Help me settle a Michael Jackson debate with a friend

[terley]

So to preface the question, my friend is one of these that deify Michael; his death was treated with tears and depression on the level of losing an immediate family member.

In 2019, HBO is due to release a two-part documentary “Leaving Neverland”, which and i quote:

has been making news since its first public viewing at the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year — is a remarkably effective, methodically built case alleging that the late Michael Jackson was a systematic predator and rapist of young children.

https://variety.com/2019/tv/columns/hbo-michael-jackson-documentary-leaving-neverland-1203134316/

My friend has begun a crusade since this news, disowning and threatening friends with dis-communication if they so much as watch the documentary.

Being a devil's advocate I have pointed out that surely the best way of ascertaining the validity of all claims and to better prepare yourself for arguments that may arise from the documentary is to actually watch it, and formulate your own unbiased opinions.

From his point of view, the documentary is designed to elicit and brainwashing effect and to convince you from a biased perspective of Michael's guilt, lying and going to great lengths to slander the "great" man's name.

Now as I haven't seen the documentary I can't really argue with his view, but I asked him a simple question and wanted to know what you guys thought:

Was it appropriate, for a fully grown man; to host sleep-over parties in a multi-million $ estate for young vulnerable children, in which they were showed with toys, sweets, food and games... and then share a bed with said man; assuming that no actual nefarious actions took place.

Personally, I see this as by definition, regardless of any crime; inappropriate to the extreme, and it just opened up an opportunity for a potential predator to take advantage.

I'd be interested to know your opinions.

 

[terley]

Your friend sounds terrible but then so do you so this is a difficult one to call.

e: actually, no.



No, the best way is to read all of the facts, not just watch the documentary which you've already admitted being prejudiced against.

So, your friend is still an asshat but you are worse. Hope that clarifies my earlier point

Why are you calling me worse than an asshat exactly? :|

 

[terley]

Well, you're asking for support for your view that your friend - who does sound terrible - is not thinking this through properly and to an exacting standard when, in fact, he is given your counter view is WATCH THIS PREJUDICED DOCUMENTARY HA HA MY FRIEND IS A DUMMY.

Do you see now?

Re-read my post, i merely outlined the views of my friend and introduced the documentary.. then asked a question based on his views.

If i mentioned his name or said that he is an idiot i'd agree, but your post just indicates you like picking random arguments with people and having jabs online rather than actually answering the question.

 

[terley]

Is your friend against Trump and Brexit?

No, he is a huge trump supporter and supports Brexit. He is anti-immigration to the extreme.

 

[terley]

Why is anyone's opinion on a subject so extreme when they have no categorical proof of their own. Your friend is an idiot. Also though, why are you even friends with him?

Been friends for the past 20 years.

 

[terley]

His friend sounds like one if he's willing to throw a friendship away because OP watched a film. I'd usually just dismiss it as joking but leftists have been disowning people for having non-conformists beliefs for a while now. I'd be surprised if his friend is really a Trump supporting Brexiteer people on the right tend to be more tolerant of differences of viewpoint.

He really is, he adores trump almost as much as Milo Yianoppolis does. He is borderline racist.

 

[terley]

No need to only think it, the man literally faced a full court trial and investigation by a police department but still remains the target of guessing chinese whispers. Mixed up dude no doubt, I believe he nearly went broke a few times with so many extremes but I dont think he was an attacker of any people. People wasting their time on this when Hollywood contains people who do target vulnerable entrants to the industry

What about OJ simpson?

 

[terley]

The trailer launched

 

[terley]

So has GD collectively decided he was guilty, then?

I know GD demands the very highest standards of proof, so if you guys say it was MJ what done it 'e must o' done it, by gum.

Read the 5 pages of replies and gauge your own opinion on the general consensus, as there is no poll this is the only way to check really...

 

[terley]

The accused is dead and a dead man cannot face trial. We saw the huge Jimmy Saville horror unfold to a pointless conclusion. Fortunately there are more child abusers being brought to book now. When you think that two generations ago fathers and grandfathers sexually abused their children and family shame stopped the villains being punished.
Children's homes have been terrible places for child abuse, let's hope this has been stopped.

Because if he is a paedophile people need to know because currently deified by many people.

 

[terley]

I've watched part 1

Right now I believe absolutely every word James Safechuck says, he seems like he has PTSD over the whole thing... Who buys a kid diamond rings worth thousands of dollars? If he needed the money surely he would have sold them by now.

Wade Robson, however, seems to be walking the line between lying and telling the truth, something about him doesn't seem genuine.

 

[terley]

the programme is very devicive and carefully choreographed, the memories they are supposedly recalling with all the details, or rather re-engineering/dramatising.
Their parents equally taken in/star-struck and indulging their, and their childrens fantasies ... they should be reproaching themselves too.

I hope HBO are donating revenue to an appropriate charity.
A regular documentary with an interviewer would have been more befitting for the serious subject matter ... this trivialises it .. but typical of usa productions.

.. now turned it off.

I think completely differently, American documentaries often have OTT music, jump cuts, stupid filters and a huskily voiced narrator... this doc seems very well done, just two guys sat down telling their stories with the occasional input from family members.

 

[terley]

What a load of crap. Innocence until proven guilty out of the window, against a dead man who cannot defend himself, without ANY proof than the word of two people who cannot stand in any court.

HBO made crap load of money selling this to every single channel buying the rights to broadcast it, because it is a money maker for everyone involved.

Soon a similar one for the King (Elvis), just to cash out in this toxic environment driven by left fascism.
Next one our great grandparents (and beyond), since we should be feeling ashamed of our existence, given the conditions of procreation back then.

Next step alongside music (already MJ is getting banned even on BBC, alongside many Christmas songs already), tearing down statues (Lee and others) and rewriting history, lets burn books including the Bible (not the children book the Anglican Church is using ofc) and everything that stands on the way of spreading the amoralism advocated these days.

And that's the result lacking of history knowledge by the masses, making the task of contemporary Wolfgang Herrmanns easy.

Innocent until proven guilty is a load of crap because the level of proof you need to prove somebody guilty is beyond a reasonable doubt, that would require DNA/Forensic or video evidence to prove... Even with that type of evidence we have seen celebrities equitted, take OJ simpson, his blood was found at the crime scene and the victim's blood was found in his car and at his home, he had priors for domestic violence and motive.

90% of the rest of your post is Michael fanboyism.

 

[terley]

Piers grilling Dan Reed.

I think Dan Reed gives a very good account of himself to be honest.

 

[terley]

Does it?

Yes

Not guilty is non-synonymous with innocent... It means that not enough evidence had been provided to find you guilty.

There is no legal system to prove innocence in that sense.

For Michael Jackson to be found guilty, the case would have had to show beyond all reasonable doubt that he was guilty, without forensic, DNA or video evidence there is no smoking bullet, therefore the prosecution must rely on the strength of circumstantial evidence along with victim testimony.

Remember that Wade Robson and James Safechucks claims have never been tested in a court of law.

 

[terley]

Also, if it was about money... Why would they not get paid for appearing in the documentary.. and why would they burn this memorabilia given to him by Michael?

 

[terley]

Money, exactly that.



Desperation to be famous, be someone and earn some coin. Spot it a mile off.

Neither of them are being paid for the documentary.

 

[terley]

However it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that a 27 year old man might lie about historical sex abuse, there are rafts of psychological theories relating to the phenomena. Feeling indebted to the abuser, internal rationalisation, shame, fear, concern as the the impact on family, all of these things play a part. And it's not like it's unusual for people to deny that abuse has happened, how is this any different to a domestic abuse victim towing the line of their abuser even when they aren't present, it's not always about immediate fear of reprisal, people become condition to believe that their abusers love them, that it's not their fault, that it's the victims fault, all of this is probably more relevant given their young age, Jackson's status, and in the case of one of the boys their hero worship of him.

I'm not making a judgement either way here, I just think anybody hinging their argument on the previous comments by the two men is ignoring the unique psychology associated with abuse.

One of the best comments on this thread so far.

 

[terley]

They said they found a lot of items but from what i read apparently they found notthing that could have been used against him? They said they found pornography and animal torture scenes and then when it went to court i read it was all false

There are lots of very odd things found at the crime scene, all circumstantial and along with "witnesses" testifying made non of them stick.. there was no smoking bullet, similar to Saville.

The witness accounts now along with the circumstantial evidence paint a very different picture however...

 

[terley]

The Truth About What Michael Jackson Had (And Didn’t Have) In His Bedroom

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...nd-thenor-now-the_us_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8

Essentially that argument says that he had 1800 images of porn, the questionable images couldn't be used in court because anyone could have put them there..

Thats it, regardless of that you dont need porn to groom children.