BPX037: Jackson's HIStory

[Brad]

I trust Corey Feldman.

Amen brother.

[JazzFunk]

Ultimately, though, how do you manage to explain a grown man in his 40s spending so much time as a 'conflicted individual' with youngsters in his bedroom?

I just don't understand why nobody else sees that and continually makes allowances for it.

I'm a total ****-up in life. But I have grown women in my bed. And I don't mean that cos I'm trying to sound straight or alpha or owt, gay, tranny, I don't care, as adults we like what we like but we're adult people.

I'm not even saying he's a paed. I loved the bloke, I've downplayed how important his dance moves were to me but it means at 44 I can still dance my arse off and move like a slick mother****ah

I mean, come

[JazzFunk]

Anyway. I'm drunk but I'm being entertaining.

Go with the dolio flow.

Take it with a pinch o' salt, I'm just in this for the fun and love, I love you all and I'm so glad this place still has very similar feelz to the way it did when I first joined it 13yrs ago. When I was 31yrzold and had the body of a lizard.

[JazzFunk]

What does the Magic Bubbles The Chimp 8-Ball say???

Time will only tell its tame or twisted tale.

[Neon Ignition]

I definitely feel like not enough time has been spent looking at the stuff we do know about Michael and how he ended up with the mindset he did, it never seems to get the focus it deserves because the allegations are more marketable. Broadly though I think the bed sharing gets brushed off less because it's seen as acceptable and more because it's been known of for so long.

I've now seen the first of the four hours of this so I'll post my thoughts of it so far in a bit.

[Atticus]

I was having a conversation years ago with a colleague about MJ's ways ... and I was being all Larry Liberal until I was asked if I'd let my kids to stay at his house. Once you get your head out of the fantasy world he lived in and think in real world terms it is hard to justify any of it.

I'm curious about the new doc but I have a feeling I'll come out of it feeling grimy if I watch it.

[Neon Ignition]

We had that kind of chat at work yesterday too but it's the counter argument for me also. I wouldn't let my kids share a bed with my Uncles, Aunties, friends etc, doesn't mean I think they're all paedo's either though. I'm definitely curious about what actually happened there though.

[Neon Ignition]

So, the first hour:

It's... really mostly fluff. It's a very, very slow moving documentary and in the first hour only speaks to five people. It's all talking heads so no questions etc and those five people are 1 accuser and his mother, then the other accuser and his mother and brother. Everyone's in pretty high spirits telling this tale as well which is pretty off putting but not much of a grim nature has been mentioned. Everything said by both is effectively telling you their childhood timelines of how they came to meet Michael, how they came to spend time with him and get closer. Well, kind of, one of the accusers tales so far has only covered a 2-3 day period and then he didn't see Jackson again for a year till his parents started trying to recontact the singer.

So, in the first hour there is one account of abuse made and it's in circumstances that are pretty much impossible to prove in support of or in defence. There's a lot of scene setting to the first hour and very little of substance to be honest, the only thing I wasn't keen on is - and it's a bit awkward to find the right phrase for it - a sense that events are being told in a way that misrepresents them.

It's difficult because the approach of the documentary is from the accusers POV but that means there are moments where those talking will say something felt off and that's all that's said.

The best example is the overall narrative being told which creates parallels between the two but passes objective things for patterns of behaviour in Michael. So Robson wins a dance competition to meet Michael at a concert, Michael has him dance on stage with other kids and comes to his house a couple of times then no contact for a year (as above). Safechuck is a child actor who stars in a Pepsi advert with Michael, some time later a filming crew comes to their house and records a video of Safechuck dancing and the mother says there was no explanation behind it and it was odd, Safechuck saying looking back it was like Michael was auditioning him as to whether he liked him. Safechuck and his family then tell how Michael took Safechuck along with them for his tour. It's all delivered in a very grooming manner and yet at some point you step back, look at the footage and pics that have been largely carefully edited to appear more home movie like than they are and realise that half the pics are media or publicity shots and that it's plain as day that both kids didn't accompany Michael on stage because he fancied them, they were up there as part of a clearly choreographed section of a tour routine. Safechuck was part of the tour performance itself for the year or so it travelled the world so was also in effect an employee of Jackson but this isn't established because it doesn't lend itself to the emotional belief the documentary wants.

It's not a big leap but once you make it you're already in territory of doubt over the accounts being told because you're aware you're being led. It's a small series of very small nods and comments to insinuate wrongful intent on Michaels part but for things that on reflection are really dull and fairly understandably normal things.

So, the first hour is a bit of a slow burn and not very revealing. The second hour is supposed to be where the vast majority of the claims and accounts lie so hopefully it will provide clearer reasoning and a more trustworthy account of the claims.

[gamelife]

I still to this day believe MJ is fully innocent, I agree that he's an incredibly weird and troubled character brought on by fame and fortune but there's never been any evidence to suggest he was a child abuser. Wade and Safechuck both swore under oath that he never touched them...but now years after MJ's death they re-surface (at the same time) with this so called documentary...just doesn't ring true to me.

On top of that both Culkin and Feldman both defend him to this day, and Feldman has been quite open in the past about child abuse.

you'd think if there was any truth to what these guys are saying they'd be some shread of proof...but no

[QualityChimp]

You look at Metacritic and all the reviews seem to highly rate the documentary and never question the motives of the accusers.

https://www.metacritic.com/tv/leaving-neverland/critic-reviews

This thread seems to be the only subjective discussion!

[gamelife]

You look at Metacritic and all the reviews seem to highly rate the documentary and never question the motives of the accusers.

https://www.metacritic.com/tv/leaving-neverland/critic-reviews

This thread seems to be the only subjective discussion!

that's from a critic point of view, user reviews on the other hand...

[Strider]

Wade and Safechuck both swore under oath that he never touched them...but now years after MJ's death they re-surface (at the same time) with this so called documentary...just doesn't ring true to me.

Knowing how child abuse works I can absolutely believe why they would have sworn under oath and now appear to have changed their minds. Grooming is incredibly complicated to understand, as is the power that an abuser can have over someone. He's paid off far too many people to not be innocent in this. I personally believe that he's guilty but it won't change the fact that his music is incredible.

[MartyG]

I might have a little less skepticism of his claims had Wade Robson not tried to sue the Jackson Estate for £1.2 billion.

[Atticus]

I still want to believe he's innocent. Misguided and troubled, most definitely ... having kids sleep over is questionable, however innocently it's instigated/presented ... he just hasn't done himself any favours there. But I also have to question parents' willingness to allow their children to sleep at a pop star's house.

The main thing here though is he's not here to defend himself. I personally don't think he's guilty of abuse. Or I hope he isn't. And a trial-by-documentary isn't likely to change my mind. But it may be enough to derail his (already shaky) legacy, whether it's true or not.

[Neon Ignition]

Which is another curious point, if Jackson orchestrated a cover up it would have to be one of an immense scale covering hundreds of people at the minimum over decades and yet there appears to be no evidence. It's certainly complicated because he undoubtedly spent a lot of money on those he knew abused or not but given authorities ability to investigate other celebrities living and deceased and come up with solid charges or convictions it's a curiosity that all they have ever found is evidence that largely supports Jackson as being innocent.