• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Official - Michael Jackson was scum

I just started watching the documentary after skimming this thread. Not sure why. I made it about 45 seconds in and realized:

- I rarely watch documentaries because they are often terrible.
- I don't care about this story enough to sit through it. I made it as far as the opening paragraph of one of the victims.

"He was great, loving, helped me tremendously with my career....and he sexually abused me" Then the ominous music

Great opening line! Can you say it one more time? The lighting was a little off.

'Click'.

Don't care. Pathetic that I almost did.
 
I have looked over this thread, and a lot of people just don't get how powerful show biz celebs are in Southern California. They are quite literally above the law unless caught red handed. I give you OJ as an example.
How do you think Harvey Weinstein got away with if for so long.

I'll give you this - yes, you are correct in this, although I live right next to DC.

And again, I reject the idea that there's some massive conspiracy to get MJ, or Bill Cosby or whoever.

Third, I haven't watched "leaving Neverland" and I may never do so. And it's for the same reason I didn't see the recent R. Kelly movie, although in his case, I absolutely knew the deal. For me, these just bring up bad memories, and just lead to anger and frustration, regardless of if they're true or not.
 
FWIW, "official" may involve conclusions made through a formal investigation initiated by authorities.
 
The book - complete fiction - predates the "similar" allegations.

I guess someone had a good enough understanding of him that they could imagine a realistic scenario where he groomed and sexually abused young boys? I'm sure there's plenty of fan fiction out there for people to drool over.
 
Last edited:
I guess someone had a good enough understanding of him that they could imagine a realistic scenario where he groomed and sexually abused young boys? I'm sure there's plenty of fan fiction out there for people to drool over.

No, what happened was that a shady character with clear links to NAMBLA wrote his own fantasy version of Jackson's relationship with Jordan Chandler, framing it as a "love story" (as you would expect a NAMBLA fellow traveller to do). Chandler himself said it was a complete fantasy, while Jackson brought a successful defamation suit against the author. Subsequently some accusers described activity or situations that appeared in the book, which they had not described before the book appeared.
 
No, what happened was that a shady character with clear links to NAMBLA wrote his own fantasy version of Jackson's relationship with Jordan Chandler, framing it as a "love story" (as you would expect a NAMBLA fellow traveller to do). Chandler himself said it was a complete fantasy, while Jackson brought a successful defamation suit against the author. Subsequently some accusers described activity or situations that appeared in the book, which they had not described before the book appeared.

Now you've mentioned it I remember some of that. Was there a wedding scene in that book, too?
 
A quick Google -maybe I'll look more later- seems to show the wedding in the book was for June's brother, and was intended to set the scene for MJ and Jordy Chandler to be together.

In the book, MJ broke a couple of lamps in a rage because June left Lily (the little sister) with the two of them, so they wouldn't have any privacy. I think there was -much later?- an incident in RL when MJ broke a couple of lamps, and it led to some serious questions.

Again, real information is becoming harder and harder to find, and I'm starting to feel like everything printed about it is tainted by the sheer amount of BS flying around.
 
Subsequently some accusers described activity or situations that appeared in the book, which they had not described before the book appeared.

It's perfectly plausible that some of the allegations were false. That of course does nothing to explain away MJ acting just like a pedophile grooming young boys would. Or is that somehow being disputed?
 
No, what happened was that a shady character with clear links to NAMBLA wrote his own fantasy version of Jackson's relationship with Jordan Chandler, framing it as a "love story" (as you would expect a NAMBLA fellow traveller to do). Chandler himself said it was a complete fantasy, while Jackson brought a successful defamation suit against the author. Subsequently some accusers described activity or situations that appeared in the book, which they had not described before the book appeared.

Are you contending that any accuser told a different story before the book, and then changed their allegations to match the book after it came out? Which accusers, exactly? (There are only six, as of now; identification should be simple enough.)

If that's not what you're contending then the book doesn't matter. If the book describes typical grooming and molestation behaviors then it's practically impossible for any molestation allegation to not have similarities. If aspects of the book's fantasizing were inspired by Jackson's well-known and public sappy gushing toward people in general and particularly to his special friends, it is also practically impossible for any molestation allegations not to have similarities because it's absurd to think Jackson's demeanor was somehow more reserved and less romantic in private.
 
Last edited:
Now you've mentioned it I remember some of that. Was there a wedding scene in that book, too?

Yes, there was. And it does sound like Safechuck's allegations were sourced from Gutierrez's book.

Did you have a chance to read the link you posted earlier in the thread? It's a more detailed version of the video with embedded links to yet other facets of the earlier allegations. It's lengthy, but definitely worth a read when you're up to it.

I watched the show last week and went searching for info as I was watching the 2nd half. I didn't find the guys as convincing as others have. I admit to being somewhat jaded to stories like this and I do try to make a conscious effort to not be too quick to dismiss victim claimants.

LN spoilers:

Among the things that bothered me from the get-go:

1] These (alleged) events were taking place well before the 2 public accusations that made international news, in 1993 and 2005. I didn't remember either of those accusers alleging anything so graphic. This didn't mean much at first -- I knew of the allegations at the time, but barely paid attention to them. A cursory search suggests that this was actually the case; neither of the original accusers claimed to experience anything like this.

So, with that timeline, Jackson was raping boys earlier on and then calmed down a bit, and settled for fondling and less intrusive acts.

It doesn't prove anything, exactly, but it doesn't make sense to me that he would de-escalate as time goes on. I'm not an expert, but my understanding that abusers escalate and become more brazen as time goes on, not less.

2] In the midst of these graphic abuse claims, it seemed odd to me that they brought up these otherwise ordinary complaints: they were upset that Jackson didn't help them more (or something?) with their careers and schooling.

The Safechucks acknowledge that they went years with little-to-no face to face contact with Jackson, and no contact at all besides occasional and infrquent letters, faxes or phone calls. (They seemed upset about this) But Safechuck blames him for his parents' decision to pull him out of advanced classes in high school, and says it was Jackson's fault that Safechuck dropped out of film school. I understand how upset he might be if Jackson told him "nah, you don't need film school; just do (whatever) and you'll break into the industry", and he followed that advice and regretted it. But as unfortunate as that is, I have a hard time seeing that as Jackson's responsibility or his fault. As for the parents pulling him out of his advanced classes in high school, again, that falls on the parents, not Jackson (assuming he actually suggested that to begin with)

The Robsons spent a fair amount of time talking about something Jackson to said to Wade on one of their earlier meetings, that Wade would be a huge director, "bigger than Spielberg". This came up at least 2, 3 times in the show. First Joy Robson (Wade's mother), and later both Wade and his wife Amanda. They actually referred to it, several times, as a "prophecy". Wade seemed legitimately angry about this "failed prophecy". He also claimed that Jackson "told him to always work hard" (might not be an exact quote, but very close) and that that is why he can't enjoy work, that Jackson instilled in him this unhealthy work ethic.

Like the Safechucks, he only had sporadic and infrequent contact with him at that point (in fact, they only had an initial long visit that spanned a few weeks, and it seemed like that was the end of it. And like Safechuck's mother, Joy Robson seemed very upset by this.) So, I don't quite buy it that Jackson had that much negative influence over his adult career. In fact, there's a video clip -- possibly in the Leaving Neverland: Echoes of a Pedophilia Apologist video, with Joy Robson bragging that she (not Jackson) relentlessly pushed her kids to perform. She says, happily, "every birthday party was backstage, every Christmas party - backstage. No regrets".

Again, the reason this seemed odd to me was because of the context: interjected into this show, filled with explicit descriptions of sexual abuse, these mundane grievances just seemed weirdly out of place.

"He staged a mock wedding... and he also gave me bad career advice!"

"He raped me... and he also promised a huge directing career that never materialized!"

And the final cherry on the cake with those segments was Robson's brother, saying that his (the brother's) wife had some "foreshadowing" of Wade's abuse: it had come to her in a dream that Wade had been abused by Jackson. When they were all together a few days later, she casually mentioned this. Robson said his usual response would have been to make a joke, but this time, it was like fate: Wade had just disclosed the abuse to a therapist, for the first time, and he couldn't joke about it. His brother noticed the change in Wade's demeanor, and he confessed to (some of) his family for the first time.

The whole thing doesn't quite add up, for me. It makes me suspect that the real reason Robson/Safechuck are at least somewhat convincing is because they DO have a lot of bitterness at Jackson for these (irrational) failed expectations. They seem to feel he owed them something career-wise, and failed to follow through.

3] The Robson's treatment of their father/husband was truly awful. He had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and he desperately wanted them to stay, but Joy still packed up her two youngest (Wade and his sister Chantal) and headed to the USA, leaving her husband and oldest son in the dust. I probably need to watch the show again to refresh my memory, but I seem to recall Shane, the oldest son, visiting relatively frequently. The father, less so.

There is a chilling segment in which Wade and Chantal discuss the last few visits / the last times they saw their father. Wade admits flat out that he wanted little to do with the guy and had no patience for him. Chantal tries to make it seem normal and less terrible, but her explanation: "mom wanted us to spend time with dad, and Wade didn't see why he should have to do that" really didn't help. Their mentally ill father had little to no love or affection from his own family. By their own accounts, his mental illness was an annoyance and a burden to Wade. When the oldest son left for the US (on a "visit" of indeterminate length), the father committed suicide. Wade barely grieved.

Not included, but related to LN: Wade, in his 2016 deposition, tries to blame Jackson for his father's death, stating that his father "might have been worried that he (Wade) was being abused by Jackson. I'd say there's roughly zero chance that his suicide had anything to with Jackson, and every chance that it was because he had mental illness with a high mortality rate and a family that abandoned him.

Leaving Neverland specifically set out to show these guys in a sympathetic light, and Robson still came off as a self-absorbed monster.

There were other things, too, but these are the main points that stood out to me.

Dragon Lady already posted it, but for the sake of convenience: A Critical Analysis of Leaving Neverland
 
Last edited:
Did you have a chance to read the link you posted earlier in the thread? It's a more detailed version of the video with embedded links to yet other facets of the earlier allegations. It's lengthy, but definitely worth a read when you're up to it.

I'm really busy with a bunch of things right now, and they have me distracted, too. I read a LOT about the first cases when they happened, and discussed it a lot over the years, but now there's been so much time & distance I don't remember much -even the important stuff is confusing now.


I do hope to take some time and revisit the whole thing; because I do think the truth is important.

If Jackson did hurt boys, we need to learn from his methods so it doesn't happen again. If he didn't, we need to learn from these cases so no one else is destroyed by false allegations.
 
Jackson wasn't destroyed by the false allegations. He overcame them and died the most beloved pop icon in American history, if not world history.
 
If Jackson did hurt boys, we need to learn from his methods so it doesn't happen again.

There's nothing to learn. As I've continued to stress: his methods, as described by the alleged victims and their family, sound like a textbook example of sexual grooming of children. Michael Jackson himself couldn't come up with a credible excuse for this when he was interviewed yet for some strange reason he gets a pass. If anything we need to learn from the people who willfully ignore and come up with incredibly unlikely excuses for his behavior.

That's the elephant in the room the MJ apologists seem to be intent on ignoring.

Yes, there was. And it does sound like Safechuck's allegations were sourced from Gutierrez's book.

If that's the case then obviously MJ's estate would've pointed this out. They would've made that case to the director of the documentary long before its release, as the were aware of it being made. Have they done that?
 
Last edited:
Did he know that?

Beyond a doubt. Jackson was inundated by legions of adoring fans wherever he went, including during the actual trial as he shuttled to and from the courthouse each day. Compilation albums he released contemporary with and subsequent to his trial were consistent top sellers, and the 50-date concert series he was preparing for at the time of his death completely sold out - for all dates - within four hours of the tickets becoming available to the public. Sites selling the tickets crashed under the demand. He knew.
 
Dismember: And it does sound like Safechuck's allegations were sourced from Gutierrez's book.

If that's the case then obviously MJ's estate would've pointed this out. They would've made that case to the director of the documentary long before its release, as the were aware of it being made. Have they done that?

They say it took them by surprise, but apparently they did reach out and try to talk to HBO and Channel 4. The letters they sent are linked in the quote, and I'll post excerpts of those below as well:

(source)

The blatant disregard for a fair and balanced representation of the case did not end with Reed. Jackson’s Estate reached out to HBO and Channel 4 in letters (the two channels which commissioned the film), detailing credibility issues with these accusers which came out during their litigation in court. There was no attempt at fairness and balance by either channel. They refused to even meet with the Estate’s representatives to discuss the matter and none of them offered the Estate or the Jackson family an opportunity to tell their side of the story.
In actuality, the documentary took both Jackson’s Estate and his family by surprise. There are just about one and a half months between its surprise announcement and last minute addition to the program of the Sundance film festival and its airing on HBO and Channel 4 in the first week of March and it was very quickly distributed to other channels all around the world as well. When Michael Jackson’s nephew, Taj Jackson requested that the family could watch it before it airs, he was declined. On the other hand, influencers, social media "blue ticks" and the press were given special early screenings all around the world. It seemed the short notice and very aggressive media blitz was planned this way deliberately, so that the Estate and the family would not have time to put together a response in the form of a rebuttal documentary or other similar means.

This raises some serious ethical questions regarding this film and the concentrated media campaign surrounding it.

In a Vanity Fair interview Reed cynically said about criticism of his one-sided approach: "What is the other side of the story? That Michael Jackson was a great entertainer and a great guy?" [1]

No, that is not the other side of the story. The other side of the story is, that Jackson’s Estate has been in a long time litigation with these two men and during that litigation information about them came out that, if represented in the film, would have put these allegations into a different perspective for the audience.


Excerpts of the letters from Howard Weitzman, one of the lawyers representing the Estate, to HBO:
[. . .]Notably, in the "documentary," Robson now recounts "his" supposed "memories" of these events in great detail. But Mr. Reed and Robson never explain that he had to first ask his mother scores of questions before he could tell his story. Indeed, despite telling the story of his first night at Neverland in the documentary as if it is his own memory, at his deposition, he admitted that he "did not know" if his memory of that night "came from [his] own recollection or [if] it was told to [Robson] by someone else." Simply put, Robson is an admitted perjurer who proudly called himself (in his draft book) a "master of deception."

Robson is such a good liar that his own mother testified under oath at her deposition that she could not tell when he was lying; she even volunteered that "he should have had an Oscar" given how convincing his lies were. It may just be that he deserves an Oscar for HBO’s "documentary" as well. [. . .]


Excerpts of the letter to Channel 4:
[...] Leaving Neverland rehashes accusations against the late Michael Jackson of committing the most heinous crimes any person can be accused of in modern society. The subjects of the "documentary"—James Safechuck and Wade Robson—are admitted perjurers. They spent years litigating their false claims against the Estate, and filed four different lawsuits against it, all of which were dismissed with prejudice.

Today, they are appealing the adverse judgments against them. This documentary appears to be part of their litigation strategy. In the underlying litigations in the trial court, the Estate discovered troves of information about Robson and Safechuck that made it unequivocally clear that they had no credibility whatsoever. And contrary to the claims of Dan Reed and others that the trial court never assessed these men’s credibility in those lawsuits, the trial court effectively found, among other things, that no rational person could believe that Robson was telling the truth about various issues(as discussed in the enclosed letter to Richard Plepler of HBO at page 5). [...]

As referenced above, we wrote a detailed letter to HBO last week setting out many of the problems with this so-called "documentary" and the utter lack of credibility of Safechuck and Robson. The point of this letter is not to repeat ourselves so we are enclosing a copy of that letter and commend you to it. (Everything said about HBO in that letter is equally applicable to Channel 4.) Rather, the point of this letter is to make a different inquiry. Channel 4’s "Factual Programme Guidelines"1 provide as follows: "If a programme makes significant allegations against an individual or organisation, those concerned should be given an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond." I think we can all agree that the false allegations being made in your "documentary" are "significant allegations." Indeed, as noted above, it is hard to imagine more significant accusations that can possibly be made against anyone. Yet, contrary to your "Factual Programme Guidelines"—not to mention all norms of journalism and documentary filmmaking along with good old-fashioned ethics—neither Dan Reed nor anyone else associated with this "documentary" ever contacted anyone to respond to the frivolous allegations made by Safechuck and Robson in your "documentary." [. . .]
 
They say it took them by surprise, but apparently they did reach out and try to talk to HBO and Channel 4. The letters they sent are linked in the quote, and I'll post excerpts of those below as well:

But they didn't mention anything about "Safechuck's allegations being sourced from Gutierrez's book"? Why would they not mention that if it was something so obvious yet undermined all of their allegations?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom