Leaving Neverland new documentary on Michael Jackson

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.forbes.com/sites/joevogel/2019/01/29/what-you-should-know-about-the-new-michael-jackson-documentary/

As someone who has done an enormous amount of research on the artist, interviewed many people who were close to him, and been granted access to a lot of private information, my assessment is that the evidence simply does not point to Michael Jackson’s guilt. In contrast to Robson and Safechuck’s revised accounts, there is a remarkable consistency to the way people who knew the artist speak of him—whether friends, family members, collaborators, fellow artists, recording engineers, attorneys, business associates, security guards, former spouses, his own children—people who knew him in every capacity imaginable. Michael, they say, was gentle, brilliant, sensitive, sometimes naive, sometimes childish, sometimes oblivious to perceptions. But none believe he was a child molester.

You know who else everyone had great things to say about and who nobody initially believed was guilty? Larry Nassar. Jerry Sandusky.

[Anonymous]

As someone who was sexually abused by a beloved teacher in our community—an award-winning, extremely popular teacher—this documentary rang true for me. The grooming process bonds the victim, and sometimes the family, to the abuser. It feels so good to be the subject of the abuser’s attention. It can take years of therapy to realize it was abuse.
I don’t understand how these parents could have looked the other way, but my parents did, too. My parents were enthralled by my teacher and trusted him way too much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else just finish watching part 1? I feel sick.

Me too. I've loved Michael Jackson forever. I had a crush on him since 1970, bought "Off the Wall" the first day it was out, saw the Victory Tour. I wanted to believe that the outcome of the criminal trial was the end of it and got to the truth. I distrusted the prosecutor who's motives were suspect. But now, I can't deny it anymore. Michael Jackson was a monster.

A finding of "not guilty" does not = innocence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.forbes.com/sites/joevogel/2019/01/29/what-you-should-know-about-the-new-michael-jackson-documentary/

As someone who has done an enormous amount of research on the artist, interviewed many people who were close to him, and been granted access to a lot of private information, my assessment is that the evidence simply does not point to Michael Jackson’s guilt. In contrast to Robson and Safechuck’s revised accounts, there is a remarkable consistency to the way people who knew the artist speak of him—whether friends, family members, collaborators, fellow artists, recording engineers, attorneys, business associates, security guards, former spouses, his own children—people who knew him in every capacity imaginable. Michael, they say, was gentle, brilliant, sensitive, sometimes naive, sometimes childish, sometimes oblivious to perceptions. But none believe he was a child molester.

You know who else everyone had great things to say about and who nobody initially believed was guilty? Larry Nassar. Jerry Sandusky.

And he was not interested in molesting his friends, family, or his own children.

[Anonymous]

How can so many posters here find these men credible when for years they denied abuse and one even testified for the defense at the MJ trial, under oath.

These men are in show business and have been for years. I do not find them credible. They provided zero solid evidence that would point to Jackson’s guilt.

Still not convinced. Too many show is types still trying to cash in on money or fame. What was the point of them telling these stories now? What good could possibly come ou or it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can so many posters here find these men credible when for years they denied abuse and one even testified for the defense at the MJ trial, under oath.

These men are in show business and have been for years. I do not find them credible. They provided zero solid evidence that would point to Jackson’s guilt.

Still not convinced. Too many show is types still trying to cash in on money or fame. What was the point of them telling these stories now? What good could possibly come ou or it?

I agree.

The only reason I am inclined to not believe this documentary is because these men have very shady pasts and do not pass the basic tests for being reliable narrators. I have no idea how people can be so gullible as to throw basic context out of the window and believe disgusting stories that don't pass basic common sense tests.

Wade Robson has been trying to get money from the Jackson estate since Michael died. In this age of believing accusers people are failing to use common sense.

Also I watched the documentary. There was 0 new evidence provided. It is a one sided, clearly biased narration by two individuals telling gross stories. Its not evidence enough to convince me. Let the sheeples eat their cake.

[Anonymous]

Well, it is up to those who claim he did to prove it. You know, the burden of proof is on those who make an allegation. Fact is, there are many accounts of these sleepovers which put them in a different light than how the media portrays them.

From Frank Cascio's book:

"In Bashir’s interview, Michael was shown holding Gavin’s hand and telling the world that kids slept in his bed. Anyone who knew Michael would recognize the honesty and innocent candor of what he was trying to communicate. But Bashir was determined to cast it in a different light.

What Michael didn’t bother to explain, and what Bashir didn’t care to ask about, was that Michael’s suite at Neverland, as I’ve said before, was a gathering place, with a family room downstairs and a bedroom upstairs. Michael didn’t explain that people hung out there, and sometimes they wanted to stay over. He didn’t explain that he always offered guests his bed, and for the most part slept on the floor in the family room below. But, perhaps more important, he didn’t explain that the guest were always close friends like us Cascios and his extended family.

One of the biggest misconceptions about Michael, a story that plagued him for years following the Bashir documentary, was that he had an assortment of children sleeping in his room at any given time. The truth was that random children never came to Neverland and stayed in Michael’s room. Just as my brother Eddie and I had done when we were younger, the family and friends who did stay with Michael, did so of their own volition. Michael just allowed it to happen because his friends and family liked to be around him.

What Michael said on Bashir’s video is true. “You can have my bed if you want. Sleep in it. I’ll sleep on the floor. It’s your’s. Always give the best to the company, you know.” Michael had no hesitation about telling the truth because he had nothing to hide. He knew in his heart and mind that his actions were sincere, his motives pure, and his conscience, clear. Michael innocently and honestly said, “Yes, I share my bed, there is nothing wrong with it.” The fact of the matter is, when he was “sharing” his bed, it meant he was offering his bed to whoever wanted to sleep in it. There may have been times when we slept up there as well, but he was usually on the floor next to his bed, or downstairs sleeping on the floor. Although Bashir, for obvious reasons, kept harping on the bed, if you watch the full, uncut interview, it’s impossible not to understand what Michael was trying to make clear: when he said he shared his bed, he meant he shared his life with the people he saw as family.

Now, I know that most grown men don’t share their private quarters with children, and those who do so are almost always up to no good. But that wasn’t my experience with Michael. As one of those kids who, along with his brother, had any number of such sleepovers with Michael, I know better than anyone else what did happen and what didn’t happen. Was it normal to have children sleep over? No. But it’s also not considered especially normal for a grown man to play with Silly String or have water balloon fights, at least not with the enthusiasm Michael brought to the activities. It’s also not normal for a grown man to have an amusement park installed in his backyard. Do these things make such a man a pedophile?

I’m quite sure that the answer is no.

The bottom line: Michael’s interest in young boys had absolutely nothing to do with sex. I say this with the unassailable confidence of firsthand experience, the confidence of a young boy who slept in the same room as Michael hundreds of times, and with the absolute conviction of a man who saw Michael interact with thousands of kids. In all the years that I was close to him, I saw nothing that raised any red flags, not as a child and not as an adult. Michael may have been eccentric, but that didn’t make him a criminal.

The problem, though, was that this point of view wasn’t represented in the documentary. Listening to Michael talk, people who didn’t know him were disturbed by what he was saying, not only because his words were taken out of context but also because Bashir, the narrator, was telling them they SHOULD BE disturbed. The journalist repeatedly suggested that Michael’s statements made him very uncomfortable. Michael was quirky enough without the machinations of a mercenary newshound, to be sure, but there’s no doubt that Bashir manipulated viewers for his own ends. His questions were leading, the editing misguided. As I watched the broadcast, it seemed to me that Bashir’s plan all along had been to expose Michael in whatever way he could in order to win the highest ratings he could for his show.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhgJVmW4OIU

[Anonymous]

He says nothing happened here.

[Anonymous]

and again.

[Anonymous]

I’m a retired federal agent who arrested many pedophiles. I have zero doubt that MJ was a child predator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a retired federal agent who arrested many pedophiles. I have zero doubt that MJ was a child predator.

why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MJ is innocent. He was proven so. There is 0 evidence of child abuse. He was just a man-child.

What the hell is a "man-child"? I hate when people say that.

THAT IS NOT A THING.

[Anonymous]

Ok forget the sexual abuse - what kind of a man gets between parents and children? What kind of a man cries to a child and makes him feel bad for leaving him alone? What kind of a man makes a child feel responsible for the happiness of an adult? An abusive and manipulative man that’s who!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a retired federal agent who arrested many pedophiles. I have zero doubt that MJ was a child predator.

why?

He possesses all the classic traits of a child abuser (watch the documentary Abducted in Plain Sight). Very similar M.O. (slowly grooming the entire family, separating the kid from the parents, showering the kid with gifts, positive feedback and “love,” and then eventually sexual abuse. There was nothing normal about MJ. There are tons of other child stars who had lost childhoods. You didn’t see them parading around with young children, building a “Neverland,” and telling all these young same-sexed children how much they loved them (followed my many of them alledging sexual abuse, including one receiving a $25mm settlement). The few potential victims that claimed they weren’t abused by MJ turned out to be train wrecks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.forbes.com/sites/joevogel/2019/01/29/what-you-should-know-about-the-new-michael-jackson-documentary/

As someone who has done an enormous amount of research on the artist, interviewed many people who were close to him, and been granted access to a lot of private information, my assessment is that the evidence simply does not point to Michael Jackson’s guilt. In contrast to Robson and Safechuck’s revised accounts, there is a remarkable consistency to the way people who knew the artist speak of him—whether friends, family members, collaborators, fellow artists, recording engineers, attorneys, business associates, security guards, former spouses, his own children—people who knew him in every capacity imaginable. Michael, they say, was gentle, brilliant, sensitive, sometimes naive, sometimes childish, sometimes oblivious to perceptions. But none believe he was a child molester.

This means nothing.

Most people don’t realize their loved ones are molestors. Would you know if your brother was? Your father? Your neighbor? Your best friend?

It’s a secret, which by definition means people don’t know.