Leaving Neverland

Richard Channing

Telly Talk Winner
LV
13
 
Messages
3,861
Reaction score
10,098
Awards
25
Location
Tuscany Valley
Member Since
December 21st, 2013
Personally, I never believed that Michael Jackson was a child abuser, but I will watch this with an open mind.

 
K

Karin Schill

Guest
I never believed that he was a child abuser either. Besides he went to court for these type of accusations and was found not guilty. Surely if he had been guilty he would have been convicted or? :confuse:

Over all I don't see the point with opening up this can of worms again. The man has been dead and buried for ten years. So why would these men want to come forward now?
Why ruin his legacy?

Also if they are right, why come out in the open about it?
I mean the most dedicated MJ's fans are surely gonna hate them for coming forward so there's a risk this will all blow up in their faces and will cause suffering to themselves not to mention MJ's children who have not had it easy since their father died. :(

The trailer does look convincing but I think we need to ask ourselves this question, who has anything to gain from this documentary?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Alexis

Telly Talk Superhero
LV
6
 
Messages
7,706
Solutions
1
Reaction score
10,645
Awards
14
Member Since
July 2007
Besides he went to court for these type of accusations and was found not guilty. Surely if he had been guilty he would have been convicted or? :confuse:
Ok... But, O.J. Simpson.

I never believed the allegations about him either, but recently I have come to be a bit more suspicious. I mean it's just not normal, that predilection for spending time with cute little blonde boys. Why were they all so similar? And of course now we know that he was a drug addict.

I think at the time of the allegations I, and the rest of the world were too enamoured with Jackson to believe he could be that person. He was a God to me in the 1990s. Madonna and he, were two other-worldly beings. They were just so high above everyone and everything else. He couldn't have been a child abuser. But then he couldn't have been a drug addict. He couldn't have been in crippling pain, but he was.

I am looking forward to seeing the documentary. I know of Wade Robson from the mid '00s. He had his own dance show on MTV and was a choreographer for Britney and N*Sync among others. He was the guy that Britney allegedly cheated on Justin Timberlake with. He'd also written a song with Justin and Britney on her Britney album.
Which is very Jackson like..
 

Alexis

Telly Talk Superhero
LV
6
 
Messages
7,706
Solutions
1
Reaction score
10,645
Awards
14
Member Since
July 2007
But the children continued to visit him, despite the allegations, right?
Of course. And parents continued to send their children there. The allure of money, glamour, potential fame.
 

TJames03

Banned
LV
0
 
Messages
1,902
Reaction score
780
Awards
4
Location
California
BBC2 has dropped his music completely. Come on, if it were Joe Blow having slumber parties with young boys, he would be lynched. MJ was fxcking nuts.
 

Sarah

Super Moderator
Staff Member
LV
5
 
Messages
8,990
Reaction score
11,979
Awards
14
Location
Ireland (North)
Member Since
1998
Favourite Movie
Silence of the Lambs
I don't believe Michael is guilty of this. Never have believed it. And although I haven't watched the doc yet - I doubt I will believe it then. I know that isn't really an argument but sometimes you just have to go with what you believe. I will say more once I've watched it.

I take it this is going out worldwide?
 
Last edited:

Angela Channing

World Cup of Soaps Moderator
LV
16
 
Messages
13,714
Reaction score
25,430
Awards
42
Member Since
1999
I hope the documentary states how much money these men were paid to tell their story. If their allegations are true, why are they not suing Michael Jackson's estate for damages? Maybe because they know they can't win a legal case because the last criminal case against him was a spectacular failure. So by getting a TV company to pay them for their story they get their pay day knowing no action can be taken against them because legally you can't slander the dead.

For me the most convincing testimony was that of Macaulay Culkin who spent time in Michael Jackson's bedroom and stated under oath that nothing sexual happened and all they did was play like kids. He is independently wealthy so has no incentive to lie to about Michael Jackson in exchange for money. Isn't it interesting that the documentary makers made no attempt to interview Mr Culkin?
 

Richard Channing

Telly Talk Winner
LV
13
 
Messages
3,861
Reaction score
10,098
Awards
25
Location
Tuscany Valley
Member Since
December 21st, 2013
For me the most convincing testimony was that of Macaulay Culkin who spent time in Michael Jackson's bedroom and stated under oath that nothing sexual happened and all they did was play like kids.

Corey Feldman is another one who was friends with MJ when he was young and also said that Michael was always just a very supportive and caring friend. And Corey is someone who has suffered a lot of abuse and has been very vocal about it.
 

Alexis

Telly Talk Superhero
LV
6
 
Messages
7,706
Solutions
1
Reaction score
10,645
Awards
14
Member Since
July 2007
But didn't one of the kids in the documentary, Jimmy file suit with the estate in 2014? Or they are doing it now? I am almost certain that they actually are in the process of suing the estate.

I just don't see how people can think that the fascination with children would be so wholly innocent. Why would a man in his 30s, 40s and 50s want to just spend time with prepubescent kids, specifically boys. On what level were they in common? It is unhealthy. Imagine yourself doing that? Having 7 and 8 year old friends when you are a grown middle aged man. What was he doing, pretending he wasn't grown? How were kids his peers? On what level does that make sense. You become friends with people like you, who have similar interests and ideas and wants. I just do not get it.

Even if you take away the suspected abuse aspect. Even then it's really unhealthy and shows a very damaged mental state. No?
 

Willie Oleson

Telly Talk Schemer
LV
8
 
Messages
18,832
Reaction score
32,278
Awards
22
Location
Plotville, Shenanigan
Member Since
April 2002
Imagine yourself doing that? Having 7 and 8 year old friends when you are a grown middle aged man
People would say you're a creep and tell their children to stay away from you.

I'm not saying that adults can't enjoy the company of children, and many choose to work with children (school, day care, hospital etc).
Also, I could imagine that a rich celebrity like MJ would do something special for, say, a sick child or something like that. But sleepovers (in the same bedroom?) and all that stuff is weird.

False accusations are terrible, and if that happened then they should be punished severly (yes, the kids too!), but MJ sure did his best to make himself look suspicious.
 

Michael Torrance

Telly Talk Mega Star
LV
0
 
Messages
3,011
Reaction score
2,254
Awards
1
Location
Roaming
Member Since
2017 I think (unless it is 2016)
Even if you take away the suspected abuse aspect. Even then it's really unhealthy and shows a very damaged mental state. No?

Even if no abuse happened (I don't think I can form an opinion based on hearsay after someone's death) I always thought his sleepovers with young boys were freaking weird. But I certainly would not stop listening to his music over these.
 

Snarky Oracle!

Telly Talk Supreme
LV
4
 
Messages
15,103
Reaction score
1,273
Awards
13
Location
USA
Angela Channing said:
If their allegations are true, why are they not suing Michael Jackson's estate for damages? Maybe because they know they can't win a legal case because the last criminal case against him was a spectacular failure.

But didn't one of the kids in the documentary, Jimmy file suit with the estate in 2014? Or they are doing it now? I am almost certain that they actually are in the process of suing the estate.
Two of the most prominently featured former kids not only sued the Jackson estate but have filed an active appeal after their suits were thrown out for being beyond the statutory of limitations. So they're still trying to get money (they'd both testified in 2005 that MJ never molested them).

Obviously, Jackson set himself up with his weird habits. But there are so many sleazoid opportunist out there, it's hard to know what happened.

Also: what about all the straight showbiz males who liked their girls a bit too young -- are they getting their own special documentaries, too??
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Angela Channing

World Cup of Soaps Moderator
LV
16
 
Messages
13,714
Reaction score
25,430
Awards
42
Member Since
1999
I just don't see how people can think that the fascination with children would be so wholly innocent. Why would a man in his 30s, 40s and 50s want to just spend time with prepubescent kids, specifically boys. On what level were they in common?
His behaviour was unquestionably weird when compared with most people who had a conventional upbringing but Michael Jackson's upbringing was anything but conventional. I always thought he liked the company of children because he was trying to recreate a childhood that he never had. Sleepovers, children's games and fairground rides were all part of a craving for normal childhood experiences that he was denied.

Because his life choices are outside what we would consider to be normal for ourselves, we try to rationalise it by thinking something sordid was behind it but for him he was just having innocent fun with other children.
 

Barbara Fan

Admin
LV
12
 
Messages
10,202
Reaction score
23,156
Awards
28
Location
Scotland
Member Since
2000
Favourite Movie
Witness, Vertigo, Spellbound
I have no idea if i believe the accusations or not

I dont want to believe them but do think he lost the plot somewhere aliong the way, but always chose to believe the peter pan/ boy who never grew up story. He is no longer here to defend himself and he was found not guilty, so we will never know the truth

BUT for me he defined the 80s and is one of the most easily identified musicians of my lifetime and I loved his music, from jackson 5 onwards, he had a great HUGE talent but surrounded himself with the wrong people

and I disagree with BBC for not playing his records.
 

Willie Oleson

Telly Talk Schemer
LV
8
 
Messages
18,832
Reaction score
32,278
Awards
22
Location
Plotville, Shenanigan
Member Since
April 2002
Because his life choices are outside what we would consider to be normal for ourselves, we try to rationalise it by thinking something sordid was behind it
He wasn't accused of being weird or eccentric, it just didn't help the case. If an adult spends the days and nights with children that aren't his then it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to think that something sordid might have happened once he's actually being accused of said sordid thing.
These days people are being accused of all sorts of things under less circumstantial conditions, and they don't get the support that MJ got from all his fans.

Personally I never thought he did it because it seemed too obvious*, and since America is the land of the big lawsuits it's hard to take any of these events very seriously.
He would have been accused of something-something anyway.

*but then, they also say that "the best way to hide is in plain sight".
In other words, if you want to outfox the fox, you'll have to catch him first.
 

Alexis

Telly Talk Superhero
LV
6
 
Messages
7,706
Solutions
1
Reaction score
10,645
Awards
14
Member Since
July 2007
His behaviour was unquestionably weird when compared with most people who had a conventional upbringing but Michael Jackson's upbringing was anything but conventional. I always thought he liked the company of children because he was trying to recreate a childhood that he never had. Sleepovers, children's games and fairground rides were all part of a craving for normal childhood experiences that he was denied.

Because his life choices are outside what we would consider to be normal for ourselves, we try to rationalise it by thinking something sordid was behind it but for him he was just having innocent fun with other children.
But isn't all that just too perfect an excuse. He couldn't be a child abuser because he didn't have a normal upbringing? And the things he was offering these children were far from the normal childhood experience. Any adult knows that letting kids do what they want, stay up late, eat candy and junk food all the time, play games and have constant amusement isn't right. These are the kinds of things abusers do. They give children all that they want. Spoil them and bribe them.

I am not saying he was an abuser, what I am saying is that people's defence of him is equally as flimsy or strong as any evidence against him.
 

Angela Channing

World Cup of Soaps Moderator
LV
16
 
Messages
13,714
Reaction score
25,430
Awards
42
Member Since
1999
I am not saying he was an abuser, what I am saying is that people's defence of him is equally as flimsy or strong as any evidence against him.
Not according to the US criminal justice system that investigated him thoroughly, put forward their strongest prosecution case against him but still found him not guilty.
 

pete lashmar

Telly Talk Addict
LV
4
 
Messages
1,095
Reaction score
2,463
Awards
6
Location
Portugal
I watched both films yesterday and the Oprah show afterwards. I'm a fan of Jackson's music but the man himself, in my opinion, was always way too odd. That said, he must have been a very mixed up person following a tough childhood mixed with global success.

If I was viewing the documentary as someone who didn't know anything of Wade & Jimmy I would be absolutely convinced - it's 4 full hours of solid emotion, revelations, facts and film footage. It repeatedly tells a story then throws in abuse claims, then cuts to the other's story and does the same.

As someone who did research on Wade & Jimmy before watching the documentary (nothing major, just factual information available online) I can honestly say that as hard as they tried, they didn't convince me of anything - and that's where I have a problem with Leaving Neverland. For anyone watching without any idea who these 2 guys are they are surely going to be convinced they are telling the truth, because the documentary doesn't even question them.

Only 5 years ago Wade was still friendly with the Jackson estate and asked to Choreograph the latest Cirque de Soiel show (ONE), which was a tribute to Jackson. Before that he released a tribute book, showering Jackson with love & affection. It was only when someone else got the Cirque job that he took action to take the estate to court for sex abuse charges. His accounts of when the abuse started have also changed at least 4 times of the past few years.

The documentary also acknowledges lots of other kids that Jackson was hanging out with - "Their replacements", and yet never, throughout the 4 hour film, do they ever mention each other.

At the end of the documentary Wade is seen burning Jackson's thriller jacket, books etc....and the film is happy to let you think these were the genuine items - they were not - the Thriller Jacket was his own replica, not the original that he owned.

Jimmy showed the rings - rings that were given to him by Jackson - a man who allegedly sexually abused him multiple times over a number of years - yet he still held on to them. Now that the film has been screened the price of those rings will have skyrocketed to an unbelievable amount of money...I guarantee they will be sold very very soon. Before the film was shown they may have sold for a good amount - now...people will really want them and he will sell them happily.

I could go on and on and on. Leaving Neverland is a very powerful documentary, but it's also a very dangerous one. Courts cleared Jackson twice and both times Wade helped with that not guilty verdict (Jimmy once), so where does that leave it - it's trial by media and is simply not acceptable.

Add to that the 10 to 15 year investigation by the FBI to find dirt of Jackson (which is never mentioned in the film) and you get to a very different verdict on this documentary.

Wade & Jimmy are both very mixed up people, I really believe it is about the money, they've both done too much money digging things towards the estate for it not to be.

They may not have been paid for this film - but that's the point - they know money will come flooding their way, not least when they start selling off their memorabilia, and Wade started auctioning some of his a few years back and giving further interviews.

If I had been sexually abused over a long period of time I would never even consider holding on to anything that reminded me of my abuser - I wouldn't write a tribute book & I certainly wouldn't want any further connection with the estate and want to direct a huge Vegas Tribute show to the person that abused me - and that is my biggest problem with believing them - the facts just don't add up.
 
Top