Maybe. But with Jackson I'm not buying it.
The way he vehemently denied the allegations in 1993 shows he knows it's wrong. But fuck you, I'm Michael Jackson mode took over and he kept doing it.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Leaving Neverland, HBO documentary on Michael Jackson's alleged child sexual assaults, review thread: Currently 94% on Rotten Tomatoes
- Thread starter Brian McDoogle
- Start date
- Status
Maybe. But with Jackson I'm not buying it.
The way he vehemently denied the allegations in 1993 shows he knows it's wrong. But fuck you, I'm Michael Jackson mode took over and he kept doing it.
It's not mutually exclusive to think that child molestation is actually consensual sex, and also deny allegations of child molestation. The reasoning is that pedophiles are persecuted and just trying to survive against a world that doesn't understand them.
I watched part 1 this weekend and I didn't have the mental fortitude to start part 2. Holy shit, this documentary was so graphic and it was insanely unsettling. The 2 hour time length felt like 5 hours because it was so uncomfortable and disgusting.
James looks like he is on the brink of a mental breakdown when he starts describing the abuse. I could see the pain inside of his eyes.
Man, this was fucked up.
James looks like he is on the brink of a mental breakdown when he starts describing the abuse. I could see the pain inside of his eyes.
Man, this was fucked up.
I never once believed a grown ass man sleeping in the same bed as 7 year old children was just a "sleep over". Makes me sick people were/are willing to turn a blind eye because he's a music idol.
Hell my own 7 year old sleeps with us maybe two or three times a YEAR and only when he's having a really bad nightmare.
This documentary just reinforced the damning evidence against him.
Hell my own 7 year old sleeps with us maybe two or three times a YEAR and only when he's having a really bad nightmare.
This documentary just reinforced the damning evidence against him.
Here are the links i was talking about on the last page. Had to email these to my phone:
Brandi Jackson interview (there's an interview with Taj too, which I'm going to watch this afternoon)
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/exclusi...wade-robson-explains-why-shes-sure-hes-lying/
Terry George talking about the phone call
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/first-target-of-michael-jacksons-obsession-402845
Brandi Jackson interview (there's an interview with Taj too, which I'm going to watch this afternoon)
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/exclusi...wade-robson-explains-why-shes-sure-hes-lying/
Terry George talking about the phone call
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/first-target-of-michael-jacksons-obsession-402845
I saw someone say that Brandi claimed she was dating him the whole time...but he said he was abused from 7 to 14...
It's possible both could be true. But I like brandi's POV because she gives more insight to Wade as a person. They talk about that point in the link i provided
What does one have to do with the other? Seriously.
edit: Kids can have "girl/boyfriends" at an early age.
Last edited:
Just finished the while thing. Extremely tough 4 hours to watch. Can't say I could figure out any reason why these two dudes would put themselves through so much shit just to "tarnish" MJ. Some of the sexual details are harrowing. Especially Safechuck comes across as just wanting to tell the story, with no real discernible motive outside that.
I remember her from the first time as well. Fucking disgusting human being.
Someone should have pulled her up on that shit.
It really did.
MJ fans, i tells ya.
Why do I keep hearing that this thing is 4 hours?
I checked the runtime for both and it adds up to 5. And I don't think that includes the Oprah special.
I checked the runtime for both and it adds up to 5. And I don't think that includes the Oprah special.
That Brandi Jackson interview wasn't the least bit convincing. The amount of "no sexual abuse survivor would act that way" type comments made me sick to my stomach.
I want to see defenders of MJ explain away the porn found in his bedroom and the photography books of nude boys before whining about the doc not giving both sides of the story. There is plenty of damning shit that is not even mentioned because it didn't involve Wade and Jimmy.
I want to see defenders of MJ explain away the porn found in his bedroom and the photography books of nude boys before whining about the doc not giving both sides of the story. There is plenty of damning shit that is not even mentioned because it didn't involve Wade and Jimmy.
You must be including the Oprah special.
Part 1 and 2, are two hours each. And the Oprah special is an hour.
That includes the Oprah interview. Each of the main episodes are 2 hours and 2 mins each (roughly).
Depends on the country. Here in Australia they showed an edited version which was 4 hours for both including advertising. I watched the other, non edited one too. Those are 2 and a half hours each.
That's one of his common nicknames. "Whacko Jacko". Because he was a fucking ridiculous crazy person.
yeah, I plan on watching the Oprah special tonight, after finishing the 2 parts over the weekend.
I'll say I was never much of "MJ Music" fan. I could recognize the talent in the pop songs. But found the early accusations concerning, found the constant young boy companions strange, and found the initial stories of them sleeping in the same bed with MJ puzzling.
I'm about the same age as these 2 men. I was 13-14 when the 1st accusations happened in 93, and I had all those concerns then.
It only became more apparent as I got older, that I fully believed the stories were true.
A gripping documentary, and the bit of it that hit me the hardest, was the slow self-obliteration of Wade's family, brought on by MJ and Wade's enticed mother. From leaving the family behind in Australia, the Father's breakdown, and the Mother's lack of sense to understand what was really going on. That bit hurt.
Edit: Yeah "Wacko Jacko" came along around this time, if not before the 1st accusations. Was just on his basic demeanor and actions. The Theme park house, the Zoo, Bubbles the Chimpanzee, and the "Peter Pan" act with young child companions.
I'll say I was never much of "MJ Music" fan. I could recognize the talent in the pop songs. But found the early accusations concerning, found the constant young boy companions strange, and found the initial stories of them sleeping in the same bed with MJ puzzling.
I'm about the same age as these 2 men. I was 13-14 when the 1st accusations happened in 93, and I had all those concerns then.
It only became more apparent as I got older, that I fully believed the stories were true.
A gripping documentary, and the bit of it that hit me the hardest, was the slow self-obliteration of Wade's family, brought on by MJ and Wade's enticed mother. From leaving the family behind in Australia, the Father's breakdown, and the Mother's lack of sense to understand what was really going on. That bit hurt.
Edit: Yeah "Wacko Jacko" came along around this time, if not before the 1st accusations. Was just on his basic demeanor and actions. The Theme park house, the Zoo, Bubbles the Chimpanzee, and the "Peter Pan" act with young child companions.
That and a lot of kids who are molested often keep up the lie until deep in adulthood. Especially men.
Nothing they have said or done is a surprise to people who speak to a lot of abused people on a daily basis.
Yeah, watching I felt like Wade had put his thoughts through a filter of wanting to tell it a certain way, or 'paint a picture', maybe because he's spent more time doing interviews. Everything Safechuck said felt like a raw recounting of what he had gone through - I'd have a much harder time believing that he's an undiscovered amazing actor who's lying to the world than I do believing that Michael Jackson abused him.
Hmmm
Pretty sure I'd ask what any of that has to do with this doc
edit:
So the guy behind that article/interview sure is a winner.
I'm almost done listening to both parts, so I'll get back to you on these points
He created the 'King of Pop' nickname. His publicists informed journalists at the time to refer to him as 'king of Pop' and the UK journalists took the piss out of it. This was around the time he floated a giant polystyrene 'statue' of himself up the river Thames through London. Perfectly normal stuff.
A german tabloid reports that a 35 years old person from Munich was abused by Michael Jackson when he was a child. The victim's name is Michael Jacobshagen. Unfortunately I have no more details yet.
Yeah, just that article alone is enough to show that Ziegler is a shitty person, and his Sandusky shit is just as gross.
Ok. Just finished it off. So I'll address your points as best I can before I go into my own opinion.
Your first point:
- I don't know if you listened to both hours, but I do think they get more nuanced in the discussion about that. I would say the point is that Brandi was with Wade at the time of the allegations, and she wanted to talk about his character, because one of the questions I've seen asked is "why would someone willingly do this", and her thesis is that he wants to do anything for to better position himself. Wade's claim that MJ told him women are evil and shouldn't be trusted (or whatever the specific word are) is contradicted by her testimony that Wade asked Michael to bring them closer together. In the talk, she describes how MJ would check-in on her and him and ask her if they're doing ok or whatever. I think the cheating, at least from her perspective, informs her that Wade has a history of lying. She goes into a couple of other instances where his behavior has been sketchy. I'm not saying I agree with everything she said mind you, just that her perspective is unique in all of this.
- As far as the dude himself. I can't speak to his history, but personally, as I heard him talking, there was plenty of things he wasn't agreeing with Brandi and Taj with. He made it clear he didn't like MJ or Dan Reed, and that he's agnostic on whether MJ was a paedophile or not. Originally he thought he was, but the second case took him away from that position. All I know from him is what I've heard in these two podcasts and he seems informed and rational.
So my opinion on all of this has definitely changed a bit. I think the two interviews provide interesting criticisms and points that has, not necessarily completely changed my position from watching the doc, but I am definitely a lot more skeptical now. Brandi provided insight into the private life of her and Wade and Her and her Uncle. For me, character matters. I understand that deep psychological abuse, grooming and fear can have the power to control a person, I've known victims my whole life, and I have family who have been hurt in this way, but for me, Brandi provides a lot of context into Wade's character that for me, more tightly fits into the larger picture. The fact alone that they dated, and she wasn't interviewed is a good point for me. I understand Dan wanted a story to tell, but to leave out someone who was in closer proximity (even if it was a Jackson family member, they could have primed her to get more accurate answers), is something that made me tilt my head. She even admits (and agrees with her interviewee) that Dan probably didn't even know that she existed, and I can agree with that, which puts the onus on Wade. She talks about Wade's mom wanting to take Blanket, Prince and Paris, which, if true is a massive red flag for me personally. She talks about how she's one of the only family members speaking out, and that they're not part of the estate (this could be inaccurate, but she makes it a point that she actually has a job and does photography and that the only people in the estate are Jackson's kids and the lawyers). She talks about how at one point in Wade's testimony, she thought he was going to laugh at the "he made me spread my cheeks apart", because apparently that's the kind of humor he had. There's other bits and pieces too, but these are what stuck with me. Oh she also talks about the fact that neverland wasn't empty at all, and that there would be a lot of kids there at the same time. That when they had BBQs they would separate the kids from the adults, and MJ would sit with all of the kids.
The second part is better in some ways and worse in others. I can't quite read Taj as well. I don't know if he's bad at speaking about things like this, but he is not as concise as Brandi is. But his interview brought in some pretty big things I think too. They address Jimmy a lot, and I think the biggest point is that the point Jimmy made about MJ calling him, and than threatening him could be false. The host says that the judge banned Jimmies testimony well before the 2005 trial starts for some reason I can't remember. The host than goes on to say that he called Jackson's lawyer at the time and he corroborated this saying "If we could have got Jimmy to testify we would have". The host also claims that Jimmy was sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars in like 2012 or something as well, but he's not sure exactly what yet, and wants to dig deeper into that thread. Lastly, the host points out that Jimmy's cousins who have also hung with MJ, contradict his testimony, and were vocally calling him out on twitter that his story is "Bullshit". Taj also goes into a bit of detail about the sleepovers saying that they'd generally be watching a movie and doze off, and when they woke up, MJ would be sleeping on the floor. He also talks about why he thinks Janet hasn't said anything, elaborates on Wade's timeline and so on. It's all very compelling to me. Taj also goes into his own history of sexual abuse. Taj and Brandi also talk about understanding outsider's perspectives about MJ being a weird dude (there's also an article about MJ's family performing an intervention because he apparently couldn't see how his tendency to be seen around kids was bad for him)
I find them about as trustworthy as Jimmy and Wade if I had to be honest. On one hand, they could easily be lying about not being part of the estate, and while they claim sources for some things (Brandi claims to know that Wade cheated because of Wade and her's mutual source), they don't really name them, which I could kind of understand, but is a weak excuse in this context. I also don't know how I feel about every counter being about money. Brandi didn't bring it up until asked why Wade would do this, but Taj was very much focused on this point. Money is definitely a compelling reason to do something like this, but I always ask, could it be the only reason? I'm not so sure that it is. On the other hand, there are things they've said that make a lot of sense to me and work in the bigger context of the MJ story. I think Wade is an unreliable narrator, and there's a lot of behavior that I find questionable from him and his past. I think Jimmies story, while much more sensible than Wade's story suffers a lot from (if true), the contradiction of some of his family members, and the (if true) point that he wasn't able to testify even if he wanted to. I also think there are weird quirks in the film, that at first glance I brushed off, but now make me think, like there's a lot of buildup with Jimmies mom saying how she felt about Michael. Most of part 1 is that, and a good chunk of part 2 is that. There's a line Jimmy says about Michael being a bad person to his Mother, than when he's dead she's dancing? It could be an editing error absolutely, but it happens so suddenly it was a little jarring.
I'll repeat again, I don't believe everything either party is saying at this point now. I think there's a lot of compelling information out there and I think at this point, I've taken a more agnostic approach to all of this that will be swayed by more testimonies. I believe the clearest thing we have is the Terry George story, which is an acknowledgement of improper behavior by all parties. MJ could still very well be a pedophile. These testimonies aren't going to make me jump back into his music, but they go interesting places that I would hope the news follows up with. I understand that in the era of metoo, the story of victims is essential to listen to and empathize with and understand, but I also think that we shouldn't stop with the questioning process where appropriate. I don't anticipate there will be too many people who like this, but that's where I'm at in the moment. I think the tenacity of this doc will rely on more victims coming, like Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby, so I'll keep an eye out
You do realize all four of these people: Taj, Brandi, Wade, and James could all be telling the truth, right? I mean yeah nobody is going to have everything perfectly inline with what happened in what certain order or place since most people's memories are shit, but Taj and Brandi's experiences doesn't invalidate Wade and James' experiences by any mean. They're just in a position where they genuinely feel they need to defend a loved family member.
Anyone who watched this and still denies he was a manipulative child-fucking predator who destroyed families without remorse is being wilfully ignorant. That's not even including all that creepy stuff they found in his rooms.
The defenders disgust me. No one can argue in good faith that these guys aren't telling the truth. I watched this in horror, the bit where Wade told his brother and sister it was true was completely devastating. Those poor kids.
I mean.. "little one".. the creepy faxes... the endless phone calls... the completely WEIRD answering machine messages.. the rings, him fighting with the mother to get Wade to stay with him alone for the year, the weird birthday message video, the month-long sleepovers. How can anyone in their right mind think this was all innocent?
Yes. That's definitely gone through my head. I don't think any one person, or group of people hold the whole truth. But I think given the media attention this got, and the history, it's kind of easy to fall in a "My side is right, or your wrong" or something to that effect. But I think you could also understand that the documentary could probably have done a bit more to flesh out the parts that were weaker? When I watched it, I wasn't really on board with the notion that "This is not a Michael Jackson documentary". I did post, and do maintain that I am glad that Wade and Jimmy came out. Because even after all I wrote they could still be right. I've also talked about wanting the FBI to investigate the inquiry about the 2 Mexican boys, because that could be a big thing, but there are big claims made by them, and we should look to see if they can be corroborated, and on some of those, one side does come out weaker. It could just be that someone is telling the story in a better way, advertising if you will, and I'm conscious of that too. There's just more unknown's than I thought of initially, and my sense of skepticism kicked in. I do appreciate your understanding dialogue though. I feel that has been missing in this thread
Pedophile.
Sexually abused/molested several very young boys.
Nothing else needs to be said about this person.
Sexually abused/molested several very young boys.
Nothing else needs to be said about this person.
Dumpster fire. Have people acting like not buying a game because of personal conflicts with the product is a foreign concept despite bleating out "vote with your wallets" in every other thread. Glad the thread was posted though, happy to avoid a game with Michael Jackson influences in it even if I was curious beforehand.
I refuse. OT and Gaming side is like oil and water, completely different people with different views.
It was the same at the old place as it is here I assume.
Possibly worse, and mods aren't even handing out any bans for absolutely clear cut "those guys are lying now and told the truth on the stand, but I didn't see the doc" posts. Infuriating.
"well you see I havent actually watch the documentary but... something 10 year fbi investigation...something something found not guilty, Robson lied etc"
disgusting it all is.
Also mods rejecting the thread premise because it doesn't reference Michael Jackson it references someone who "basically copped Michael Jackson's dance moves", according to the quote in the lock post.
So they're still his moves in the game..
I don't even know what to say. This is absurd, and even with that caveat that doesn't change that several posts outright called the victims liars.
The defense force was really coming out of the woodwork. I really don't get why people can't enjoy his art and also acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that he did these terrible things.
That's terrible.
I see going by the responses here that deniers still parrot the lie about a supposed FBI investigation, which never happened. Some of us are old enough to know this, but nothing can't convince delusional fans.
I dunno ... he apologized for masturbating on a phone call when he was an adult and Terry was a kid? I mean I gotta say that's a giant sized red flag.
I've tried to stay objective and not get swayed too much by emotion alone (either way), but there's just way too much smoke here for there not to be a probable fire. That's what I think right now.
Even if the whole thing was he didn't have a childhood and wanted to experience that ... why after the 1993 scandal where you forced to strip down and allow police officers to photograph you, would you put your massive career in jeopardy by continuing with the sleep overs? Even if you wanted to indulge in the fun of being a kid, could you not do water balloon fights, go-kart racing, birthday parties, watching Disney movies from 11 AM-5 PM with parents there to supervise? Is 6-7 days a week of that not enough? Unless something else was going on.
- Status