Help me settle a Michael Jackson debate with a friend

builder22 said:
this must have been asked/answered before but what's the explanation for 'Safechuck' not realising he was abused until he was in his 30's??
Click to expand...

The same with all abused who come forward later in life.
A lot of adults carry major guilt, often blaming themselves for what happened when they were kids.
I know a woman who thought it was normal until she was around 40 and her then new boyfriend explained that it wasn't normal what she went through.
(This was abuse by her former husband).
 
the Brandi interview - much less staged and more natural than docu+opra, but OK, cannot see the body language.

Wade not pre-empting this and explaining that either the relationship meant nothing , or that he had not told her about MJ for reason X, or that MJ had facilitated the relationship to provide an air of normality, is bizarre, and leaves a hole in his+parents accounts.
Her explanation that she has no financial axe to grind seems credible too.

The other news stations cancelling interviews with her is odd, she offers no explanation ... they don't believe her ? don't want to cross HBO ?
 
terley said:
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:

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.
Click to expand...

To be fair, that's exactly what documentaries do. Case in point, Netflix "the making of a murderer" complete nonsense, designed to make the viewer believe Avery was innocent in the worst police cover up ever was completely laughable, and not worth the time it took to watch it. It had most of the public bending over backwards believing he was innocent, word of mouth and social media went crazy, every one watched, and most of the SJW agreed, incorrectly, that Avery was innocent and police corruption was rife.

If that documentary had been from the police viewpoint, it would have had a different outcome.

I'm not saying he's (MJ) innocent, I have my own views on that, but to base an opinion on a programme style designed to mislead and bias, is in itself, ignorant.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
The same with all abused who come forward later in life.
A lot of adults carry major guilt, often blaming themselves for what happened when they were kids.
I know a woman who thought it was normal until she was around 40 and her then new boyfriend explained that it wasn't normal what she went through.
(This was abuse by her former husband).
Click to expand...

If he didn't realise he was abused until his 30's like he stated in 2013 why did his mother categorically state she danced when Michael Jackson died in 2009 5 years earlier?
 
mmj_uk said:
Firstly, your friend is not really a friend if he's going to disown you for watching a film.

As for Michael Jackson I think he was just incredibly immature more than anything and didn't want to live in the adult world. It's quite possible that he never had any bad intentions towards children but like a lot of ultra 'liberals' these days he didn't see the obvious danger in the situation (false accusation) because he was blinded by his own ideals. I certainly wouldn't allow my children to hang around with and have sleepovers with an adult even if they had the mental age of a 10 year old and lets face it MJ only got away with it because he was a wealthy celebrity icon.

One thing I would say is that as far as I know Michael Jackson was never convicted of a crime so the film is basically going to be conjecture unless it presents some never before seen evidence that can't be argued with.
Click to expand...

I overheard a conversation on the train the other day that was basically saying this, that he was a child trapped in an adults body. I think there is an 'interesting' (wrong word) converse of this, in terms of why people think sleepovers are acceptable when everyone is a child, as there may be adults trapped in a childs body (i.e. children with malicious intentions and a maturity to know that what they are doing is wrong - don't forget there are cases of abuse committed by young children as well).

They also made the point that arguably MJ had such an extremely high level of fame, probably one of the most famous people of all time compared to others (when you consider how diluted the internet makes fame now, compared to when celebrity news was all channelled through TV/Radio/Papers). Doesn't really have any bearing on the point at hand but it got me thinking, if you take religious and political leaders (including Royalty) out of the equation, who has been more famous than MJ? Possibly the Beatles, Pele, Einstein.... not many.
 
It's an interesting viewpoint. Arguably, mental health could have played a large part in this, or an undiagnosed illness, we'll never know. Example being Harvey Price. He fancies his own mum and has her posters on his wall from when she was younger. Is that wrong? Does allowing someone to pass something off as mental health or illness absolve them?
 
What I don't get about these are, what's the point?

Two options, you think he is a bad person or you don't. Either way he's dead, he 'won' he lived his life with his millions and if he molested, he got away with it and 'won'. And if he was innocent he was found innocent and 'won'. Who cares really? You won't be able to prove categorically that he did it unless some tape appears. And so you'll decide to not listen to his music because you think he's a nonce or you will listen to it because you don't. He's dead. It doesn't matter anymore. If there's a worldwide boycott on his music, again, so what? He won't care.
 
Mason- said:
What I don't get about these are, what's the point?

Two options, you think he is a bad person or you don't. Either way he's dead, he 'won' he lived his life with his millions and if he molested, he got away with it and 'won'. And if he was innocent he was found innocent and 'won'. Who cares really? You won't be able to prove categorically that he did it unless some tape appears. And so you'll decide to not listen to his music because you think he's a nonce or you will listen to it because you don't. He's dead. It doesn't matter anymore. If there's a worldwide boycott on his music, again, so what? He won't care.
Click to expand...

Didn't he die in June 2009?
 
adam cool dude said:
If he didn't realise he was abused until his 30's like he stated in 2013 why did his mother categorically state she danced when Michael Jackson died in 2009 5 years earlier?
Click to expand...

because she had carried the guilt for all those years knowing what might have happened.
She would have heard all the rumours and wondered if her own child had been part of it.
I cheered when he died knowing nobody would suffer again but I'll still listen to his music.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
because she had carried the guilt for all those years knowing what might have happened.
She would have heard all the rumours and wondered if her own child had been part of it.
I cheered when he died knowing nobody would suffer again but I'll still listen to his music.
Click to expand...

Yes but her son didn't come out as being abused until 2013. Before that MJ was a saint in her eyes. Why would she cheer?
 
Is it true that during the property search in 2005, they discovered "art" books, containing photographs of naked children? I've read conflicting reports.
 
tek81 said:
Is it true that during the property search in 2005, they discovered "art" books, containing photographs of naked children? I've read conflicting reports.
Click to expand...

It is true, but any Michael Jackson fan will reply to the question as "ITS ALL LIES, THE POLICE MADE IT UP"

It wasn't a lie, however, the books couldn't be used in court because somehow Michaels lawyers managed to have them made inadmissible in court because anyone could have put them there...
 
terley said:
It is true, but any Michael Jackson fan will reply to the question as "ITS ALL LIES, THE POLICE MADE IT UP"

It wasn't a lie, however, the books couldn't be used in court because somehow Michaels lawyers managed to have them made inadmissible in court because anyone could have put them there...
Click to expand...

And yet several of the books had been hand annotated with MJs handwriting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom