealed that this abuse is actually practiced by MANY citizens from all walks of life. They lie when they pretend to be outraged by it, but, in reality they are not that opposed.  How do we fight a scourge throughout our nation that is that well liked by so many SECRET admirers?  

I agree and disagree. I think there is a vast majority of citizens (so 70% ish for a round number) that abhor and condemn the sex abuse of prepubescent children. I think a smaller percentage actually condemn the abuse of minor children after they’ve been through puberty but are not legal adults (I don’t think R kelly would’ve been able to get away with what he did for so long had he been after 8yrs old girls rather than 15yrs old girls)- So maybe 55%. 

But I do think these abuser types just have lots and lots of victims because they don’t stop, and our culture of shame and victim blaming stops people from speaking out to warn others. Even in situations where kids feel safe, and are able to tell their parents/guardians, there are not SERIOUS repurcussions for these types and they are free to abuse again and again. Add celebrity, money and power into it and you have a stormcloud of silence. 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

I've watched some of this documentary and I never seen so many red flags in my life. Red flag 1: Michael sleeping in the same bed as the children (weird). Red flag 2: When the parents took Michael to court and settled for money, it makes you wonder if they're parents cared more about money than their kids getting sexually abused. And worst of all is even after all off that, they still allowed their children to see Michael after the fact. Makes no sense whatsoever. All I know is there's believable parts on both sides and we need to face the fact that without proof we'll never know. I feel like you cant go most of you childhood and adulthood claiming Michael never touched you then ALL OF A SUDDEN HBO wants to do a documentary and here you pop up. Timing is weird especially after the surviving R. Kelly documentary. I don't know what to believe.

 

ALSO, Michael's number 1 problem was trying to look good in white people's eyes. He cared wayyyy too much about how white people perceived him and that alone damaged him.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, icecweem said:

I've watched some of this documentary and I never seen so many red flags in my life. Red flag 1: Michael sleeping in the same bed as the children (weird). Red flag 2: When the parents took Michael to court and settled for money, it makes you wonder if they're parents cared more about money than their kids getting sexually abused. And worst of all is even after all off that, they still allowed their children to see Michael after the fact. Makes no sense whatsoever. All I know is there's believable parts on both sides and we need to face the fact that without proof we'll never know. I feel like you cant go most of you childhood and adulthood claiming Michael never touched you then ALL OF A SUDDEN HBO wants to do a documentary and here you pop up. Timing is weird especially after the surviving R. Kelly documentary. I don't know what to believe.

You need to watch the full 4 hours.

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, lovinbob said:

Also Oprah is the first one whom I heard, years ago, talk about seduction and how the experience of being molested isn't necessarily unpleasant in the moment. It is hard to accept as true but it makes all the sense in the world.

Well that makes a lot of sense to me. The rape isn’t always painful (in the physical sense); the absuser also mentally and emotionally manipulates their subject. Giving them attention, validation etc. The sexual stimulation is something the body can respond to even without mental consent, and especially if the victim is too young to understand or give consent.

Aren’t we just 20-30yrs away from the mainstream concept that a rapist of an adult heterosexual woman isn’t always just a stranger in the bushes with a knife? That it “can be rape” if you know your attacker? I’m 33- so it hasn’t been that long. 

  • Like 6
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, icecweem said:

I've watched some of this documentary and I never seen so many red flags in my life. Red flag 1: Michael sleeping in the same bed as the children (weird). Red flag 2: When the parents took Michael to court and settled for money, it makes you wonder if they're parents cared more about money than their kids getting sexually abused. And worst of all is even after all off that, they still allowed their children to see Michael after the fact. Makes no sense whatsoever. All I know is there's believable parts on both sides and we need to face the fact that without proof we'll never know. I feel like you cant go most of you childhood and adulthood claiming Michael never touched you then ALL OF A SUDDEN HBO wants to do a documentary and here you pop up. Timing is weird especially after the surviving R. Kelly documentary. I don't know what to believe.

Wade & James both came out with their abuse allegations LONG before they were ever approached about doing a documentary- the director states in the Oprah Interview that he had basically no real knowledge of this whole situation until he came across both Wade & James lawsuit against the Jackson Estate, he then decided to approach them both for a documentary. He also mentions in another interview that he had spoken to another man who also told him he was molested by MJ but wasn't ready to go public. Also HBO just bought the rights to the documentary AFTER it premiered at Sundance in January of this year. 

There can be two documentaries about 2 prominent male figures in Music at the same time without it being some sort of conspiracy.

You really need to watch the whole thing through.   

People always tout this line of needing "Proof" when people speak about Child Abuse Allegations- but unless the perpetrator took photos or videos of the acts happening- where does this so called "proof" come from? All the proof I needed was their physical body language and torment written on their faces especially at the end, and very clearly noticeable in the Oprah interview with James. 

2 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

Well that makes a lot of sense to me. The rape isn’t always painful (in the physical sense); the absuser also mentally and emotionally manipulates their subject. Giving them attention, validation etc. The sexual stimulation is something the body can respond to even without mental consent, and especially if the victim is too young to understand or give consent.

Aren’t we just 20-30yrs away from the mainstream concept that a rapist of an adult heterosexual woman isn’t always just a stranger in the bushes with a knife? That it “can be rape” if you know your attacker? I’m 33- so it hasn’t been that long. 

When Oprah said this in the interview with the men- it made complete sense to me- and I had never thought of it that way before. It was quite eye opening for me. 

Edited by SiobhanJW
  • Like 17
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

4 minutes ago, SiobhanJW said:

People always tout this line of needing "Proof" when people speak about Child Abuse Allegations- but unless the perpetrator took photos or videos of the acts happening- where does this so called "proof" come from? All the proof I needed was their physical body language and torment written on their faces especially at the end, and very clearly noticeable in the Oprah interview with James. 

I don’t need proof to believe someone. (Personally) Believing someone who’s said violence has been committed against them is completely separate from a legal standard regarding the perpetrators guilt. 

3 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

The main reason, IMO, that the victims can speak honestly NOW, is that Michael Jackson is DEAD.  That had to be a huge fear for them.

I agree. 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

I don’t need proof to believe someone. (Personally) Believing someone who’s said violence has been committed against them is completely separate than a legal standard regarding the perpetrators guilt. 

Completely agree. I just have been seeing that a lot- well they have no "Proof". Okay. Well what kind of proof do you want? Look at the guy- he looks distraught- it's written all over his face. 

Also- if you want at least proof of his inappropriate behavior- I direct all those people to those Faxes. They were bizarre. 

Edited by SiobhanJW
  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scarlett45 said:

I agree and disagree. I think there is a vast majority of citizens (so 70% ish for a round number) that abhor and condemn the sex abuse of prepubescent children. I think a smaller percentage actually condemn the abuse of minor children after they’ve been through puberty but are not legal adults (I don’t think R kelly would’ve been able to get away with what he did for so long had he been after 8yrs old girls rather than 15yrs old girls)- So maybe 55%. 

But I do think these abuser types just have lots and lots of victims because they don’t stop, and our culture of shame and victim blaming stops people from speaking out to warn others. Even in situations where kids feel safe, and are able to tell their parents/guardians, there are not SERIOUS repurcussions for these types and they are free to abuse again and again. Add celebrity, money and power into it and you have a stormcloud of silence. 

'sup fellow Duggar snarker. This is why TLC never abandoned the Duggars.

I've been following along online. I've always thought good old Wacko Jacko was guilty. I was in a minority so I kept my mouth shut most of the time.

I'm torn on watching it though. My mom couldn't sleep after watching it. And she was convinced Jackson was a child molester for years. So it's not like there was any inner turmoil. It was more about the description of the sexual abuse.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, PikaScrewChu said:

'sup fellow Duggar snarker. This is why TLC never abandoned the Duggars.

I've been following along online. I've always thought good old Wacko Jacko was guilty. I was in a minority so I kept my mouth shut most of the time.

I'm torn on watching it though. My mom couldn't sleep after watching it. And she was convinced Jackson was a child molester for years. So it's not like there was any inner turmoil. It was more about the description of the sexual abuse.

Hi @PikaScrewChu😁

If it’s going to trigger you dont watch it’s okay. I wouldn’t want anyone to be upset. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

As for hetero-porn, based upon reseimdid in college, the vast majority of men who have been arrested for sexual abuse of male minors self-identified as heterosexual.  Many live “straight “ lives with wives, girlfriends and children.  Men that are attracted to boys are generally not gay, they are pedophiles.  

  I hear you and I think I was unclear in how I expressed my thoughts. I do know that most pedophiles identify as heterosexual. Again, Michael Jackson was so off-the-charts bizarre and different from most people in general that I just meant that "straight" porn, and I should have added, porn featuring ADULTS,  would not likely turn him on.  But who knows what was in his extremely messed-up mind. 

   Oddly, as a teenager I remember getting an asexual vibe from him. Oh, how wrong I was....he was very sexual, just in a sick, pedophilic way.

   Does anyone else remember an article from some UK paper (I think "The Daily Mirror") which quoted a supposed close friend of Lisa Marie Presley saying that LMP claimed MJ was so great in bed, and that "she (LMP) had really been around, so she had lots of basis for comparison" or something like that? I remember doubting that heavily when I read it... really having trouble believing it. But it could have been...who the hell knows? She was wacked out from Scientology and trying to "recruit" him, and he was.....himself. 

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Brattinella said:

The main reason, IMO, that the victims can speak honestly NOW, is that Michael Jackson is DEAD.  That had to be a huge fear for them.

Absolutely agree. Mixed up in all the feelings they have for him is, still, love. If he were alive today and caught word that they were considering coming forward, I'd bet that if he called them and asked them not to and launched back into the grooming, they would probably agree to stay quiet. I mean, even though he is dead James said he still felt guilty about letting him down and exposing his secrets by promoting this documentary. He still has that hold over him from beyond the grave. I can't imagine the control over him he'd have if he were still alive. Wade strikes me as a little more in touch with his anger about this than James (I only get sadness, shame and guilt from him), but I still think MJ could have successfully played the "You need to protect me. I won't survive prison. What about my children?" card with him.

Edited by Kostgard
  • Like 12
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

Exactly. Many of the folks unfamiliar w/sexual abuse, etc. are doubting Wade's and James' accounts solely b/c they waited until after MJ's death to really speak out. They just don't understand. 

Edited by Liamsmom617
  • Like 11
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Liamsmom617 said:

As for hetero-porn, based upon reseimdid in college, the vast majority of men who have been arrested for sexual abuse of male minors self-identified as heterosexual.  Many live “straight “ lives with wives, girlfriends and children.  Men that are attracted to boys are generally not gay, they are pedophiles.  

  I hear you and I think I was unclear in how I expressed my thoughts. I do know that most pedophiles identify as heterosexual. Again, Michael Jackson was so off-the-charts bizarre and different from most people in general that I just meant that "straight" porn, and I should have added, porn featuring ADULTS,  would not likely turn him on.  But who knows what was in his extremely messed-up mind. 

   Oddly, as a teenager I remember getting an asexual vibe from him. Oh, how wrong I was....he was very sexual, just in a sick, pedophilic way.

   Does anyone else remember an article from some UK paper (I think "The Daily Mirror") which quoted a supposed close friend of Lisa Marie Presley saying that LMP claimed MJ was so great in bed, and that "she (LMP) had really been around, so she had lots of basis for comparison" or something like that? I remember doubting that heavily when I read it... really having trouble believing it. But it could have been...who the hell knows? She was wacked out from Scientology and trying to "recruit" him, and he was.....himself. 

I think we as a society need to separate sexual abuse (especially of children) from a healthy sexual orientation. Like all the people that insinuated that priests abused kids because they were celibate- it’s horseshit (again not saying you think that, I’m talking about a social myth).

There are plenty of normal healthy adults who are asexual or not interested in sex and don’t abuse kids. There are plenty of people in “normal hetero” relationships that do abuse kids (and adults). 

MJ was a straight up weirdo, WEIRDO, but most abusers don’t have his money, fame or ability to be off the charts weird. If this man with his huge social rule violations could get away with hurting these boys, I’m not surprised “normal seeming” people can. (Even if they aren’t rich or famous. ) Granted I think MJ was actually a pedophile in the textbook sense of the term, I don’t think most abusers are. 

  • Like 5
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Good points.  And, while this may be so totally selfish on my part, in light of the suffering the survivors have endured, I am angry that I can no longer enjoy Jackson music. Two of my favorite songs by him were ABC and Man In The Mirror.  I can't listen to them anymore without an immense sense of disgust with Jackson. I refuse to listen to him anymore and turn it off when it comes on. 

I think there is a misconception in this country that the vast majority of citizens detest and disapprove of child sex abuse.  I don't think the frequency of that abuse reflects that assumption.  I think we have a society of liars and fake people, who pay lip service to abolishing child sex abuse, while secretly supporting or condoning it.  I'm not sure when this reality will be realized.  As more survivors speak out, the more it will be revealed that this abuse is actually practiced by MANY citizens from all walks of life. They lie when they pretend to be outraged by it, but, in reality they are not that opposed.  How do we fight a scourge throughout our nation that is that well liked by so many SECRET admirers?  

2 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

I agree and disagree. I think there is a vast majority of citizens (so 70% ish for a round number) that abhor and condemn the sex abuse of prepubescent children. I think a smaller percentage actually condemn the abuse of minor children after they’ve been through puberty but are not legal adults (I don’t think R kelly would’ve been able to get away with what he did for so long had he been after 8yrs old girls rather than 15yrs old girls)- So maybe 55%. 

But I do think these abuser types just have lots and lots of victims because they don’t stop, and our culture of shame and victim blaming stops people from speaking out to warn others. Even in situations where kids feel safe, and are able to tell their parents/guardians, there are not SERIOUS repurcussions for these types and they are free to abuse again and again. Add celebrity, money and power into it and you have a stormcloud of silence. 

37 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

I think we as a society need to separate sexual abuse (especially of children) from a healthy sexual orientation. Like all the people that insinuated that priests abused kids because they were celibate- it’s horseshit (again not saying you think that, I’m talking about a social myth).

There are plenty of normal healthy adults who are asexual or not interested in sex and don’t abuse kids. There are plenty of people in “normal hetero” relationships that do abuse kids (and adults). 

MJ was a straight up weirdo, WEIRDO, but most abusers don’t have his money, fame or ability to be off the charts weird. If this man with his huge social rule violations could get away with hurting these boys, I’m not surprised “normal seeming” people can. (Even if they aren’t rich or famous. ) Granted I think MJ was actually a pedophile in the textbook sense of the term, I don’t think most abusers are. 

I remember an interview with a high ranking member of the Catholic church (he might have been disrobed). This guy had the audacity to say that young boys bring the abuse upon themselves because they are naturally seductive. I almost threw up but I have heard many Pedophiles claim "that the children came on to them or the children enjoyed it" as an excuse for the behavior. Later the guy backpedaled in a major way and said he was suffering from brain damage and did not know what he was saying.

As a woman from a not particularly progressive culture, I am all too familiar with the victim blaming that goes on when there is a sexual assault that is not a stranger in the bushes with a knife. Even if that was the case, the victim would get criticized "for being out late at night by herself".

  • Like 3
  • Sad 7

Share this post


Link to post

20 minutes ago, Robert Lynch said:

Speaking of Paris, Blanket, and Prince....Not surprised at this.

This makes me want to cry. I hate so much to think what they, and many members of the extended family are suffering. 

I was a close friend of a family where the father, an apparently lovely and gentle man, admired and respected by the community, was charged and found guilty of multiple counts of pedophilia. Over the next few years, the family was literally destroyed. People died. Decades later, the ripples are still there. It was horrific and devastating and shameful for many, many people, including the victims and their families. 

I will never judge members of Michael's family for refusing to believe. It's easy for us to say "They're greedy and want his money". But that's just a small part of it. They loved him. He was the shining star of their family. If they acknowledge he did these things, the shame it brings on their family legacy is incalculable. They can't bear for it to be true. 

Speaking of denial, I just can't let myself think about what his children are feeling right now because it's too heart wrenching. There won't be any happy ending to this story. 

Edited by Melina22
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, Melina22 said:

denial, I just can't let myself think about what his children are feeling right now because it's too heart wrenching. There won't be any happy ending to this story. 

Especially because their family is still exploiting them. They have issued No statement, the quotes from their uncle are completely generic. Also, if I were Janet I would be pissed at my nephew for presuming to speak for me when I have kept silent on the topic since the mid1990s.

Edited by biakbiak
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sure there are family members who believe he did it, and others who don't. But I hope we don't have to see this private family business play out in public. I can respect their desire to present a united front, or to just say nothing in public. At this point, it's all pretty much lose-lose for the family. Hopefully they get to keep a little dignity. Sadly, Michael's legacy will probably continue to rip the family apart. 

I need to go watch Survivor now. I'm thinking way more about this than is good for my mental health. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Melina22 said:

Hopefully they get to keep a little dignity.

That would be a first for a large percentage of the thirsty, thirsty Jacksons.

Edited by biakbiak
  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Liamsmom617 said:

Exactly. Many of the folks unfamiliar w/sexual abuse, etc. are doubting Wade's and James' accounts solely b/c they waited until after MJ's death to really speak out. They just don't understand. 

I somewhat doubt their accounts and its not because they waited to speak out. I think I doubt it because during the documentary, I remember a part where I think it was Wade, was saying the first time Michael tried to penetrate him and I remember thinking, why the hell would a kid go back to that if you were in pain? At some point you have to say okay this isn't right. However it is sketchy with the waiting thing because MJ has been dead for almost 10 years so its kind of hard to argue being afraid to speak out when its been 10 years. Now they could be telling the truth but watching that documentary just makes you think something isn't adding up for both sides. There's no way in hell the parents didn't know what was going on if it was. I also think its possible that MJ never really had a childhood so hanging around kids was his way of trying to experience that. If they cared about MJ as much as they claimed they did in the documentary I think they would still be protecting him. I don't know where but somewhere something has to be money related and that's just the sad truth.

  • Sad 5

Share this post


Link to post

I think the family knew. Maybe not all of them, but that infamous Latoya interview in 1993 had truth in it. She claimed not to have seen Michael do anything, but to have known about the checks paid to families, because her mother showed them to her. Her mother believed that he'd been "messing with the boys," and that's what the money was for. She also said that her mother referred to Michael as a "faggot." And she claimed that MJ had paid a "garbageman," and that turned out to be the job of Jimmy Safechuck's father, which we now know.

She also said she herself had been sexually abused as a child by their father (along with her sister Rebbie), which I believe. She said she didn't know if Janet had.

I think Michael was sexually abused as child as well. I don't know if it was his father or people his father knew (there were rumors that his father passed him around to adult men in the industry) but I think that happened to him.

I think both Jackson parents were monsters tbh.

And you know what, it makes sense that his mother knew. Michael didn't start molesting kids after he bought Neverland. He bought that place to facilitate further abuse of a lot more kids. He lived at home until he was about 29-30. And he started in with befriending these young boys while he was still at home. Jimmy Safechuck mentioned seeing his siblings at the house. Jonathan Spence (the child Jimmy replaced) would spend two nights a week with him (and went to school with his cousin!)

I think they knew. He started this behavior young.

Edited by ruby24
  • Like 19
  • Useful 1
  • Surprise 1
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post

ruby24, all the info in your post is news to me. If true, that stuff is really shocking. Maybe my earlier supposition was wrong, and MOST of the family thinks, or knows, that he's guilty. Yikes. 

I still feel so bad for his children, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, dcubed said:

Agree and yet there’s ample proof if someone wants to see it : nude pictures found of a victim, wedding rings, drawings of Jackson’s genitals by a victim that match his genitals, pornography found, witness statements by household staff, admitting he slept with boys, faxes upon faxes, and more. Yes, the proof spans time over time, some have been questioned and disputed but added with the victims very similar testimony, it should be enough for most people to see the writing on the wall.   

Rape doesn’t typically happen out in the open.  There usually are not witnesses.  And it doesn’t always involve bruising and cuts.  The proof is all there if people want to see it.

That's one reason I was surprised at Corey Feldman saying how they shouldn't just be able to say this stuff without proof etc. He's said he was abused, though I don't know if he's named names--does he have the kind of proof he's demanding here?

The director had a great point in just saying look, everything that's able to be verified has been. Nobody denies he spent all this time alone with these kids in these places at these times. Everyone agrees he slept with the boys. Beyond that it's just a question of what happened when they were alone in a room and the only people who know that are Michael and the boys. So why do they need a bunch of people saying he's a great guy and "would never do that."

1 hour ago, icecweem said:

I somewhat doubt their accounts and its not because they waited to speak out. I think I doubt it because during the documentary, I remember a part where I think it was Wade, was saying the first time Michael tried to penetrate him and I remember thinking, why the hell would a kid go back to that if you were in pain? At some point you have to say okay this isn't right. However it is sketchy with the waiting thing because MJ has been dead for almost 10 years so its kind of hard to argue being afraid to speak out when its been 10 years. Now they could be telling the truth but watching that documentary just makes you think something isn't adding up for both sides. There's no way in hell the parents didn't know what was going on if it was. I also think its possible that MJ never really had a childhood so hanging around kids was his way of trying to experience that. If they cared about MJ as much as they claimed they did in the documentary I think they would still be protecting him. I don't know where but somewhere something has to be money related and that's just the sad truth.

I don't see what's unbelievable in any of this. The boys were desperate for MJ's love and attention--why would a little painful penetration matter to them? Michael's being alive or dead wasn't central to their fear about coming out. They were terrified of anyone knowing about the relationship for lots of reasons--they considered themselves guilty, for one. But now, as adults, they've come to understand that they were abuse. It took a while, but now they see that caring about Michael shouldn't mean lying about his abuse.

The parents could very easily have not known what was going on since none of them wanted to believe it. After all, as was said above, we all have the same info they did then. We all know for a fact how much time he was spending with them alone, that they were sleeping in the same bed, etc., and yet many still don't believe he did it.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I think there is a misconception in this country that the vast majority of citizens detest and disapprove of child sex abuse.  I don't think the frequency of that abuse reflects that assumption.  I think we have a society of liars and fake people, who pay lip service to abolishing child sex abuse, while secretly supporting or condoning it.

I don't think people actively condone it.  They're very much against it while it remains easy to be against it.  But the minute child sex abuse (or abuse or sexual harassment/assault) implicates someone they love or admire, it becomes hard work.  Believing often means realizing a person's self-perception of how good they are as judges of people is called into question.  Believing a loved one is guilty means taking action.  That could lead to alienating valued family members, or trusted friends.  It could mean financial losses if they offer support in some way. If they're a celeb, it could taint the art a person enjoys.  Once it hits close to home and becomes personal, It's often a much easier path to believe that this is the one time the victim is lying than to believe a person loves a monster.

3 hours ago, Liamsmom617 said:

As for hetero-porn, based upon reseimdid in college, the vast majority of men who have been arrested for sexual abuse of male minors self-identified as heterosexual.  Many live “straight “ lives with wives, girlfriends and children.  Men that are attracted to boys are generally not gay, they are pedophiles. 

Right.  It could also be that he thought it'd be something a young boy would want to watch.

1 hour ago, icecweem said:

I somewhat doubt their accounts and its not because they waited to speak out. I think I doubt it because during the documentary, I remember a part where I think it was Wade, was saying the first time Michael tried to penetrate him and I remember thinking, why the hell would a kid go back to that if you were in pain?

Pain is a risk when it comes to any penetrative sex even in the most loving non-abusive relationships. Just under 10% of women experience it chronically and a majority of women have experienced a painful sexual encounter at least once.  That doesn't mean they give up trying to have sex.  And most men interested in anal sex don't give up trying even if their first attempt was painful.  For both men and women, they especially don't give up if they're with a partner who respects that pain.  I think both of the men in the documentary described attempts at anal sex or anal "play" by  Michael.  And both times, when they experienced too much pain, he stopped.  They loved Michael.  He tried something that they realized they didn't like and then he stopped which might have just reinforced in their minds that he cared about them.

Quote

There's no way in hell the parents didn't know what was going on if it was.

As I said above, I think the power of self-deception is quite staggering.

Quote

If they cared about MJ as much as they claimed they did in the documentary I think they would still be protecting him.

Why would they now that they realize he abused them?  I think they're doing their best to separate the emotional part of them that cares about Michael and the logical part of them that realizes he groomed them to abuse them.

Edited by Irlandesa
  • Like 18
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, qtpye said:

I remember an interview with a high ranking member of the Catholic church (he might have been disrobed).

Isn't the term defrocked?

  • Like 1
  • Laugh 4

Share this post


Link to post

15 minutes ago, Penman61 said:

Isn't the term defrocked?

No idea what it’s called but yours sounds more correct.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Robert Lynch said:

Speaking of Paris, Blanket, and Prince....Not surprised at this.

I know Paris, Blanket and Prince loved their father- I’m sure they wouldn’t want to believe such a thing. 

I doubt HBO would lose the law suit- I know the lawyers looked over everything before it was even produced. The Jackson estate should just be quiet. There’s plenty of money for the THREE KIDS to never work again; maybe all the freeloading uncles/aunts and cousins should get jobs. 

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

He's said he was abused, though I don't know if he's named names--does he have the kind of proof he's demanding here?

Yes he has pubically accused three or four people and alluded to a large pedophile ring. One of the men he accused was eventually convicted of child molestation in another case. He was a glorified extra on a few of Corey’s films. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ruby24 said:

I think the family knew. Maybe not all of them, but that infamous Latoya interview in 1993 had truth in it. She claimed not to have seen Michael do anything, but to have known about the checks paid to families, because her mother showed them to her. Her mother believed that he'd been "messing with the boys," and that's what the money was for. She also said that her mother referred to Michael as a "faggot." And she claimed that MJ had paid a "garbageman," and that turned out to be the job of Jimmy Safechuck's father, which we now know.

She also said she herself had been sexually abused as a child by their father (along with her sister Rebbie), which I believe. She said she didn't know if Janet had.

I think Michael was sexually abused as child as well. I don't know if it was his father or people his father knew (there were rumors that his father passed him around to adult men in the industry) but I think that happened to him.

I think both Jackson parents were monsters tbh.

And you know what, it makes sense that his mother knew. Michael didn't start molesting kids after he bought Neverland. He bought that place to facilitate further abuse of a lot more kids. He lived at home until he was about 29-30. And he started in with befriending these young boys while he was still at home. Jimmy Safechuck mentioned seeing his siblings at the house. Jonathan Spence (the child Jimmy replaced) would spend two nights a week with him (and went to school with his cousin!)

I think they knew. He started this behavior young.

It would make a lot of sense because every time I see him with the Jacksons when he was a kid, there was a sense of sadness in his face when he did these interviews. He always looked downcast when he talked about the family. It was common knowledge that his father was one horrible man. You just had to look at MJ's 70s interviews and tell me that person was on the verge of unhappiness. It was all written in stone and they didn't give a crap about it. Tragic.

  • Like 2
  • Useful 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, icecweem said:

I somewhat doubt their accounts and its not because they waited to speak out. I think I doubt it because during the documentary, I remember a part where I think it was Wade, was saying the first time Michael tried to penetrate him and I remember thinking, why the hell would a kid go back to that if you were in pain? At some point you have to say okay this isn't right.

As a victim of abuse, trust and believe, that even if young Wade had spoke up, there is a greater than good chance that they would not be believed by their mothers and that they would continue to bring them around anyway.  I halfway would not be surprised if the mothers knew exactly what he was doing and coldly pimped out their kids. Access to Jackson money and whatever opportunities promised will put stars in peoples eyes. Money is money and if they had to sacrifice one kid for the financial greater good of the family or for a chance at fame (whatever Jackson promised), there are people out there that will say so be it. You think the kids were the only ones asked and promised stuff they only dreamed of having access to? I can only imagine the negotiating MJ did in those "hours-long" conversations. Its important to remember we are getting a 4 hour edited documentary, and these mothers are trying to put their best face forward for the cameras. Like I said before, their total lack of emotion is chilling.

Its important to remember that everyone is complex human being.  I could probably write 100 pages on the complexities of Michael and the various facets of his life.  Its easy to write anyone that's been in his immediate orbit off and as only speaking out for or against him for money purposes. . I don't think any amount of money can erase the pain that they suffered or the scrutiny they are placing themselves under. Is the Jackson family vehemently denying the allegations to keep the Jackson money flowing? Absolutely. But I also believe that it comes from a place of guilt from them also-guilt that they weren't able to protect MJ from his child abuse, guilt over whatever part they feel they might of played in making him into what he was. Would Micheal Jackson of Gary, Indiana retired steel mill worker be busted in a neighborhood pedophile ring or did the Hollywood machine/Joe's abuse facilitate that behavior? Its fascinating to think about , IMO.

Edited by AgentRXS · Reason: Edited out my comments about the vics being paid
  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post

7 minutes ago, AgentRXS said:

Yes, Wade and James  got paid for this movie.

According to the director, Dan Reed, Robson and Safechuck did not get paid to be in Leaving Neverland.

He said Robson and Safechuck “have no financial interest whatsoever and no future, past or present interest”.

  • Like 15
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scarlett45 said:

I doubt HBO would lose the law suit- I know the lawyers looked over everything before it was even produced. The Jackson estate should just be quiet. There’s plenty of money for the THREE KIDS to never work again; maybe all the freeloading uncles/aunts and cousins should get jobs. 

I got to attend a taping of Last Week Tonight last year. John Oliver briefly touched upon this. HBO's legal department is very busy. They have to consult with their legal team often. Of course HBO can afford to have a huge legal team so.

The freeloading relatives wouldn't be freeloading if their brother was still alive today. I thought Michael was nearly broke around the time of his death.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

So, I decided to re-watch Martin Bashir's documentary from 2003, on YouTube.  In light of what we've heard from Robson and Safechuck, it's even more disturbing than it was, originally.  One thing that really stuck out to me is when Bashir asks MJ if he likes wearing jewelry, and MJ giggles nervously and says, "No, but I like buying jewelry for special ladies."  Replace "ladies" with "boys", and you can't help but think of James Safechuck.  Good god.

24 minutes ago, PikaScrewChu said:

The freeloading relatives wouldn't be freeloading if their brother was still alive today. I thought Michael was nearly broke around the time of his death. 

I can't remember if he was broke, but in the Bashir doc, he spends a shit-ton of money on gaudy crap, and doesn't even bother to keep track of the amount of money he's spending.  Bashir remarks that MJ spent half a million dollars on two big, Louis XIV looking vases at a Vegas shop, and he bought like, twenty other items, on top of those.  So, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he was nearly broke by the end of his life.  MJ was reckless with his spending.

  • Like 5
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know if this has been brought up, but what if it had been a woman and girls?  What if a woman said she loved lil children and got them to sleep with her?  See, she never had a childhood and wants to relive what she never had? I think it would be just as creepy.  What if Michael had favored little girls?  Would these parents have seen red flags with that?  You can't say having a  little boy sleep with a grown man is any less appropriate than a little girl sleeping with a grown  woman.  I want to qualify that with a grown man or woman you don't know, but even if you did know them it would be just wrong.  Promise of fame, money, or anything should never have colored their decisions like that.  Hell, I'm still thinking about this and am still blown away.  

 

Why does one person saying that another did NOT molest them negate someone else saying that person did?  Oh, that older lady who was on the jury said the mother of the boy accusing Michael pointed her finger at her.  She said, "Don't point your finger at me, lady!"  They all giggled and she smirked like she just got her 15 minutes of fame.   I wondered about her and the other's capacity to make a court decision after that.  It would be so very hard to say someone abused you without a witness or some sort of audio or visual evidence.  I feel so very bad for those kids.  

 

On 3/6/2019 at 5:21 PM, Scarlett45 said:

Well that makes a lot of sense to me. The rape isn’t always painful (in the physical sense); the absuser also mentally and emotionally manipulates their subject. Giving them attention, validation etc. The sexual stimulation is something the body can respond to even without mental consent, and especially if the victim is too young to understand or give consent.

Aren’t we just 20-30yrs away from the mainstream concept that a rapist of an adult heterosexual woman isn’t always just a stranger in the bushes with a knife? That it “can be rape” if you know your attacker? I’m 33- so it hasn’t been that long. 

What about those who say if a woman orgasmed during rape it isn't rape?  I can't imagine what these victims go through.

  • Like 18
  • Useful 2
  • Sad 4

Share this post


Link to post

3 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I don't see what's unbelievable in any of this. The boys were desperate for MJ's love and attention--why would a little painful penetration matter to them?

Also, I think it was Wade who said that Michael stopped when he said it hurt.  So, would that mean to a child that they could trust them since they didn't keep trying to do it?  It seems like it could, imo.

Edited by kelslamu
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

James broke my heart, too.  I was struck by his saying a couple of times that one of the things that made it so hard was not having someone to talk to about it that would really understand.  So when Robson went public, it was a breakthrough moment for Safechuk in more than one way.

  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Melina22 said:

Unlike most people, I was disturbed when she described doing the dance of joy when she heard Michael was dead. Not because I couldn't understand, but because there's such a giant chasm between her reaction and her son's. He still feels guilty, part of him still loves Michael. It's like the 2 of them aren't on the same page at all, and I can see how this could make him feel very detached from her. 

 

This is spot on. Stephanie Safechuck's "I had one job . . . and I fucked it up" admission was a nifty soundbyte, but ITA that it seems she still doesn't get James' experience or perspective (I can't even with how fucking clueless Joy Robson was and apparently continues to be). Also? I call bullshit on Safechuck's whole "dance of joy" routine. I think this is what she thinks people want to hear; I was unimpressed.

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, Shakma said:

I can't remember if he was broke, but in the Bashir doc, he spends a shit-ton of money on gaudy crap, and doesn't even bother to keep track of the amount of money he's spending.  Bashir remarks that MJ spent half a million dollars on two big, Louis XIV looking vases at a Vegas shop, and he bought like, twenty other items, on top of those.  So, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he was nearly broke by the end of his life.  MJ was reckless with his spending.

I read somewhere recently that his estate has built up nicely since his death as he still owned half the Sony backlist plus royalties on all his music but MJ isn't around to go on wild spending sprees.

ETA:  Based on recommendations from other posters I watched Abducted in Plain Sight on Netflix yesterday.  Totally creepy (you'll want to take a shower after you watch) but a very good example of how a pedophile grooms parents.  In this case,

Spoiler

he actually had sexual relations with both parents at different times and for different reasons.

Edited by Quilt Fairy
  • Surprise 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Shakma said:

People suck.

Pretty much yes. When it comes to abuse, molesting, rape of adults or children its amazing how many people will jump through any hoop to blame victims. They are part of the reason why people don't come forward. They make me so angry. Those kids parents especially the mothers make me so angry. Someone calls you up in the middle night asking you to bring your son over and...you do? You leave your son in the hands of adult for days? You let that adult decide your kid should stop school? I'm sorry all that's bullshit. They knew the just didn't care, MJ's family knew and they didn't care. I think it really comes down to that. From Weinstein to Nassar to Cosby to MJ so many people do not care. Each and everyone of them could have easily been caught years before. Each one of them had victims who told someone and tried to tell someone. How many kids do have to say MJ molested and raped for people to believe? Is there a magic number? Nassar molested hundreds of girls.  Is that enough? Hundreds of girls? Weinstein did the same thing. Wondering why they came forward now? Why not then? Well, gee, seeing what happens to other people who come forward maybe that has something to do with it? There's also a lot of victim blaming and twisted love going on. They lied on the stand? Wow, shocker, abused wives and kids never lie to protect the person beating them and/or abusing them.

Why does none of the blame ever get placed on the abuser? Yes let's blame Wade and James, they were only children 7 and 12 let's not blame the parents grown adults who had no problem handing their child over every time while the received trips, house and other stuff. Let's not blame the grown man who groomed and abused the boys. Who admitted to sharing a bed with boys, who had his room or rooms completely set up for abuse and to alert him when anyone was coming near his bedroom. No, we can't have that. Placing blame on the abuser? Imagine that! 

The mother still talking back like it was such a happy time. I can't understand how she can be all happy and giddy. I'd understand if she was crying and saying how happy it all seemed and now is so sick and disgusted that she left her child with someone who abused him. If she was saying I went to the Grand Canyon and now I look back with disgust, sick and anger while I was there while my son was being abused. 

The MJ "I had a bad childhood" line did it remind anyone else of 50 Shades of Grey, after Christian would beat the shit of Ana or others stuff to her. Then throw out the "My mom was crack whore" for sympathy and to get Ana to drop or excuse away what he just did. Abusers usually say something like that for the very reason. Yes, he had a horrible childhood and there's no excuse for what happened to him as kid. There's also no excuse for what he did to children. 

Those poor boys. 

Edited by andromeda331
  • Like 18
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

I read somewhere recently that his estate has built up nicely since his death as he still owned half the Sony backlist plus royalties on all his music but MJ isn't around to go on wild spending sprees.

At least Paul McCartney won back the Beatles' catalog from the Jackson estate a couple years ago so they can't make any more money from that.

Edited by spaceghostess
  • Like 21
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I just came across a documentary done in 2007 where people who knew Michael and/or worked for him are interviewed.  Not all the way through it, but just hearing his friend talk about him is interesting.  I've yet to see anything or remember seeing anything that even makes me think he was ever sincere.  Maybe sincere in his delusions about things, but wonder now even about that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyMKdS29Lbw

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size