Quantcast
"Leaving Neverland": Do you think Michael Jackson is Innocent?

Forums - General Discussion - "Leaving Neverland": Do you think Michael Jackson is Innocent?

Thriller and Invincible or Bad and Dangerous

Good guy, wrongly accused 50 51.55%
 
Talented Bad guy 25 25.77%
 
A little of both. 22 22.68%
 
Total:97

I saw part 1 and read a review of part 2 and did some research for myself. I think he's innocent.



Around the Network

Evidence A: The stories of these accusers have had inconsistencies through the years.

Evidence B: They claim Michael Jackson exchanged gifts for sexual favors. If he was so gone mentally to use such bold, rash, and ignorant forms of malicious activity which required assuming that children are so absentminded or underrepresented that he could get away with it, then he would likely have taken more risks with Macaulay Culkin.  If he enjoyed Macaulay's company so much and in the same way as the other children, then in those close moments, what would have stopped him from attempting something malicious once or twice? But Macaulay has repeatedly said through the years that Michael never did anything with him, so in this documentary, the accusers had no choice but to incorporate that he never touched Macaulay, because it never happened.

Evidence C (suggestive): This is probably the only way that these accusers would ever get publicity.  They also have an opportunity to be pitied, which, if nothing actually happened, is a free life allowance toward many rewards, and since Michael is so famous, this would be an easy status award for them, no work needed. All of their life they have had this to fall back on for attention.  Most people do not have that level of safety net and end up conceding to the many difficulties in life; some adults even work humbly at McDonald's and with multiple jobs just to feed their kids.  But if you are famous, you are presented many alternative, less-demanding opportunities to build your lifestyle and ego. 

Evidence D: When people tell themselves a story repetitively throughout their life, it becomes a part of their identity, more fleshed out with each iteration and firm in their minds. 

My take - I think that Michael longed for true childhood connections and friendship. He was underdeveloped socially, by society standards, because of early fame and high parental expectations, which stole his childhood.  So a part of him, or his entire self, desired to "play" as a child would throughout his life affecting, in some ways positive, his view of the beauty of the world around him and his appreciation for people who were like him on the inside, namely kids. He probably truly felt like Peter Pan inside. While Peter Pan is a concept that appeals to the magic of children, it also appeals to the nostalgia of adults, a want to stay young or return to youth, but Michael never fully transitioned to his adult self, he was socially a child and did not fully understand how adults could close themselves off from that beautifully creative, magic source that he flourished in. At some point he probably discovered that his inner child was the source of his talents and joy and chose to cherish it, and thus children in general, far beyond what our society, in its forced perspective, deems acceptable.  Most adults hate kids, ignore kids, disrespect kids, or abuse kids, even parents. I think in those children, he found acceptance, friendship, understanding, and, for him, completion, similar to when a parent is appreciative of the life and imagination of their child, but even more so, because this was a defining part of him. It is possible that through that love and appreciation for having them there that he may have slept next to them, hugged them, or held them while they slept, similar to how a parent or young sibling might do, a want to be close because of that feeling of connection.  He may have put his hand on their shoulder at times while talking or messed up their hair in a playful way.  He may have had other close interactions that were not malicious in nature. Laughing, playing, sharing, interacting, appreciating. Nothing short of what parents or friends may do. However, the kids may not have felt this sort of interaction was appropriate through how their parents raised them, their mental reminders that Michael was a "stranger" along with parents questioning the events, causing them to also overly question Michael's mannerisms and actions. Not saying that this is bad in the world we live, we should always be cautious and educate kids on the potential dangers and where lines should be drawn, but this is obviously different than how Michael viewed his interactions. His feelings of connection were not that of a stranger because they were positively rewarding for him and he believed they were reciprocated. He would not have seen anything wrong with that level of action nor would he have anticipated parental questionings because for him, nothing was malicious. This conflict of perspective led to parental conversations and verbally developed additions to the story which became implanted memories consistent with the concerns.  A memory take on self-fulfilling prophecy. These, now externally influenced, child understandings of their own feelings and the events would eventually define them and as adults, become their convenience. Psychologically, if you look intently for something, then whether it exists or not, you'll probably find it. 

The main question is, did Michael ever crossover his interest in the kids with natural adult sexual desires.  Could Michael have gone farther than actually holding or hugging the kids in a loving, appreciative way?  Well we know that he had a wife and kids of his own, which provides its own insight.  His sexual needs seemed to be compartmentalized in other ways.  Yes, he could be bisexual or have other odd definitions of psychosis but this weakens the possibility at the least.  Also, what of his kids?  Did he ever abuse his kids?  If not, then yes, it is possible again that he compartmentalized, psychologically defined his kids as different, or that he had grown to a different point as a person, but again, if he did not abuse his kids, this weakens the possibility.  I think though, that if he would have abused those children, then his moral structure would have been so compromised that his actions would have been lax and severe, and this would have been a lot messier than it was, similar to Bill Cosby.  But we may never know the full truth.  Macaulay Culkin, or any other 3rd party present during their gatherings, would be the primary evidence that we could point toward the truth, but as it stands, the word from Macaulay is that he wasn't like that with them.

Last edited by zygote - on 14 March 2019

jason1637 said:
I saw part 1 and read a review of part 2 and did some research for myself. I think he's innocent.

I think this is the very essence, people shouldn't let the documentary dictate their opinions alone. The court of public opinion is only hearing one side of the story presented in the series. While yes sex abuse victims should be believed, the accused deserves their side of the story to be heard as well. How many innocent people have been accused of sex crimes, only to have the accuser later admit they lied etc? 



foodfather said:
Anyone who followed the original case knows that these characters, especially Wade Wilson is a tool. He claimed he was innocent at first and even attended MJ's televised memorial. The maid on the doc is also someone who was fired for steeling from the Neverland.

Yes, MJ is very odd and probably attracted to children but is not the monster they are making him out to be. Especially based on this doc. Its a joke.

Victims routinely lie for their abusers, whether its sexual abuse or physical abuse. Especially young children, in many cases they’re groomed to worship and depend on their abusers. It’s no surprise whatsoever that one or more of these kids would have said MJ was doing nothing wrong. He trained them to do so.

Hell, watch Abducted In Plain Sight on Netflix. It’s about a girl who was groomed by a sexual predator and was twice kidnapped by this dude. Both times she stuck up for him, lied for him, and wanted to go back to him. The dude befriended both parents to gain a ridiculous amount of access to the girl, who was 12 at the time I think. She would have said anything to keep her abuser out of trouble.

Theres no rational reason to believe MJ was anything other than a piece of shit pedophile after you see or read about the documentary, read what the FBI found in his houses in the early 90’s and 00’s and just by observing his fucking behavior back then. He wasn’t even trying to hide it.



Xxain said:
The only thing out of that Documentary that has me considering the idea that I should try to consider the possibility that MJ did not cool things is one of the guys has been in mental health therapy for coping with self hatred and refuses to speak to his mother(who is also in mental health therapy) for letting him stay at neverland unsupervised. That cant be faked for this long.

I'd recommend to read my post above as well, but we can do terrible things to our own psychology through worry, inner thoughts, and the actions resulting. It is never primarily the events themselves that cause the mental distress, no matter how warranted, but how we perceive the events. It is the mind that generates the confusion and chaos of the psychological aftermath. It is possible that the questioning and family situations at the time of these suspicions may have led to confusion in the child as well as the mother, in an effect that spiraled out of control. The fact that both of them have had mental health therapy is telling of how they handled the "possibility" (real or not) of the situation.  A child's entire world is affected and even defined by parents and what they are introduced to during the developmental years.  The mother's worry and upset, even though she was not present, probably had a profound influence on the child, immediately and over time.  The trauma of being put through the rigors of the "possibility" of an event can be just as impactful and damaging as the event itself, causing long term psychological effects. 

When I was a little child, 6 or 7, I saw Beetlejuice and the scene where Michael Keaton grabbed his crotch and said, "Nice F***in Model."  I immediately turned around and repeated it to my family.  Then I went to school and repeated it to classmates in the cafeteria. Luckily no teachers saw me, but because a big deal wasn't made over it, I never knew I was cussing.  I didn't know that grabbing my crotch like that was inappropriate either; I simply thought it was a funny action/moment in the movie. I only repeated the action that one day, but if they had made a big deal about it, then I may have all kinds of psychological issues surrounding cussing, grabbing my crotch, repeating things I see on TV, etc.  I may have developed an obsession with or strong  subconscious aversion to any one of those activities to help reconcile the importance of the event and the associated distress in my mind, even to the point of acting irrationally out of context for situations that I may have linked to those concepts along the way.  Maybe even building to the point of hate or violence depending on the severity and nature of the discipline response.

Also to this effect, it is actually more likely that the child would not want to speak to the mother because of the distress "she" directly caused him than for a decision she made that led to distress she didn't know about.  The distress is what would create the distaste to talk to his mother, but the child/parent relationship is so complex with many situations that any one, especially an indirect one, taking supreme precedence over the others is unlikely, unless there were a running thread of distaste throughout them all that cannot be overlooked, i.e. her method of parenting, overly emphasizing the situation to the point of distress, not being a source of comfort when it is expected, constantly denying the situation happened when it did, etc. The fact that he refuses to talk to her is actually more evidence that there was strong distress sourced from her and not the situation, at least in some form. 

Last edited by zygote - on 14 March 2019

Around the Network

I changed my mind about wanting to get involved in this.

Last edited by COKTOE - on 14 March 2019

Chinese food for breakfast

 

I'm not sure, but I did think it was funny how one of Razorfist's (The Rageaholic) recent videos used the "the man is dead" excuse as a way to argue for sympathy against defamers when he made like an entire John McCain rant like right after he died.



He's as innocent as OJ Simpson.



He probably done it.



Hiku said:

My memory of details are hazy, but I seem to recall at least one party admitting they made things up in order to get money.
He seemed like he could have been a very kind person. Though I don't know what to think, and grown men wanting to spend that much time with kids is suspicious and I don't think parents should allow unsupervised visits no matter who it is.

I haven't seen the latest documentary, but since he is dead, I think no matter what the truth is, his art should still live on as it's been such a strong inspiration and influence on countless people.

3sexty said: 

The one boy and prob one of the more recent ones to becone close to MJ and to this day still close to MJ's family had this to say when pressed about the accusations. If you read his history and his relationship to Michael it certainly appears more like a love affair.the way Michael befriended the parents to gain access to the child seemed frightfully similar to all the other stories. 

“I don’t wish to say too much about it, but I will say Michael in many ways was very innocent. But you can’t expect everybody to have the same view on everything. […] To him certain things was natural and completely innocent, things that not necessarily all people would view the same way.”

– Omer Bhatti towards Elle (a norwegian magazine)

@3sexty
Sounds to me like he is referring to how Michael would have the kids at his amusement park and sleepovers.
Those are the things people find suspicious, for good reason.

You sure could be right there. It is a very vague statement though and leaves alot to interpretation. 



Xbox 360 and Xbox One

Gamertag:  GamertagOz70