573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 11, 2019 13:00:06 GMT
I don't want their testimony to be clouded by accusations of only being in it for the money. It's not about what we want, it's about facts. Their previous testimonies as adult men seemed to be influenced by money and notoriety. And now, stating the complete opposite when he's dead also brings in money and notoriety. Both situations were a choice. They could have chosen to speak the truth in 2005 (which is better for personal processing) and they could have chosen to speak with their families and professionals now (which also seems better for personal processing), but they didn't in both cases and chose the money and notoriety route both times (and the actual case is also about that, so actually 3 times). Many people are looking for "prestige" indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 13:08:50 GMT
Their previous testimonies as adult men seemed to be influenced by money and notoriety. And now, stating the complete opposite when he's dead also brings in money and notoriety. Their previous testimonies were influenced by standing up for and protecting their abuser when they were in their 20s. The testimonies now are influenced by the truth now that they are older and starting to properly process what happened to them. You do make it sound like they could have quite easily chosen to say that Michael Jackson abused them at the time like it's obvious and that for some machiavellian purpose, they chose specifically not to do so but they went through years of grooming and abuse at the hands of this man when they were just children and that is going to take a long time to process (indeed for some people they never do). That "choice" to stand up against MJ in 2005 might not actually have been a choice at all, they clearly hadn't processed it or dealt with it as abuse at that time, they thought he loved them. The issue is not simply black and white (pardon the pun). |
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 11, 2019 14:26:40 GMT
Their previous testimonies were influenced by standing up for and protecting their abuser when they were in their 20s. The testimonies now are influenced by the truth now that they are older and starting to properly process what happened to them. They received millions for their previous testimionies back then. How can you be certain that that did not influence them at all at the time? They have explained themselves that fame and fortune has been a primary factor for them. It could very well be that they continued to receive money for as long as he was alive. Now, Michael is dead, and they claim the exact opposite of what they claimed back then, and this also happens to bring in money and notoriety. How can you be certain that that doesn't influence them at all? This is not about the debate if it happened or not, I actually believe things happened and that people like Macaulay Culkin just choose to handle it more privately. But they were adults in both cases and they just happen to choose the road of money and notoriety all the time. It's just something I notice. I'm also not saying that is per definition the only case, but the other side is also not per definition the only case. So I definitely agree that it's not just black or white. |
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 11, 2019 14:31:11 GMT
I understand this very well and this is actually more likely to happen if parents are longing for fame and fortune and are therefore blind for danger, misplaced trust, and don't see things as clearly, or are too impressed with the glitter that they don't see the truth anymore, or put that higher than the well being of their kids, etc. This is also not judgement, but something I notice. And looking at a bigger picture, it does create a clearer image of the possible intentions of the family, about what interests them and what drives their actions. Making and releasing a movie is a real business, especially on this scale. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 14:43:32 GMT
Their previous testimonies were influenced by standing up for and protecting their abuser when they were in their 20s. The testimonies now are influenced by the truth now that they are older and starting to properly process what happened to them. They received millions for their previous testimionies back then. How can you be certain that that did not influence them at all at the time? They have explained themselves that fame and fortune has been a primary factor for them. It could very well be that they continued to receive money for as long as he was alive. Now, Michael is dead, and they claim the exact opposite of what they claimed back then, and this also happens to bring in money and notoriety. How can you be certain that that doesn't influence them at all? This is not about the debate if it happened or not, I actually believe things happened and that people like Macaulay Culkin just choose to handle it more privately. But they were adults in both cases and they just happen to choose the road of money and notoriety all the time. It's just something I notice. I'm also not saying that is per definition the only case, but the other side is also not per definition the only case. I do see what you're saying but I can't say that I agree with you. You do seem to be suggesting that this is all motivated by money and fame and I just can't agree with you here. I think they have both talked about why their stories changed between then and now and I am satisfied by that explanation. I think it is the easiest and laziest response used by the MJ supporters to say that this means that their allegations now are lies but I don't think it does. If anyone is motivated by money in this whole sorry tale I think it is the Jacksons themselves and I think their shameful peddling of this narrative of MJ as the innocent angel will come back to haunt each and every one of them for the rest of their days in the same way that MJ's actions will haunt Wade and James for the rest of theirs. However, I'll repeat what I said earlier, if he did what they say he did to them then I hope they get as much money as they can get. It's the least they deserve. I genuinely believe that the most they deserve is our respect and our admiration for speaking out (despite the death threats they receive on a daily basis) and our wishes that they get to the end of what I hope will be long lives with a small shred of peace of mind. |
|
345 posts
|
Post by johartuk on Mar 11, 2019 14:50:23 GMT
It's not about what we want, it's about facts. Their previous testimonies as adult men seemed to be influenced by money and notoriety. And now, stating the complete opposite when he's dead also brings in money and notoriety. Both situations were a choice. They could have chosen to speak the truth in 2005 (which is better for personal processing) and they could have chosen to speak with their families and professionals now (which also seems better for personal processing), but they didn't in both cases and chose the money and notoriety route both times (and the actual case is also about that, so actually 3 times). Many people are looking for "prestige" indeed. It's worth pointing out here that James Safechuck didn't testify in the 2005 trial - he refused to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 14:51:41 GMT
I understand this very well and this is actually more likely to happen if parents are longing for fame and fortune and are therefore blind for danger, misplaced trust, and don't see things as clearly, or are too impressed with the glitter that they don't see the truth anymore, or put that higher than the well being of their kids, etc. This is also not judgement, but something I notice. And looking at a bigger picture, it does create a clearer image of the intentions from the family, about what interests them and what has driven their actions in the past. I don't think the parents have come out of this whole sorry mess well either. Their families have been torn apart and they have to live with what they've done but I don't think you can tar the children with the same brush as the parents. The parents could very well have been dazzled by the money and the fame back in the day but that has clearly backfired on them massively. I don't think that this means that Wade and James are motivated by money and fame in this situation, I think it's just catharsis. James Safechuck in particular seems to me like a wreck of a man holding on to the one bit of self-respect he can find and every time I see him speak, my heart breaks into a million pieces. He was literally shaking throughout the Oprah Winfrey interview and I think fame is the last thing on his mind, no matter what might be motivating his mother. |
|
19,795 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 11, 2019 15:02:41 GMT
They received millions for their previous testimionies back then. How can you be certain that that did not influence them at all at the time? They have explained themselves that fame and fortune has been a primary factor for them. It could very well be that they continued to receive money for as long as he was alive. Now, Michael is dead, and they claim the exact opposite of what they claimed back then, and this also happens to bring in money and notoriety. How can you be certain that that doesn't influence them at all? This is not about the debate if it happened or not, I actually believe things happened and that people like Macaulay Culkin just choose to handle it more privately. But they were adults in both cases and they just happen to choose the road of money and notoriety all the time. It's just something I notice. I'm also not saying that is per definition the only case, but the other side is also not per definition the only case. I do see what you're saying but I can't say that I agree with you. You do seem to be suggesting that this is all motivated by money and fame and I just can't agree with you here. I think they have both talked about why their stories changed between then and now and I am satisfied by that explanation. I think it is the easiest and laziest response used by the MJ supporters to say that this means that their allegations now are lies but I don't think it does. If anyone is motivated by money in this whole sorry tale I think it is the Jacksons themselves and I think their shameful peddling of this narrative of MJ as the innocent angel will come back to haunt each and every one of them for the rest of their days in the same way that MJ's actions will haunt Wade and James for the rest of theirs. They do have a vested interest in keeping the MJ machine running of course, but that doesn’t mean they know what went on. MJ was hardly going to be telling his family that he was a molesting kids. They’re entitled NOT to believe it, and it’s more understandable that his family can’t believe it or choose not to than it is for some crazed fan who has no connection with him other than his records. Im sure the family of any child abuser would stick up for their own until it was proven otherwise. Except Latoya obvs. She knew the score. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 15:09:50 GMT
I do see what you're saying but I can't say that I agree with you. You do seem to be suggesting that this is all motivated by money and fame and I just can't agree with you here. I think they have both talked about why their stories changed between then and now and I am satisfied by that explanation. I think it is the easiest and laziest response used by the MJ supporters to say that this means that their allegations now are lies but I don't think it does. If anyone is motivated by money in this whole sorry tale I think it is the Jacksons themselves and I think their shameful peddling of this narrative of MJ as the innocent angel will come back to haunt each and every one of them for the rest of their days in the same way that MJ's actions will haunt Wade and James for the rest of theirs. They do have a vested interest in keeping the MJ machine running of course, but that doesn’t mean they know what went on. MJ was hardly going to be telling his family that he was a molesting kids. They’re entitled NOT to believe it, and it’s more understandable that his family can’t believe it or choose not to than it is for some crazed fan who has no connection with him other than his records. Im sure the family of any child abuser would stick up for their own until it was proven otherwise. Except Latoya obvs. She knew the score. Yes, I guess you're right. I may defer there. You can bank that one, it rarely happens. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 18:00:39 GMT
Michael's "Number Ones" Album looks set to hit the UK Top 30 this week following the release of the documentary.
|
|
2,340 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Mar 11, 2019 18:18:15 GMT
Michael's "Number Ones" Album looks set to hit the UK Top 30 this week following the release of the documentary. Is that a good thing? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 18:22:02 GMT
Michael's "Number Ones" Album looks set to hit the UK Top 30 this week following the release of the documentary. Michael Jacksons "Number Twos" going for thousands on eBay. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 18:27:17 GMT
Michael's "Number Ones" Album looks set to hit the UK Top 30 this week following the release of the documentary. Is that a good thing? I don't think it's a good thing or a bad thing, it's certainly an interesting thing to see considering it's such a controversial and divided documentary. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 18:38:51 GMT
Brexit is divisive. This is not divisive. “More Americans believe Michael Jackson guilty of child sex abuse after "Leaving Neverland"” “Following HBO’s “Leaving Neverland” documentary, almost half of Americans (48%) say that Michael Jackson is likely guilty of child molestation, new YouGov research finds. The number represents a 7 percentage point increase over last week, before the documentary aired, while the percentage of people who believe he’s innocent (19%) remained the same.” today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/03/08/americans-believe-michael-jackson-guilty-poll |
|
2,761 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by n1david on Mar 11, 2019 18:58:40 GMT
I don't think it's a good thing or a bad thing, it's certainly an interesting thing to see considering it's such a controversial and divided documentary. I suspect the hand of the MJ defence organisation. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 19:00:15 GMT
I don't think it's a good thing or a bad thing, it's certainly an interesting thing to see considering it's such a controversial and divided documentary. I suspect the hand of the MJ defence organisation. I suspect people attempting to separate the art from the artist. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Mar 11, 2019 19:42:35 GMT
Michael's "Number Ones" Album looks set to hit the UK Top 30 this week following the release of the documentary. I find it baffling that people don’t already own these songs. |
|
19,795 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Mar 11, 2019 20:45:31 GMT
I don’t own a single MJ track. And I can’t see me starting now. So baffle away.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 22:07:46 GMT
Michael's "Number Ones" Album looks set to hit the UK Top 30 this week following the release of the documentary. I find it baffling that people don’t already own these songs. i find it baffling that anyone would buy them. |
|
2,761 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by n1david on Mar 11, 2019 23:16:00 GMT
I suspect the hand of the MJ defence organisation. I suspect people attempting to separate the art from the artist. That’s possible, but I would find it surprising if people have been reading the coverage from the documentary and suddenly say “you know what, I really want to buy some Michael Jackson now”. It would be strange for someone who didn’t already own MJ songs to choose to buy them based on this week’s publicity. Yes, there will still be people who want to own and listen to MJ’s music, but would this week’s events really prompt a new purchase for someone who didn’t already have them? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 23:57:55 GMT
I suspect people attempting to separate the art from the artist. That’s possible, but I would find it surprising if people have been reading the coverage from the documentary and suddenly say “you know what, I really want to buy some Michael Jackson now”. It would be strange for someone who didn’t already own MJ songs to choose to buy them based on this week’s publicity. Yes, there will still be people who want to own and listen to MJ’s music, but would this week’s events really prompt a new purchase for someone who didn’t already have them? Apparently the same has happened with R Kelly. Shakes your your faith in humanity. |
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 12, 2019 0:03:24 GMT
I do see what you're saying but I can't say that I agree with you. You do seem to be suggesting that this is all motivated by money and fame and I just can't agree with you here. I think they have both talked about why their stories changed between then and now and I am satisfied by that explanation. Not necessarily their story, I actually believe them. I'm just saying that making a movie (which is per definition a business of fame and money) could be motivated by...well....actually that. The case and a movie are 2 completely different things. |
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 12, 2019 0:08:41 GMT
James Safechuck was literally shaking throughout the Oprah Winfrey interview and I think fame is the last thing on his mind, no matter what might be motivating his mother. I agree, it seems to be the complete wrong situation and place for him to process his story/trauma. By choosing this platform, he forces himself into fame and money. |
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 12, 2019 0:12:28 GMT
Ryan said:
" if they get a few million dollars for appearing in this documentary then good for them."
I would assume they'd give this to charity, for example The National Foundation to end child abuse, given the reason for the movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 7:22:28 GMT
That’s possible, but I would find it surprising if people have been reading the coverage from the documentary and suddenly say “you know what, I really want to buy some Michael Jackson now”. It would be strange for someone who didn’t already own MJ songs to choose to buy them based on this week’s publicity. Yes, there will still be people who want to own and listen to MJ’s music, but would this week’s events really prompt a new purchase for someone who didn’t already have them? Apparently the same has happened with R Kelly. Shakes your your faith in humanity. Kind of a ridiculous comparison to make but Mein Kampf is still selling today. |
|
