UKC

I always believed his innocence until i saw that documentary the other night which seemed pretty conclusive to me.

It was a disturbing watch.

Letting a 7 year old child share a bed with this: https://goo.gl/images/AkLgLT 

What could possibly go wrong...

I've not seen the documentary but am always surprised by people who didn't believe he was a nonce. He was on TV literally saying he has kids round his house and shares a bed with them. This was after he got taken to court for it. People just went naaah, he's just a big kid, defo innocent. The fella was f*cking bananas. There is not one other person on planet earth who would get a pass like this. 

I was one of those people who thought he was somehow stuck in his childhood and was reliving it since perhaps he didn't have a proper childhood with all the fame rather than anything sinister going on but now it appears that was not true.

It’s also astonishing how many people are 100% convinced he’s innocent.

Twitter is worth a visit at the moment, just to marvel at the countless deluded Jacko fans.

The mind boggles.  

People look all sorts of ways but that doesn't mean they are criminals as some of the most attractive or ordinary folk are the same type as Jackson.

I'm not on twitter but i don't see how anyone could say he was innocent after watching that Leaving Neverland documentary as it is 100% convincing and fits in with everything else.

It's a real shame he ain't here because he didn't look like the type who can deal with prison. But I'm fairly sure he just would have just paid them off anyway. Feel sorry for his kids tho, I mean it's bad enough your dad was the worlds most famous lunatic and now he's the world's most famous nonce as well. 

Not seen the documentary, I'd rather mince my own head. The Thriller album seemed good and his music definitely took a turn for the worse as time went on. I'm wondering if his art deteriorated in step with his degenerating mind?

Conclusive to you, but he was not found guilty in court of molestation, or of child sexual abuse. That doesn't mean he didn't do it. It means he was not found guilty

My take on Jackson is [1] he was out of his mind if he slept in bed with a non-relative child. [2] he was not found guilty in court of molestation, or of child sexual abuse. He's dead now so he won't go to trial again

I hear what you are saying but did you watch the documentary?

If not it may change your mind as it did with me 

No, I didn't watch the documentary, but I think I should. I will watch it later. Thanks for your recommendation

A friend put it as either the men and their relatives are the best actors in the world, or he was a pedophile. I'm just finishing watching the first episode, and in combination with what I've absorbed from the media in the past too, it really does seem like he was a classic infiltrator of families and groomer of children. It's very convincing.

In reply 

Mentioning how could anyone not suspect him when he had kids as friends and they slept over and stuff all the time, well I think I would have thought back then that no pedo would be so blatant so it must be something else ie. He had not grown up properly for some reason. 

He conned me, folk I know and a lot of the world but I'm happy to see he didn't fool everyone. 

Opra did a show with the two accusers and the English director which shows a great deal of support and love from the audience for them both but during it she read out a statement by the Jackson family which was unsurprisingly pretty strong toward the accusers. 

Yea I was scrutinizing their faces for any tiny little signs to see if they were acting/lying it out but no way, not in million years is that acted. 

Are you saying that he's different from most paedophiles in some way?

His post Jackson 5 music/personae was all inconsequential candyfloss anyway. How on earth did he get so famous? 

You've heard of Boy-Bands etc?

utterly ridiculous to proclaim someone guilty on the back of a documentary. particularly when a criminal trial failed to find the same

The Jackson trial was a farce, a classic example for trials by jury tending to fail for famous defendants or in highly emotionally or otherwise (e.g. racially) charged cases. Same class, really as the trials of OJ Simpson or the police that had assaulted Rodney King.

To add, MJ paid tons of hush money, and not only in the cases that did eventually go to court.

A textbook example of a person with personality disorders covered up by fame and money.

CB

You're right of course. How could I ever have doubted the infallibility of the media. Maybe Cliff Richard would be happy to lead the charge against him? or MP Nigel Evans? or any of the other countless people who have been wrongly accused?

I am not a  particular fan of Michael Jackson, and I have no opinion at all on how well his criminal trial was prosecuted, but to ignore due judicial process in dealing with serious allegations and to default to assuming a documentary is entirely fair, balanced and accurate and assume guilt on the basis of it is very dangerous.

Have you seen the documentary?

If not you should, you're likely to change your view.

The documentary is very well put together and worth a watch for many reasons. The filmmakers haven't made a documentary about Michael Jackson, not sought to examine his motivations or childhood experiences. What they've done instead is make a film about two victims of child sexual abuse. I found it heartbreaking. It also really shines a light on how grooming works and why it can take so long (and be so hard) for people to speak out.

One of the most notable things to me was the way in which people got totally starstruck by Michael, and what that allowed him to get away with. It's astonishing what people will do when dazzled by money and fame. I think Wade's mum in particular didn't come over very well - she had quite a narcissistic streak and I think she loved to bathe in reflected glory.

Stevie Wonder spent a lot of time with Michael Jackson. He never saw him touch a child. 

No need to thank me 

no, I haven't seen it and accept I should, but it is unlikely to change my view that, whilst not perfect, the criminal judicial system  in countries like ours and America are better placed to get at the truth than a documentary - especially when the person in question is dead.

I have, for professional reasons, watched and read countless accounts of abuse by rape and child abuse victims and my view is that, in general, the demeanour and apparent truthfulness or otherwise of the complainant is worth very little compared with the strength of corroborative evidence.

I have watched testimony from "victims" who appear extremely compelling, only to find incontrovertible "hard" evidence that they were lying. Likewise, I have seen testimony from people who come across very poorly, but seen strong corroborative evidence to suggest that they are telling the truth

what rigour does this documentary bring to the process - or have they simply got some people who can tell a compelling story? (who may - I reiterate, be telling the truth)

I have not seen the current documentary, and have no intent of watching it in the future. However, I do remember the coverage of the trial back in 2004/5, and from all that was reported in the press at the time it was extremely clear that this was a blatant failure of the jury mode of trial.

CB

you may be right that the trial was a shambles, I don't know. there has been a great deal of coverage in the last 12 months of gross failings in criminal trials in this country - so I accept that system is not perfect.

my point is that the alternative should not be to turn instead to a documentary to find out the truth. I watched an interview with MJ's nephew who put a very different slant on the whole thing and pointed out a raft of witnesses who could have told a different story but were not in the documentary.

I am not saying that tis is true of the current documentary but this link shows how badly wrong documentaries from respected sources can get it:-

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_Mosque

Fair enough.

What struck me was the detail and nuances in the acvountd, the way all the players' stories, the victims, their parents and siblings had a kind of synergy that to me seems impossible to fabricate.

Compare that to MJ's incredible admission that he regularly slept with the boys over many years but nothing ever happened. I realise the truth may lie in between but I'm inclined to believe what I saw.

Your professional perspective is interesting. 

I read this and now I don't know what to think: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joevogel/2019/01/29/what-you-should-know-about...

What is the role of these witnesses? Presumably he's referring to children who spent time with Jackson without being abused or adults who saw Jackson not abusing kids? If so, that's not very convincing on the basis that no abuser does it to everyone they interact with and most have the sense not to do it front of potential witnesses.

Does it? I haven't seen the programme in question or researched any further than reading the Wikipedia article but it doesn't seem like a slam dunk case of bad reporting. Those accused make the obvious defence that they were taken out of context, which West Midlands Police seem to agree with, but Ofcom seem to disagree. It's very difficult to imagine a context that would justify most of the quoted statements anyway.

I agree that documentaries also can get it wrong, and that they definitely should not replace proper trials at court.

However, for cases involving famous defendants such as OJ Simpson (who even wrote a book entitles something like "If I had done it..." speculating about the murder of his wife, ffs) or, as I would argue MJ, I would not trust the US jury system as far as I could vomit.

CB

That suggests that West Midlands Police got it wrong, not the documentary makers. 

An old friend of mine came out around 1998 that she had been sexually abused as a child by a family member.She went to the police and told them and her family (And me) when the alleged abuser was going to stay with another member of her family who had kids and she thought he would do it again.

She was told by the police when interviewed that they would take him in for questioning but they could not procecuted him for what he did to her unless someone else came forward with a similar complaint. 

So finally my point is that in this documentary there are two people stating the same accusation so if that was in a British Court of law would that not be seen as corroborating in some way? 

Your reply sums it up perfectly.

These kids( Safechuck and Robson) absolutely loved Jackson and seen him as a hero which is what child abusers exploit in all cases it seems. He groomed not only the children but their families to in a classic case of abuse which also focused on the kids less likely to be strong enough to say anything then working on them to even think ahead to a future scenario in which they would be needed to cover up any allegations  Which is incredibly us what they both did later by denying any abuse in court. 

I don't know too much about paedophiles tbh although it appears he is similar to any famous ones with a lot of influence and power. 

Yes I re read your post and understand what you meant now.

On another point, did Safechuck deny abuse in court? I understand that he refused to testify in the second trial but can't recall details about his appearance in the first one.

Have you watched the documentary? It answers everything raised in that article.

I haven't no. It's quite possible the article I linked was commissioned by his estate or a supporter, but it paints a seemingly powerful picture. For what it's worth, on balance I think the evidence there is does point to him being guilty of the accused.

Not many people still consider that Jimmy Saville was innocent of paedophilia, so why is Michael Jackson any different? 

Saville was never brought to trial and subsequently exonerated

There is one section where one of them is very clearly lying. They show footage from an interview with one of the boys (I think it was Robson) conducted at the time of the first set of allegations. He is asked if Michael ever touched or abused him sexually and though his voice says "no", he briefly closes his eyes and turns away slightly every time he says it. It's so, so hard not to close your eyes when you're lying - even if you know it's a recognisable tic! It's weirdly instinctive.

If you were just focusing on his voice and the vehemence of his denial you'd think he was telling the truth.

I dunno, I generally go on what I absorb from people rather than looking for specific signs as such. While watching it I had in mind something from TV a long time ago, where an employee of his was saying how he always made sure his hotel room was on a different floor to Jackson's, and accounts of him doing things like bouncing children up and down on his knee while saying 'Rubber, rubber, rubber, rubber' and there being general concern at what was felt to be his inappropriate behaviour around children, his physical contact with them.

Ultimately I guess there being therapy available for anybody affected is the main thing, if there's any truth in it all...

Maybe you are right on that point but he trained/threatened both that they had to help him (and themselves) by denying any abuse which shows the complete power he had over these two children even right up to being adults. I mean Safechuck stated he was terrified even as an adult that anyone would find out. 

Strange how when both Safechuck and Robson became parents that was when they had breakdowns and needed to seek help. 

I missed that but what I meant was I was watching thier faces in the new documentary to see if I could see any indication of either Safechuck or Robson lying about the abuse and I didn't see any evidence of any lying behavior. 

Yes, I knew what you were meaning! No, I don't think for a minute they were lying. I hope both of them are able to come to terms with what happened to them.

Now watched it, and yes - it pretty much does answer everything very convincingly.

But So famous​​​​​​? 

You use the term documentary as if that was a thing that inherently lacks the rigour of other forms of investigation. But a documentary is a filmed investigation and each one must be judged on what it uncovers.

Having watched the very extensive documentary series on OJ a couple of years ago I would say that a 'documentary' can be much better placed to get at the truth than court cases that took place at the time, if only because there is more time to gather evidence.

Given the fuss that is made of reality TV stars I find it surprising that you think fame needs to be linked to anything of substance.

I fundamentally disagree.  

A court case has two sides working in opposition and an independent arbitor of one form of another.  A documentary has one side working with no opposition and no arbiter.  From a process view point it can never be considered, even before stoping to consider that the documentary is looking to generate fame, money and viewing figures, not justice.

Documenteries can be compelling, convincing and rewarding.  But you don’t know what they’re leaving out.  Sometimes I see a documentary on a science subject I am considered highly knowledgable in and I am aghast at the liberties they take.  I can only assume they do likewise in other subjects where I wouldn’t realise it.

And yet we know that many investigations conducted by journalists have revealed truths the courts have failed to find. But how can that be when all they want to do is sell newspapers and get viewing figures.

I'm aghast at some of the articles in the Sun am I going to ignore the Snowden papers or Watergate revelations because of that.