Leaving Neverland

[Wizardman]

I don't think a showbiz doco will have as much impact as this one had this year.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Lemon Squash]

Literally made a post about this in the Movies forum about 30mins ago... my thoughts below

Wow... what an eye opener

I always thought the previous accusers were just after Jackson’s money. Obviously always thought he was a complete weirdo but he was always so childlike that I couldn’t actually imagine him being sexual in any sense..

Prior to watching the doco I couldn’t fathom how one of the subjects could be so adamant in the past that he hadn’t been abused and then all of a sudden after his death come out and change his story. However after watching the documentary it helps you understand the mindset these boys were in.

There are still Jackson defenders out there and there always will be,but I have no doubt now that he was an out and out peadophile.

 

[Game_Breaker]

I haven’t seen it yet, but why are people so surprised?
Accusations were always there, he has admired to letting kids sleep in his bed

 

[axl rose]

I haven’t seen it yet, but why are people so surprised?
Accusations were always there, he has admired to letting kids sleep in his bed

This is a bit more detailed, like allegations Jackson attempted anal sex with one of the boys until he bled, then made the kid get rid of his underwear as there was blood all over it. There are creepy phone calls and weird faxes and so it goes on. It only presented one side of the story of course but if they were lying they are superb actors.

 

[Mong]

Literally made a post about this in the Movies forum about 30mins ago... my thoughts below

Wow... what an eye opener

I always thought the previous accusers were just after Jackson’s money. Obviously always thought he was a complete weirdo but he was always so childlike that I couldn’t actually imagine him being sexual in any sense..

Prior to watching the doco I couldn’t fathom how one of the subjects could be so adamant in the past that he hadn’t been abused and then all of a sudden after his death come out and change his story. However after watching the documentary it helps you understand the mindset these boys were in.

There are still Jackson defenders out there and there always will be,but I have no doubt now that he was an out and out peadophile.

I think it’s unwise to form such a definitive conclusion based on what seems to be a one sided story about a person who is not able to defend himself.

There are a number of folk who were around him as children claiming he wasn’t like that at all. Did they get a run on this doco at all?

I don’t know if I will actually watch this at all.

 

[Lemon Squash]

I think it’s unwise to form such a definitive conclusion based on what seems to be a one sided story about a person who is not able to defend himself.

There are a number of folk who were around him as children claiming he wasn’t like that at all. Did they get a run on this doco at all?

I don’t know if I will actually watch this at all.

Dude I was always a supporter as well.

All I can say is if these 2 guys were lying, then they are the best actors that I’ve ever seen..

 

[Mong]

Dude I was always a supporter as well.

All I can say is if these 2 guys were lying, then they are the best actors that I’ve ever seen..

I wouldn’t say I am a supporter. He was a massively weird guy who made music that wasn’t really my thing.

 

[axl rose]

I think it’s unwise to form such a definitive conclusion based on what seems to be a one sided story about a person who is not able to defend himself.

There are a number of folk who were around him as children claiming he wasn’t like that at all. Did they get a run on this doco at all?

No, it does not even attempt to be balanced. Macaulay Culkin is not interviewed who denies ever seeing any of this behavior.

 

[Lemon Squash]

I wouldn’t say I am a supporter. He was a massively weird guy who made music that wasn’t really my thing.

I was no massive fanboy either but hard not to admire his talent as a musician/entertainer... as mentioned though he was such a weird dude with a stack of money I just thought he was an easy target for people to try and take advantage of.

100% the documentary is pretty much only one side of the story. However when you are hearing first hand from two people who were abused directly by MJ its pretty convincing. This on top of the prior accusations against him it sort of all adds up.

 

[bileduct]

Ok, I'm only up to the end of part one, and so far this looks like a total one-sided shitshow in which these two accusers and their families have been given time to tell their stories without any sense of balance whatsoever.

I would encourage anyone that has been convinced by this documentary to look at the history of similar claims against Michael Jackson that were nothing but extortion attempts from grifters who saw an opportunity to make a buck, or former employees who were fired for stealing from him. There's the maid who saw Jackson molesting Macaulay Culkin, which Culkin denies ever happening to this day. There's Jordan Chandler who fled the country in 2005 to avoid testifying against Jackson over accusations that originally surfaced in 1993 and for which Jackson wasn't even indicted over. He'd reportedly told friends that his father had coerced him into lying about Jackson.

This Wade Robson guy was the key witness in Jackson's 2005 defense at age 23 and claimed under cross-examination that Jackson hadn't touched him. I find it very hard to believe that he would have been put on the stand at all if what he is saying today is true. He's also a washed up choreographer who hasn't done shit since 2011, soon after which he started telling a different story and was demanding monetary compensation for damages.

Having a look around social media right now, these two accusers are being called out as liars by others who were in Jackson's orbit at the same time, and their recollection of time frames and events is being strongly challenged.

This looks to me like an attempt to cash in on the #metoo era by a director who has absolutely no interest in presenting a balanced documentary.

 

[bileduct]

100% the documentary is pretty much only one side of the story. However when you are hearing first hand from two people who were abused directly by MJ its pretty convincing. This on top of the prior accusations against him it sort of all adds up.

The court also heard first hand from Wade Robson and the jury found him pretty convincing then too.

 

[myrrh ken]

Ok, I'm only up to the end of part one, and so far this looks like a total one-sided shitshow in which these two accusers and their families have been given time to tell their stories without any sense of balance whatsoever.

I would encourage anyone that has been convinced by this documentary to look at the history of similar claims against Michael Jackson that were nothing but extortion attempts from grifters who saw an opportunity to make a buck, or former employees who were fired for stealing from him. There's the maid who saw Jackson molesting Macaulay Culkin, which Culkin denies ever happening to this day. There's Jordan Chandler who fled the country in 2005 to avoid testifying against Jackson over accusations that originally surfaced in 1993 and for which Jackson wasn't even indicted over. He'd reportedly told friends that his father had coerced him into lying about Jackson.

This Wade Robson guy was the key witness in Jackson's 2005 defense at age 23 and claimed under cross-examination that Jackson hadn't touched him. I find it very hard to believe that he would have been put on the stand at all if what he is saying today is true. He's also a washed up choreographer who hasn't done shit since 2011, soon after which he started telling a different story and was demanding monetary compensation for damages.

Having a look around social media right now, these two accusers are being called out as liars by others who were in Jackson's orbit at the same time, and their recollection of time frames and events is being strongly challenged.

This looks to me like an attempt to cash in on the #metoo era by a director who has absolutely no interest in presenting a balanced documentary.

Still on the fence then?

 

[Lemon Squash]

The court also heard first hand from Wade Robson and the jury found him pretty convincing then too.

Yeh 100% agree... I always remember the interview with him when I believe he was 11-12 years old on camera and he was very convincing then that he hadn't been touched. That was one of the main reasons I always thought he was innocent.

After watching the doco though I can see how brainwashed they all were, they were infatuated with him and it was almost like they were in their own relationships with him... very creepy.

I just found their testimony overwhelming.

Watch the second part and let us know what you think.

 

[bileduct]

Yeh 100% agree... I always remember the interview with him when I believe he was 11-12 years old on camera and he was very convincing then that he hadn't been touched. That was one of the main reasons I always thought he was innocent.

After watching the doco though I can see how brainwashed they all were, they were infatuated with him and it was almost like they were in their own relationships with him... very creepy.

I just found their testimony overwhelming.

Watch the second part and let us know what you think.

Just finished watching the entire four hours and I'm not even slightly convinced that these guys are now telling the truth. When you start leveling accusations against a dead guy after years of saying the exact opposite and there's money involved, you've got a pretty big hill to climb in order to convince me.

The entire "documentary" was four hours of these two guys giving their narrative - as outlined in the 2013 accusations - with precisely zero analysis or rebuttal from not one single person.

 

[bileduct]

Here's an examination of who Wade Robson is, his accusations and civil suits post-2012, and some words from other people in the orbit of Michael Jackson at the time these alleged activities took place.


One thing I couldn't understand from watching the "documentary" was why Robson turned on his mother. The above video paints her as somewhat of a slave driver who pushed him into his career at a young age, that Robson later cracked under the pressure of his first directing role (his dream job) and was later turned down by the Jackson estate for the direction role on the Michael Jackson Cirque du Soleil touring show. I'd say his anger towards his mother was the realisation he was never going to be the successful person he always imagined and he took it out on her and Jackson.

The accusations regarding Michael Jackson are a grift. The guy was shopping around for book deals before publicly announcing his accusations. In order to extract the hundreds of millions of dollars he was seeking his lawyers had to craft inventive claims that Jackson's companies ran a child grooming operation disguised as charitable events - claims which are completely blown out of the water by Robson's own mother and her multiple testimonies over decades, as well as her own aggressive pursuit of Jackson after their initial meeting.

I was a huge Michael Jackson fan as a kid during the Thriller era, but grew out of that pretty quickly and didn't really care about him all that much by the time the Bad era came about. But I'll always remember the way he was mercilessly targeted by tabloid trash media who paid all sorts of grifters to make up all kinds of shit about him. Now we're in the #metoo era where people have been perfectly conditioned to believe any of this tabloid trash and it's truly saddening to see his music getting pulled and people dissociate from him on the basis of the testimony from grifters like Wade Robson and this one absolutely appalling "documentary."

 

[Eelementary]

I have always been a fan of the man as an entertainer - greatest of all time, imo, and greatest there ever will be.

I have read up extensively on Jackson and his issues, because he seemed like such a troubled soul (and yet was happy to donate his money and time to help those less fortunate than himself).

I firmly believe that sexual assault is one of the most heinous crimes that can be committed - even more so when it is leveled at underage people.

However, I remain unconvinced that the allegations are true.

There are a lot of inconsistencies here - for one thing, how come the FBI never found anything to charge him with, despite watching him like a hawk for over 12 months (including tapping his phones)?

Why have these people suddenly flipped their stories?

Why have they come out now, that he cannot defend himself?

Imo, Jackson was a man who turned out how he did due to the horrible way his father, Joe, brought the family up.

Ok, so the other Jackson kids turned out relatively fine - but it was always clear to see that the true star of the show was Michael, and extra attention was lavished on him by Joe.

I don't know...we will never know the truth, but it doesn't all add up, imo.

 

[bileduct]

I think it's the fact that Michael Jackson was the biggest, richest star on the planet and it opened him up as a target to all sorts of grifters who had found themselves in financial peril or just wanted to make a quick buck. He was surrounded and constantly pursued by people who want to use him to enrich themselves, either directly or by selling stories to tabloids who were paying huge sums of money.

Settling the 1993 Jordan Chandler civil suit made him an even bigger target to grifters. My understanding is that he was pressured into doing it by his legal advisers at the time for a number of reasons. It allowed him to keep his defense strategy for the possible criminal trial a secret from prosecutors and also allowed him to continue on the Dangerous tour. The $25 million paid out was nothing to him (and I think his insurance company paid it anyway), but his image took a hit because people are always going to assume that he wouldn't have paid it out if he wasn't guilty.

Also, no matter what excuse Michael has or how innocent his behavior was, some people are always going to suspect the worst when they hear about him sleeping in the same bed as kids, and that's leverage for dirty lawyers and people looking for a quick payout.

Wade Robson seems to be the ringleader in these latest allegations, and I think James Safechuck is along for the ride. Robson's career completely crumbled and he found he couldn't handle the pressure of working his dream job. He burned a lot of bridges and the work dried up, his marriage was on the rocks, and this was his ticket out. But his book deal fell through and his civil suits were thrown out of court.

Along comes the ten year anniversary of Michael's death, a shoddy, manipulative filmmaker sees an opportunity to make a name for himself, waves some cash in Robson's face, and here we are.

 

[Eelementary]

From what I've read, Tom Messereau, Jackson's defense attorney, had told him he was going to be able to successfully defend him - but Jackson insisted on settling out of court, because of the strain it was putting on him emotionally, as well as physically.

Messereau did as he was told, but to this day, insists that the evidence backed up Jackson's innocence.

 

[Springs09]

I have seen a lot of people claim that if these two are lying then they are the best actors/liars to have ever lived.

Even though if Wade Robson is telling the truth now it means he was lying for 20 years including in court and numerous live TV appearances.

 

[bileduct]

From what I've read, Tom Messereau, Jackson's defense attorney, had told him he was going to be able to successfully defend him - but Jackson insisted on settling out of court, because of the strain it was putting on him emotionally, as well as physically.

Messereau did as he was told, but to this day, insists that the evidence backed up Jackson's innocence.

Here's the relevant section from Michael Jackson's wikipedia article, all referenced. It's also worth noting that Chandler had been granted the right to a speedy trial which would have seen Jackson in court over the civil case before the criminal investigation concluded. The Chandler family took the cash and the criminal trial never eventuated because there was no evidence to corroborate Chandler's allegations.

Settlement

While Jackson sought medical help for his faltering health, his legal team and friends, such as Presley and Taylor, took control of his defense and finances.[42] Jackson's legal team would meet three times a week at Taylor's home to discuss the case.[42] Eventually, Presley, Taylor, and Jackson's team agreed that Jackson was too sick to endure a lengthy trial, and that he should settle out of court.[45]

The lawsuit was settled on January 25, 1994,[82] with $15,331,250 to be held in a trust fund for Jordan,[83] $1.5 million for each of his parents, and $5 million for the family's lawyer, for a total of approximately $23 million.[84] Another source showed Feldman was to receive $3 million based on a September 1993 retainer, for a total of $21 million.[85] According to a motion passed to Judge Melville in 2004, it was Chandler who initiated the settlement with Jackson's insurer.[86]

Jackson's insurance company "negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel" and was "the source of the settlement amounts", as noted in a 2005 memorandum in People v. Jackson.[87] The memorandum also noted that "an insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance where it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements", as established by a number of precedents in California.[87] Defeating the right would involve convincing a court with the power to overrule the precedent that the earlier decision was either wrongly decided or more often, "clearly" wrong (depending on the criteria of the court)[88] or the court must be convinced to distinguish the case.[89] That is, to make the ruling narrower than that in the precedent due to some difference in facts between the current and precedent case while supporting the result reached in the earlier case.[89]

In 2004, Jackson's attorney Thomas Mesereau said: "People who intended to earn millions of dollars from [Jackson's] record and music promotions did not want negative publicity from these lawsuits interfering with their profits. Michael Jackson now regrets making these payments. These settlements were entered into with one primary condition – that condition was that Mr. Jackson never admitted any wrongdoing. Mr. Jackson always denied doing anything wrong ... Mr. Jackson now realizes the advice he received was wrong."[90] Jackson explained why he had settled: "I wanted to go on with my life. Too many people had already been hurt. I want to make records. I want to sing. I want to perform again ... It's my talent. My hard work. My life. My decision."[69] He also wanted to avoid a "media circus".[91]

Although some perceived the settlement as an admission of guilt, the settlement agreement specifically stated that Jackson admitted no wrongdoing and no liability.[84][92] Legally, a settlement cannot be used as evidence of guilt in future civil and criminal cases.[93] The settlement payment was "for alleged personal injuries arising out of claims of negligence and not for claims of intentional or wrong acts of sexual molestation."[85][94] In the settlement, both parties agreed they would not speak about the case details in public but it did not prevent the Chandlers from testifying in a criminal trial or sharing information with authorities in a criminal investigation.[95] The settlement document states there is no admission of wrongdoing on Jackson's part and no admission of molestation or immodesty[95] and that under no circumstances shall any payment be withheld from the complainants, even if they were to testify against Jackson.[95]

The Chandlers' lawyer, Larry Feldman, said that "nobody bought anybody's silence".[96] Bribery to not testify in a trial is a felony according to California Penal Code 138.[97] Receiving such a bribe is also a felony according to this law.[97]