|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 22:25:11 GMT
They’re true, Daniel. There’s no way they are faking that level of damage. I'm not denying they are true or false, I'm trying to keep a middle ground because most, if not, all people on this thread are saying it is completely true, when these are still just two people saying they are true but there are tonnes of people on both sides of the spectrum who knew Michael. We will never know if they are true or not because there is no way to know if they are true or not. It was decades ago when these allegedly happened, and Michael is dead now so he cannot answer for his actions, malicious or not. And in fairness, how do we know these guys aren't just acting and doing a damn good job of it? Wade did a real good job in that court room when he said nothing happened and Michael got "not guilty". It's only fair to balance it rather than just immediately jump to one side than the other, especially as we will never know what is true or not. I have strong feelings on both sides of the arguement, so I fall into the middle of "I don't know what happened, so I don't want to say either way".
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 10, 2019 22:46:45 GMT
If you take the line that they are acting, then you have to be saying that their entire families are acting as well.
And I do not see anything in their words to camera that gives any sense of them acting or playing a part.
We have no way of obtaining physical evidence in these cases. Which is the situation with many cases of abuse.
But we have compelling testimony, we have patterns of inappropriate behaviour. We have very clear evidence of psychological and emotional damage.
Will this ever be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court? Almost certainly not. But even on the lower test of the balance of probabilities, I would find no problem in ruling in favour of the complainants. They are not actors, they are men who were damaged in childhood and who are now coming to terms with what that means for them, their families and their relationships.
It is such a sad case - but I have no problem in condemning the perpetrator of this abuse - just as I have no problem in condemning Jimmy Savile. Being dead does not mean we cannot draw conclusions about the behaviour of people who used their power, influence and money to allow them to commit abuse.
|
|
4,048 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Mar 10, 2019 22:50:00 GMT
Their lives and families have been utterly torn apart. Acting? No-one that good at acting would be wasting their talent making accusations that cause a huge amount of pain to their own families and gets them abuse and death threats. There is simply no upside to this situation for them. They’re not getting any money out of it.
It’s utterly ridiculous to believe that.
It doesn’t matter that Michael Jackson is dead and beyond the reach of justice. It’s not about him, specifically. It’s about the process of grooming, the effect on the victims and their families of that process, and spreading a better understanding of what that looks like so children can be protected from it - so that parents don’t make the same mistakes again.
And for Wade, it’s clearly about attempting to right the wrong of his perjury, for his own conscience’s sake. I think he is a bit further along in the healing process in part because he has proof - in the form of James - that doing it *has* helped, it has made a difference to someone else to tell the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 22:55:25 GMT
I completely respect that, and I want to 100% believe these two men, and I do believe aspects of their stories wholeheartedly, but there are many questions I still have, so I'm not going to say whether everything that is alleged is true because I don't and thats OK.
I found James to actually be throughly compelling and believable, whereas I struggle with Wade because of his performance at the court case and now. I get his arguement of being scared or not wanting to mention it etc, but he lied under oath and we all, including those in the court room, believed whst he was saying. So if we were convinced then, remembering that after he was smiling and laughing outside of the court, how do we know he isn't doing the same now?
I don't want to not believe these men, and I'm not defending the actions of Michael if true, but there are points that should be brought up to make it fair.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 10, 2019 23:12:54 GMT
...so that parents don’t make the same mistakes again. You mean being blinded by the world's biggest star who has his own fantasy land, who feels like a kid, and the whole rambam? This situation was so specific and rare that I really don't think that's the reason. I agree that this is probably not the right place for them and their families to process this. Why not have talks with your family privately about what happened and maybe talk to a professional. Why make a movie? Why put your whole family in a negative public light? All this is very personal and it could very well be possible that other kids, like Macaulay Culkin experienced the same things, but just aren't traumatized by it at all. About the grooming, this happens in every day relationships too, it is just the age difference that makes it weird, but Michael was mentally no older than 11. He should have known better, but he didn't. He was damaged himself. Macaulay and other kids (who were deliberately excluded from this documentary) described it as a typical friendship between boys of the same age. Things probably happened with these men, but looking at them, and especially 1 of them, this public victimization is doing more harm than good for him on a personal level. Making and selling a whole documentary movie is not just an act of nobleness. It is also a business. And these people have shown multiple times in the past how fortune drives their choices and standpoints.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 10, 2019 23:32:49 GMT
A 4 hour documentary is never going to be a huge cash cow....
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 10, 2019 23:37:27 GMT
It seems to be quite in demand at the moment.
In 2005 the money for their testimonies came from Michael, but that's not an option anymore.
Just saying there's a big grey area here....
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 10, 2019 23:43:18 GMT
Even so, it still not be a huge source of income for the producers. They won't lose out - but this is more of a calling card/prestige project - plus telling an important story.
I don't want their testimony to be clouded by accusations of only being in it for the money.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 10, 2019 23:45:51 GMT
I don't want their testimony to be clouded by accusations of only being in it for the money. It's not about what we want, it's about facts. Their previous testimonies as adult men seemed to be influenced by money and notoriety. And now, stating the complete opposite when he's dead also brings in money and notoriety. Both situations were a choice. They could have chosen to speak the truth in 2005 (which is better for personal processing) and they could have chosen to speak with their families and professionals now (which also seems better for personal processing), but they didn't in both cases and chose the money and notoriety route both times (and the actual case is also about that, so actually 3 times). Many people are looking for "prestige" indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 23:53:09 GMT
Even so, it still not be a huge source of income for the producers. They won't lose out - but this is more of a calling card/prestige project - plus telling an important story. I don't want their testimony to be clouded by accusations of only being in it for the money. I wouldn't want that either, but it was always going to be a documentary that would divide people and cause an uproar with passionate debate on both sides. I was at a family dinner last night and we got discussing it and it was pretty much split down the middle as to who believed the men, who didn't. My Nan was the only one who didn't have a clue what was going on. The men and the filmmakers knew that going in, they know what they're up against. This documentary was always going to be taken by alot of people as a serious testimony, and also, for alot of people, more stories about Michael Jackson that we were used to hearing when he was alive that were found not guilty. So it makes sense why people question them and the men are aware of that.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 11, 2019 0:18:36 GMT
making accusations that cause a huge amount of pain to their own families and gets them abuse and death threats. There is simply no upside to this situation for them. People seeking media attention are not always able to estimate the negative consequences. We have had a recent case with a certain "Empire" actor that showed that. A personal experience is one thing, but deliberately seeking the media is another. It's only afterwards that they often realize handling things a bit more privately would have been better. Especially if it's all about your personal trauma processing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 0:20:54 GMT
Innocent until proven guilty I say.
My personal opinion is that abuse in any form is horrid, but that doesn’t mean we can believe claims simply because they are made. We live in a time where it is not acceptable to question the validity of abuse claims and for all sorts of reasons that is not something I can support. It becomes very dangerous territory - ask Cliff Richard, for example.
It’s not the same, but look at Jussie Smollett - supposedly faked racist and homophobic attacks (on himself) in an attempt to increase his own salary. If we had said 3 months ago he arranged it all himself we’d be accused of defending racism, homophobia and victim shaming, when in fact there very well may be no truth to it whatsoever.
To say that there is no financial incentive to this documentary is incorrect though. There is a pending appeal against a decision allowing the accusers to sue the estate for damages. As it stands, I believe they are using trial by media in order to improve their chances - apparently $1.5B is on the line.
|
|
343 posts
|
Post by johartuk on Mar 11, 2019 1:15:52 GMT
I found this documentary on the tubular website. It's from 2005 (in the run up to the Gavin Arvizo trial), and has Martin Bashir revisiting some parts of the Living With Michael Jackson documentary, and discussing some of the boys MJ 'befriended'. What's interesting is that there are audio clips of Jordan Chandler (from when his allegations were made), and what he's saying sounds familiar.
|
|
4,048 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Mar 11, 2019 9:09:00 GMT
...so that parents don’t make the same mistakes again. You mean being blinded by the world's biggest star who has his own fantasy land, who feels like a kid, and the whole rambam?. You didn’t watch the Oprah episode. She had a whole audience full of sexual abuse survivors. The point being: abusers are always someone you know, someone you love and respect, someone you admire. Whether it’s the school teacher to the neighbourhood police officer or a charity fundraiser or the local priest, it’s a person is a position of authority and esteem who exploits their position to get access to children. You don’t have to be Michael Jackson or Jimmy Saville to do that. They’re just the most out-sized examples of the process.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 9:17:15 GMT
Abusers often ingratiate themselves with the families as well as the person they are abusing, it's a feeling of 'safety', "you know me, they'll be safe with me" etc.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 9:23:49 GMT
Abusers often ingratiate themselves with the families as well as the person they are abusing, it's a feeling of 'safety', "you know me, they'll be safe with me" etc. Exactly this. And that's also why I take issue with the attitude of blaming the parents/saying things like 'I would never...' because you simply don't know. Those parents if asked would have said 'I would never let my child get abused' (obviously) but abusers are clever, and manipulative, they twist the way you think so that 'I would never' becomes the new normal. And that happens with 'normal' people...add to that the power and influence of someone like MJ (which DOES very much play into this) then you have almost a blank canvass of how people can be influenced.
|
|
542 posts
|
Post by jek on Mar 11, 2019 9:37:39 GMT
I remember when growing up in a Roman Catholic parish (in the '60s and '70s) being very jealous of my male contemporaries who got to be altar boys and received all sorts of 'treats' as a result - Easter eggs, trips away, spaghetti meals in the presbytery. Meanwhile we girls only got to do 'church cleaning' for which there were no such 'benefits'. When decades later the prosecutions came I could only think of how much of a trusted figure 'Father' had been and how none of my parents' friends (the mums and dads of these boys) would have ever questioned their authority or good intentions.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 9:46:18 GMT
At the end of the day, a predator is a predator, and smarter people than any of us here have fallen foul of them. Do you know how heartbreaking it is watching someone you love blame themselves for the stuff that a manipulative POS did to them? You're not dumb just because someone has successfully groomed you, and that goes for the parents as well as the victims. One really positive thing about all the recent high profile discussion of abuse cases is that people are now SO much better equipped to be on the look-out for warning signs and red flags in a way they may not have been historically, but ultimately the absolute responsibility comes down to the abusers themselves. I'm sure there are loads of things that people do that can make it easier for an abuser to abuse, but it's only the abuser who makes the choice to commit abuse.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 11, 2019 10:30:40 GMT
But I still think this should be about processing personal trauma, and not about making movies and money, because this is a business. And yet, they deliberately chose the money and notoriety route all 3 times when they had the choice.
And I also agree with Kevin that jumping to conclusions after any claim is dangerous. We have seen what can happen multiple times now. Even I was accused of "victim shaming" online in the Jussie Smollett case when I said that maybe we should wait for more information or a trial first, because anything is possible.
This Jackson case is a he says/he says situation. I'm not sure who is able to sue who at this moment, but there is indeed a big sum of money on the line.
|
|
18,917 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 11, 2019 11:21:23 GMT
I don’t think there’s money on the line in terms of MJ’s estate. A judge has already ruled that Robson and Safechuck’s claim against the estate has time expired. In the Oprah interview it’s said that neither of them or their families received payment for appearing in the documentary. Im sure they’ll be getting appearance fees etc but can’t see it being megabucks. There’s no more story to tell because they’ve told it all. So where’s the big sum of money coming from?
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 11, 2019 11:47:54 GMT
To say that there is no financial incentive to this documentary is incorrect though. There is a pending appeal against a decision allowing the accusers to sue the estate for damages. As it stands, I believe they are using trial by media in order to improve their chances - apparently $1.5B is on the line. But also this documentary movie is extremely popular. It's a business in itself that brings in millions. ‘Leaving Neverland’ Premiere Is HBO’s Third Most-Watched Doc in a Decade". ‘Leaving Neverland’ Draws 2 Million Viewers in U.K. This is not a small deal, financially.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 12:24:30 GMT
How people process trauma is entirely up to the individual and I don't think we should criticise James and Wade for dealing with that in the way that they have. We may not agree with their route but that doesn't mean that they should do it behind closed doors and not in public if they believe that this is the right route for them to get some sort of peace of mind. It's difficult to hear for everyone but it's nothing compared to actual abuse itself. We don't know the details of the deal for their appearance in the documentary so we can't assume that just because the documentary is "popular" that they are making anywhere near large amounts of money for it. However, I personally choose to believe them (although I appreciate that others may not or wish to wait for "hard evidence") because of that I hope that they are making lots of money. Nothing will make what they've gone through go away, not even millions of dollars, they have to live with it for the rest of their lives and I believe that they are clearly damaged because of it forever so if they get a few million dollars for appearing in this documentary then good for them. And while I would expect them to continue to defend him of course, forshame to the Jackson family for continuing to peddle this tale that he was some sort of childlike innocent who wouldn't have hurt a fly and only had goodness in his heart. Good people often do bad things.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 11, 2019 12:47:33 GMT
if they believe that this is the right route for them to get some sort of peace of mind. It's difficult to hear for everyone but it's nothing compared to actual abuse itself. I believe that they are clearly damaged because of it forever so if they get a few million dollars for appearing in this documentary then good for them. The difficult thing here is that they have shown that money and notoriety are above peace of mind to them in all past situations. They received a few million dollars already, in 2005, when they stated the complete opposite.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Mar 11, 2019 12:51:53 GMT
Jackson may be dead but putting other people under oath may be a way to try and get to the truth. There is a chance that other family members/employees played a part in covering up any alleged abuse, which, in itself, would be a crime. It can (and should) be only be settled in the courts.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 12:55:37 GMT
if they believe that this is the right route for them to get some sort of peace of mind. It's difficult to hear for everyone but it's nothing compared to actual abuse itself. I believe that they are clearly damaged because of it forever so if they get a few million dollars for appearing in this documentary then good for them. The difficult thing here is that they have shown that money and notoriety are above peace of mind to them in all past situations.I'm afraid I don't think they have shown that at all.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 11, 2019 13:00:06 GMT
I don't want their testimony to be clouded by accusations of only being in it for the money. It's not about what we want, it's about facts. Their previous testimonies as adult men seemed to be influenced by money and notoriety. And now, stating the complete opposite when he's dead also brings in money and notoriety. Both situations were a choice. They could have chosen to speak the truth in 2005 (which is better for personal processing) and they could have chosen to speak with their families and professionals now (which also seems better for personal processing), but they didn't in both cases and chose the money and notoriety route both times (and the actual case is also about that, so actually 3 times). Many people are looking for "prestige" indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 13:08:50 GMT
Their previous testimonies as adult men seemed to be influenced by money and notoriety. And now, stating the complete opposite when he's dead also brings in money and notoriety. Their previous testimonies were influenced by standing up for and protecting their abuser when they were in their 20s. The testimonies now are influenced by the truth now that they are older and starting to properly process what happened to them. You do make it sound like they could have quite easily chosen to say that Michael Jackson abused them at the time like it's obvious and that for some machiavellian purpose, they chose specifically not to do so but they went through years of grooming and abuse at the hands of this man when they were just children and that is going to take a long time to process (indeed for some people they never do). That "choice" to stand up against MJ in 2005 might not actually have been a choice at all, they clearly hadn't processed it or dealt with it as abuse at that time, they thought he loved them. The issue is not simply black and white (pardon the pun).
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 11, 2019 14:26:40 GMT
Their previous testimonies were influenced by standing up for and protecting their abuser when they were in their 20s. The testimonies now are influenced by the truth now that they are older and starting to properly process what happened to them. They received millions for their previous testimionies back then. How can you be certain that that did not influence them at all at the time? They have explained themselves that fame and fortune has been a primary factor for them. It could very well be that they continued to receive money for as long as he was alive. Now, Michael is dead, and they claim the exact opposite of what they claimed back then, and this also happens to bring in money and notoriety. How can you be certain that that doesn't influence them at all? This is not about the debate if it happened or not, I actually believe things happened and that people like Macaulay Culkin just choose to handle it more privately. But they were adults in both cases and they just happen to choose the road of money and notoriety all the time. It's just something I notice. I'm also not saying that is per definition the only case, but the other side is also not per definition the only case. So I definitely agree that it's not just black or white.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 11, 2019 14:31:11 GMT
I understand this very well and this is actually more likely to happen if parents are longing for fame and fortune and are therefore blind for danger, misplaced trust, and don't see things as clearly, or are too impressed with the glitter that they don't see the truth anymore, or put that higher than the well being of their kids, etc. This is also not judgement, but something I notice. And looking at a bigger picture, it does create a clearer image of the possible intentions of the family, about what interests them and what drives their actions. Making and releasing a movie is a real business, especially on this scale.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 14:43:32 GMT
Their previous testimonies were influenced by standing up for and protecting their abuser when they were in their 20s. The testimonies now are influenced by the truth now that they are older and starting to properly process what happened to them. They received millions for their previous testimionies back then. How can you be certain that that did not influence them at all at the time? They have explained themselves that fame and fortune has been a primary factor for them. It could very well be that they continued to receive money for as long as he was alive. Now, Michael is dead, and they claim the exact opposite of what they claimed back then, and this also happens to bring in money and notoriety. How can you be certain that that doesn't influence them at all? This is not about the debate if it happened or not, I actually believe things happened and that people like Macaulay Culkin just choose to handle it more privately. But they were adults in both cases and they just happen to choose the road of money and notoriety all the time. It's just something I notice. I'm also not saying that is per definition the only case, but the other side is also not per definition the only case. I do see what you're saying but I can't say that I agree with you. You do seem to be suggesting that this is all motivated by money and fame and I just can't agree with you here. I think they have both talked about why their stories changed between then and now and I am satisfied by that explanation. I think it is the easiest and laziest response used by the MJ supporters to say that this means that their allegations now are lies but I don't think it does. If anyone is motivated by money in this whole sorry tale I think it is the Jacksons themselves and I think their shameful peddling of this narrative of MJ as the innocent angel will come back to haunt each and every one of them for the rest of their days in the same way that MJ's actions will haunt Wade and James for the rest of theirs. However, I'll repeat what I said earlier, if he did what they say he did to them then I hope they get as much money as they can get. It's the least they deserve. I genuinely believe that the most they deserve is our respect and our admiration for speaking out (despite the death threats they receive on a daily basis) and our wishes that they get to the end of what I hope will be long lives with a small shred of peace of mind.
|
|