The Fairy King 26.02.2019 14:35 |
As one of the world’s most celebrated icons, Michael Jackson represents many things to many people—a pop star, a humanitarian, a beloved idol. When allegations of sexual abuse by Jackson involving young boys surfaced in 1993, many found it hard to believe that the King of Pop could be guilty of such unspeakable acts. In separate but parallel stories that echo one another, two boys were each befriended by Jackson, who invited them into his singular and wondrous world. Seduced by the singer’s fairy-tale existence and enthralled by their relationship with him, both boys' families were blind to the manipulation and abuse that he would ultimately subject them to. Through gut-wrenching interviews with the now-adult men and their families, Leaving Neverland crafts a portrait of sustained exploitation and deception, documenting the power of celebrity that allowed a revered figure to infiltrate the lives of starstruck children and their parents. |
Galileo1564 27.02.2019 04:08 |
Wow. Thank you for posting. I’m old enough to remember MJ’s hits with the J5. |
matt z 28.02.2019 01:59 |
This is old news. Credibility is lacking here but MJJ was a weird one. Short version: Party 1: Wade Robeson testified crucial info FOR THE DEFENSE under oath FOR Michael in 03. The accusers then were extremely full of shit and the mother was a hustler. Even mj hater Jay Lenos testimony painted a picture of a woman who coached her kids on what to say. Fraudulent stories etc previous scams. As such. WADE is now lying which means he'd perjured himself in 03. Robeson is embittered and broke and feels that MJJ estate should've given him the work on the MJJ ONE and Cirque du soleil stuff. Instead it went to another choreographer. Now he needs money. Any involvement here would TYPICALLY be met with an insurance payout to keep them from burdening an image while mj was alive. Conveniently "remembered" when dismissed from MJJ ESTATE projects. Although he claims he was not paid for one sided "doc" (which offers no refuting matters) he's after an estate payout or subsequent book deals after harming estate Changes story, sues Party 2: wade Robeson was repeatedly groomed and molested and only remembered recently because he had children. Sues estate "only because can't bring charges on dead man"/statute of limitations Mj ruined his life. Although he defended him in court. Second bit : supposedly story taken from book alleging crimes by Jackson. Mj sued the guy in the 90's and won multi-million dollar settlement. Guy never paid. Now Safechuck is uSing same story from book in order to get a big pay day. OR: Once again. Mjj groomed him and parents with gifts and serially molested boy for a decade. And we're only hearing about both in these last 10 years when m Michael died and perhaps stopped assisting their lives Me? I think they're fraudulent claims but mjj put enough smoke for fire around himself with questionable behavior. You decide for yourself. However i don't believe it's even handed so it shouldn't be called a documentary |
Galileo1564 28.02.2019 03:28 |
Thanks for your thoughts Matt. This is what I was wondering last night. There’s so much money involved, we’ll never get at the truth. I really don’t need to get emotionally involved in this so I won’t watch it. One has to wonder what troubled MJ so much that he needed propofol to sleep. |
matt z 28.02.2019 07:59 |
I have not seen the damn thing but will watch it like any person attentive to the stories that circulate around the dude. QUEEN, Prince, Stevie Wonder, Gil Scott Heron, Black Sabbath, The Who, Eurythmics and MJJ....the longer it goes the fewer there will be That's a short list of people I'll check up on often because of my love and admiration for them. I always check things out pretty much, ...an attempt to be objective. But yeah in this scenario. ... who really knows? :-/ Haven't heard from Emmanuel Lewis yet. Who knows man. Hard to find objectivity. Hundreds if not thousands of kids passed through that place on visits but he never took ALL those kids under his wing. Sean Lennon, Macaulay, Feldman. .. they've given their voice at different times. The guys life will Be dissected forever it seems. |
Jeremy 01.03.2019 00:28 |
With a small amount of research, these claims are easily debunked. I wonder less and less as time goes on why both MJ and FM said, "I don't have any real friends". |
The Fairy King 02.03.2019 19:08 |
|
mooghead 03.03.2019 15:54 |
Ultimitely their parents took large amounts of cash to shut up. They are the real scumbags here. |
The Fairy King 05.03.2019 12:38 |
Has someone else seen the documentary? |
Galileo1564 05.03.2019 16:51 |
Not yet. I did watch the CBS videos on youtube. Sadly to me this has the ring of truth to it. What I meant above was I hate getting emotionally involved in these things when one can never get the truth. Mooghead—that’s my impression of the parents too. They say they were “groomed”. Get serious. It’s the parents’ job to protect. Anyway, I’m in the US but don’t currently have a subscription to HBO. There’s something else I want to watch, so when the mood strikes, I’ll reactivate and do plan to check out Leaving Neverland. |
Holly2003 05.03.2019 17:55 |
There hardly seems any point raking all this stuff up again unless it's for money. |
Galileo1564 05.03.2019 18:01 |
It’s for money. I think they’re appealing a court decision against them due to statute of limitations. I hope I haven’t mixed this up with something else. So I guess they’re trying to win in the court of public opinion. |
Dr Magus 06.03.2019 11:33 |
Jackson was a paedo. When he paid millions to that kid's family for his silence pretty much confirmed it. |
Day dop 06.03.2019 14:31 |
Lots of ignorance on this thread. Well done on judging before you'd even seen it, folks. Anyway, as you were... |
matt z 07.03.2019 02:15 |
Day dop wrote: Lots of ignorance on this thread. Well done on judging before you'd even seen it, folks. Anyway, as you were...U know. I've seen all but the first 8 minutes of it. Watched the second part yesterday which interviews the family of both and wife of Robeson. Framed into the context presented here, some of the recorded statements (*telephone calls which they recorded of Mj...odd considering this was the early 80's....) could sound like infatuation. ....but in thinking about it, they were likely coached when Michael says "i really like hanging with YOU (full name of kid)" meaning they were goaded on "say my full name so my friends will believe it) sorta stuff. THAT could go either way. Here it's presented as sickly infatuation. (Though they went right along with it if it was) Then the only other stuff that seems lurid is communications and then hearsay by the accusers here. They narrate abuse and Michaels supposed wounded misunderstood man talk as being there to sympathize with. How he allegedly taught him how to masturbate, then "masturbated him" and oral, and concealed doors (*which every rich person has in California) and that mj would have him bend over and jerk to him etc. Things very lurid and anger provoking. Yet things that haven't been substantiated by a credible witness yet. Only a former maid/servant who was FIRED then sold a similar story of mj with his hands IN Macaulays pants while playing a game.... people who had been fired (not let go) going forth with stories to generate a quick 10-20K Then a narrated abuse thing in detail which would get at peoples heart strings and match with anger. However, and this isn't victim blaming/shaming.... there's still more to this whole mess than is led on here. The alleged "doc" is very one sided and dodges Robeson's pleading to be part of MJ ONE/CIRQUE SU SOLEIL thing. When he was turned down by the estate these allegations came out. Also failed to mention are a string of high profile gigs which he'd burnt his bridges on; the narrative of the film is that he had never forgot and that he's had a mental breakdown and has had difficulties working and it's implied that he's damaged and can't work anymore owing to Michael's alleged abuse Supposedly he's the guy that f**ed Britney and broke up Britney and Justin Timberlake.... he'd also shagged Mayte Garcia (Prince's possibly THEN wife...i don't know the time frame on that one . Just off work a little digging will turn it up) and his professional career has taken a dump because of such things as fucking with your bosses significant other. He'd burned a lot of bridges and lost favor by his own means several times. I believe the guy feels entitled to his position and others who grew up with him (a Jackson niece who says he was get bf for 7 years) say that he's got issues and will stop at nothing to get his money/way... so there's a significant issue there. The guy is broke and has auctioned off his real items from MJJ in the past. (*he had a dispute with the consignment company: he wanted to remain anonymous, but they insisted on putting his name with it) I'm not a curator but it's said that the stuff he burns in the film are not the original items. Infamous or not i don't see someone simply burning that stuff He's also started a "charitable organization" of significantly a class and type that does not have to file earnings reports, so in spite of his claims to have not been paid for the film. ... the lawsuit that was thrown out was for $1.5 BILLION dollars in damages. As of now, it's been suggested that Robeson owes back money and fees for that legal work. Under his Hawaiian charitable group he can acquire funds and not report nor pay. Yet another issue. Also the three or four other folks mentioned as being other victims including Macaulay, Emanuel Lewis, Corey Feldman, and the other guy who's name escapes me has just gone on Twitter to post something along the lines of "when your time comes you won't be thinking about the money etc etc " ....something about HE WILL pass with a clear conscience through this life. ...implying the opposite for these two. So. ... it is what it is. Overall it brings up old shit and hasn't swayed me more either way. I still will probably never know until one of these guys is dying or something. ...but having changed this story multiple times i still won't know until that Chandler guy comes forth or that arvizo guy. About two years back that Arvizo guy got married and some reporter tracked it down. The dj played an MJJ tune at the ceremonies Dunno if that means anything. Also. These stories either corroborate or show direct plagiarism from the book written by a NAMBLA supporter (**)correction) *VICTOR Gutierrez who was sued by mj while alive in the 90's and lost a huge legal settlement before filling bankruptcy and leaving the country. The original case Michael Jackson vs. Paramount pictures was in regards to this book: [currently available on amazon for a hefty price, since obviously it was retracted in the frivolous lawsuit and was shit to begin with] link The story is the same. Right down to an alleged wedding ceremony to the boy. Incredulous? Disgusting? Who knows man. I simply don't know. My suspicion is big on this. I knew mj was crazy as shit and possibly a one off. Just not certain about any of this v without remaining a skeptic |
YourValentine 08.03.2019 09:47 |
I have not seen the "documentary" yet and I have no opinion about the truth behind it. However, Michael Jackson, a black man, was tried in a court of Justice and acqitted by a majorly white jury. We really have to accept this ruling. What will happen to our rule of law if anyone can come out and re-try a case in the court of public opinion? We are a civilised society and not a lynch mob. There can always be mistrials and if there is new evidence, there can be a re-trial. What should not be is a public lynching of a suspect after he was found not guilty in a court. Surely, you cannot charge a dead person but he was charged when he was alive and one of the current accusers was witness for the defense. He had his chance, now he must shut up even if he lied under oath and did not tell the truth when he had his chance. |
The Fairy King 08.03.2019 12:23 |
YourValentine wrote: I have not seen the "documentary" yet and I have no opinion about the truth behind it. However, Michael Jackson, a black man, was tried in a court of Justice and acqitted by a majorly white jury. We really have to accept this ruling. What will happen to our rule of law if anyone can come out and re-try a case in the court of public opinion? We are a civilised society and not a lynch mob. There can always be mistrials and if there is new evidence, there can be a re-trial. What should not be is a public lynching of a suspect after he was found not guilty in a court. Surely, you cannot charge a dead person but he was charged when he was alive and one of the current accusers was witness for the defense. He had his chance, now he must shut up even if he lied under oath and did not tell the truth when he had his chance."White" man... ;) This defense has been used by a lot of his fans, but i don't think it flies tbh. You haven't seen the documentary, but have you seen their interview with Oprah? I think if you watch that back to back you might change your mind. The main story i keep hearing is that Corey Feldman and Macauley Culkin say they haven't been touched. The thing is that we don't know how much affiliation they still have with the family. Are they receiving hush money? Every thing can be disputed i'm afraid. Corey Feldman even changed his mind after watching the documentary by saying they should be taken seriously. Not saying he got molested. MJ would be really stupid if he had touched famous kids. What really doesn't help his case is the interview LaToya did in the early 90's calling him out, calling him a pedo and told the world how his mom talks about MJ (calling him a faggot and how she is sick of him). Later she, of course (after divorcing her abusive husband) took back the story and blamed her husband for the endeavor. She wasn't financially independent from the family anymore so there's a good chance she had to change her story to get back in. Watch this: |
YourValentine 08.03.2019 15:36 |
Quite obviously you did not read my post. It's well possible that the two men tell the truth. In this case they should go to the justice system. That is why we have courts, police and all that. I have doubts about the statue of limitation for such crimes in the USA but as long as that is the law you have to file your claims within that period of limitation. It is wrong to retry Jackson in a TV programme, he has a right to due process like anyone else. If we allow such public allegations with no further proof we are not better than any lynch mob. It's a matter of principle. If the alleged offender were not a famous person, no TV station would air such accusations and rightfully so. One of the accusers filed for 1,5 billion USD (!!), that is a lot of money and you would go quite a distance to get so much money. Also, it's not okay to allege that other people were abused and just do not want to tell the public. You even allege crimes that the presumed victims say was never committed. Imagine that would happen to you. |
matt z 09.03.2019 07:48 |
^ true. But also, that's a reasoning behind his company's civil settlement. The presiding judge was to allow civil precedings before criminal (*which in legal terms means whatever presented in civil is presentable in criminal: and a person could be found liable even for omissions. ... when the charges presented really cried for a CRIMINAL case. .... these exposures of legal proceedings would reveal elements and potentially allow someone an upper hand in proceedings of a criminal legal nature as whatever was uncovered or spoken about in civil was presentable in criminal. BUT the likelihood of a judge to allow civil charges to be presented when there was allegedly a z CRIMINAL CASE truly compromised the legal rights and evidence of a defendant presenting a defense. No lawyer worth their shit would EVER settle for such a thing. ....but the MJJ enterprise settled with some monetary payment. It really is a grey matter. I wouldn't fucking know. All it presents is that a criminal proceeding trial would've had much more legal "discovery" and a preceding trial to rely upon for potentialwaying evidence in a matter that had LESSER LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVICTION ( A CIVIL case need only require "preponderance of evidence" - criminal requires evidence of wrong doing BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. .. THESE ARE FOUNDATIONS OF THE 21st century legal system (*and didn't apply to coloreds and Indians nor immigrants prior) |
Invisible Woman 09.03.2019 10:07 |
I don't really know if he did all that for what they accuse him but I like his music and listen to it. Now anyone can say anything, but Michael Jackson can't say anything to defend himself. Already ten years. |
Thistle 09.03.2019 20:14 |
Everything can be be disputed, but without proof, you're only speculating. What the facts are, however, is that he was found not guilty and the people making accusations now defended him back then. I'm not convinced he did it, but I'm not going to say either way he's innocent or guilty. Like all commentators, I have no proof. Speculate all you want - where does it get you? He's dead. |
pittrek 11.03.2019 13:33 |
Not sure how many of you know the youtuber Rageaholic, but he has just posted a 3rd part of his Michael Jackson rebuttal, where he debunks several key points from this documentary Part 1: link Part 2 : link Part 3 : link |
matt z 11.03.2019 15:22 |
link Thanks I'll check that out at work (unless watching its necessary i can listen) This other site compiled a few points by insiders thought it was share worthy as well. Much as i try, the events of this last week aren't sitting well with me. Also. ...as one forum poster noted, the timing of Robesons New claim was 3 days AFTER the statute of limitations was in effect on him being tried for perjury. |
badboybez 11.03.2019 21:18 |
Nonce |
matt z 13.03.2019 01:04 |
Still. If you take them in context with the premise of that smear film. .... mj could've been a horrendous person. I knew he had some personality problems and being the most famous person in the world had social problems but Jesus... if any of that is factual.... him doing that crotch grab takes on a whole different thing. |
Day dop 14.03.2019 05:16 |
Rageaholic repeatedly gets stuff wrong and misses details. It's a poor and sloppy attempt at a rebuttal by him, that's for sure. As just one example, in part three he rants about James and his mum. However, what he doesn't grasp or he purposefully overlooks is that James didn't tell his mum he was abused in 2004/05. He said that Jackson wasn't a good person, and he didn't want them (him and his mum) involved in the court case. James also said he didn't talk to her about it, that he couldn't talk about it, that he just said enough to not get them involved. And his mother never pushed. That doesn't mean she didn't figure anything out. That doesn't make them "time travelers" because he saw Wade on TV in 2013 and felt like he'd "been caught". If anything that backs up what James says all the more when you stop and think about it: James was blaming himself, so he told his mother as little as possible in at the time of the court case. |
Day dop 14.03.2019 05:18 |
Jackson on CCTV out with James Safechuck, buying rings in the late 80s... link |
Day dop 14.03.2019 05:18 |
. |
pittrek 29.03.2019 15:21 |
So Rageaholics next video, this time featuring 2 of the Jacksons : link |
Galileo1564 30.03.2019 02:12 |
So in the end I watched all of Leaving Neverland, the Oprah interview, and the Corey Feldman interview that Fairy King mentioned. I found Wade and James believable, and at a minimum agree with Corey Feldman that they deserve to be heard. Their film isn’t a trial and can’t replace a trial that can no longer happen. But I’m glad they made the film. To me MJ will always be a unique talent. That and likely a pedophile too. I’m sure there are people here who will disagree with me on this. And that’s OK. |
The Fairy King 31.03.2019 00:50 |
The hate-campaign against Oprah is especially hypocritical. MJ loved Oprah and vice versa afaik (she is even in the HIStory book), but because she did the after Neverland interview she is evil? The people trying to "debunk" the story or are have been publicly speaking out against it have some serious credibility issues. Wendy Williams ffs? Really? And the Jackson family? Hell I liked Rageaholic's Queen video, but he's a fucking MJ fan, how is he credible? At least Oprah has had hundreds of victims on her show and has had a team of experts on her shows on this subject. Plus she is a "survivor". Doesn't it seem likely that she knows what she is talking about? Also, would she go with this story if she didn't believe these guys were telling the truth? |
Galileo1564 01.04.2019 21:58 |
Agree Fairy King. |
The Fairy King 02.04.2019 09:22 |
I really can't listen to a lot of his songs after the shit storm. In The Closet - He liked the closet P.Y.T. - no explanation needed. Bad - Yes, you were, Michael. Smooth Criminal - Yes, you were, Michael. Do You Know Where Your Children Are? - Are you kidding me? You Are Not Alone - Written by R.Kelly xD Leave Me Alone - No. Black Or White? - White, apparently. Could go on. XD |
Galileo1564 02.04.2019 16:18 |
As I said up thread, I knew MJ’s music when he was still a boy. He was on the cover of all the teen mags when Donny Osmond wasn’t. I didn’t buy those mags, but used to look at the covers in the store. (I’m sure there were others on the covers but you know how memory is.) Rockin’ Robin. Santa Clause is Comin’ to Town. Ben. ABC. I’m purposely choosing the more boyish songs. He was the child star who came back with Off The Wall. And then his career exploded. And he became more and more strange as the years went by. Oprah had a crush on one of the Jackson brothers when she was a girl. I can’t remember which one. Maybe Germaine? I was actually expecting Leaving Neverland to be inconclusive BS leaving me with more questions than answers. I was not expecting to come away thinking the stories are completely believable. And I wouldn’t have if they had been violent stories. Instead, totally believable seduction. |
GratefulFan 07.04.2019 17:33 |
The Fairy King wrote: I really can't listen to a lot of his songs after the shit storm. In The Closet - He liked the closet P.Y.T. - no explanation needed. Bad - Yes, you were, Michael. Smooth Criminal - Yes, you were, Michael. Do You Know Where Your Children Are? - Are you kidding me? You Are Not Alone - Written by R.Kelly xD Leave Me Alone - No. Black Or White? - White, apparently. Could go on. XD“Black Or White? - White, apparently.” I LOLd. The documentary was sad and extrememly disturbing. While it necessarily centred around MJ in this instance, I think the bigger lessons are around the way this happens to children generally. The elements of elevating the child to special status, the ingratiation with the family through manipulation, followed by covert efforts to separate the child from them not only physically but emotionally and psychologically as well. The initiation into a secret they are seduced and overwhelmed into keeping. It’s a hell of a black art, and successful pedophiles are necessarily masters of it. |
GratefulFan 07.04.2019 17:50 |
Galileo1564 wrote: As I said up thread, I knew MJ’s music when he was still a boy. He was on the cover of all the teen mags when Donny Osmond wasn’t. I didn’t buy those mags, but used to look at the covers in the store. (I’m sure there were others on the covers but you know how memory is.) Rockin’ Robin. Santa Clause is Comin’ to Town. Ben. ABC. I’m purposely choosing the more boyish songs. He was the child star who came back with Off The Wall. And then his career exploded. And he became more and more strange as the years went by. Oprah had a crush on one of the Jackson brothers when she was a girl. I can’t remember which one. Maybe Germaine? I was actually expecting Leaving Neverland to be inconclusive BS leaving me with more questions than answers. I was not expecting to come away thinking the stories are completely believable. And I wouldn’t have if they had been violent stories. Instead, totally believable seduction.“And he became more and more strange as the years went by.” A good deal of that strangeness was deliberately crafted. Bubbles the chimp, sleeping in the oxygen chamber or whatever that was, buying John Merrick’s bones etc. That certainly primed the pump for the world accepting his strange conduct with boys as just another part of an eccentric eternal child compensating for his own abbreviated childhood. Well, no, actually he’s an adult man who brings children into his bed abd has multiple locks on the entrance to his bedroom hallway and bells that go off to warn when someone is coming. “I was actually expecting Leaving Neverland to be inconclusive BS leaving me with more questions than answers. I was not expecting to come away thinking the stories are completely believable.” The only thing more compelling and believable than Leaving Neverland Part 1 is Leaving Neverland Part 2. Safechuck is just so damaged. It’s utterly heartwrenching. |
Saint Jiub 07.04.2019 19:01 |
Welcome back after all these years ... I suppose that you are going back into lurker mode? |
GratefulFan 07.04.2019 22:03 |
Saint Jiub wrote: Welcome back after all these years ... I suppose that you are going back into lurker mode?If I coud remember how to post images, I’d post this. link :) |
Saint Jiub 08.04.2019 00:22 |
LOL |
Day dop 20.06.2019 17:56 |
Hardcore Jackson fans seem to be the most rabid and unpleasant of the lot (along with Beyonce fans, I'd say). |
john bodega 07.07.2019 15:02 |
Holy cow, what an annoying cunt - the guy making the rebuttal vids, that is. |
innuendojou 10.09.2019 21:23 |
Wow, lots of ignorant people here. A little research debunks the "documentary" completely. |
Day dop 11.09.2019 01:26 |
innuendojou wrote: Wow, lots of ignorant people here. A little research debunks the "documentary" completely.No it doesn't. That's wishful thinking by Jackson fans. Edit: That's your first post? Did you sign up to this forum just to post that comment? |
The Fairy King 11.09.2019 06:17 |
Day dop wrote:Jackson stans....Jackson stans everywhere! xDinnuendojou wrote: Wow, lots of ignorant people here. A little research debunks the "documentary" completely.No it doesn't. That's wishful thinking by Jackson fans. Edit: That's your first post? Did you sign up to this forum just to post that comment? |
innuendojou 12.09.2019 09:47 |
I don't know how to quote on that forum, therefore, I'm going to post this directly, my apologies. Yes, it gets debunked easily after a little research. You can start your research by watching these videos first. I will gladly help you if you want me to. link link Yes, this is my first post on here, however, if that pleases you, I got my account in November 2018, have been a Queen fan since 2013, have been lurking around here since 2016. Second of all, me, being a MJ fan doesn't change the facts. Do your research, I'm here if you want to discuss the subject in civil manners. Edit: I learned how to quote, lol. |
Day dop 22.09.2019 01:13 |
"Do your research" LOL. It reminds me of when 9/11 conspiracy theorists point you towards 9/11 conspiracy theory videos on YouTube because they appear to back up want they WANT to believe. That's not how you do research. |
The Fairy King 23.09.2019 06:47 |
Day dop wrote: "Do your research" LOL. It reminds me of when 9/11 conspiracy theorists point you towards 9/11 conspiracy theory videos on YouTube because they appear to back up want they WANT to believe. That's not how you do research.RESEARCH THE RESEARCH! |
john bodega 19.10.2019 06:17 |
Yeah, 'research'. Horribly misused word by these contrarians. "the train station hadn't even been built yet!" You're telling me your recollections would be 100% reliable in temporal terms when you'd been diddled by Michael Jackson for years on end? I'm just saying, they have video and audio backing up enough of the story that I don't need to see the deed actually being done to at least accept there's a high likelihood there. But nah, it's all a conspiracy and the housekeeper was in on it too. Pfft, you people stink. |
Day dop 20.10.2019 10:17 |
The Fairy King wrote:They're rabid!Day dop wrote:Jackson stans....Jackson stans everywhere! xDinnuendojou wrote: Wow, lots of ignorant people here. A little research debunks the "documentary" completely.No it doesn't. That's wishful thinking by Jackson fans. Edit: That's your first post? Did you sign up to this forum just to post that comment? |
The Fairy King 26.10.2019 07:54 |