Quantcast
View Post
KiigelHeart said:
Forgot this thread existed but the documentary was aired yesterday in Finland for the first time on a show called Docventures. Didn't watch it yet though. They had a discussion afterwards and instead going back and forth whether Jackson is innocent or not, the documentary served as an introduction to discussion about sexual abuse towards children. The discussion helped many people seek help and talk about their experiences already.

I'd just like to point out that it's not out of ordinary that victims don't even realize they've been abused until they're grown up and/or something triggers their memories. They know something about them is broken but they don't know what it is, the brain blocks such traumatic events from their memory. Futhermore, it's unreasonable to expect victims to remember timelines or even locations clearly. Just think about some even from your childhood and try to remember an exact year it happened. Memories are quite unreliable. So all this "It couldn't have happened in 1993 everything is debunked and they're lying!!!!" is pretty disturbing stuff and will not do any good for others who are still silent about their suffering.

These people who now speak were children back then. Allegedly abused by someone close to them who they trusted. Someone who has millions of fans ready to defend him and shame the victim. Can you really blame them for inconsistencies in their statements?

Finding solid proof in cases like this is also very tricky as time has passed. More often than not it's words against words.

The problem is when people look to make money from such issues that causes people to question events.  I have seen people believe they were molested because someone kept telling them they were.  It's one thing to come out from years of abuse and want to set the situation straight, its another to seek a crap ton of money first.  The problem with this whole thing is that there is a crap ton of inconsistent information along with the fact they tried to sue the estate for a lot of money when they became broke.  It puts into question was everything about money more than actual incidents.

When all is said and done, trying to make a profit off of the situation will always cloud everything they say.  It they want to be creditable then first not seek the money but instead set the situation first.  Either way, they have a chance to make their case only after the man is dead and cannot defend himself which also taints their case.