Michael Jackson

I didn't see all the program, just dipped in and out a bit. However I have just been talking it over with DD, who watched both program from beginning to end.

DD said that (probably like most people) she thought of paedophiles as people who groomed a child but where there was an element of force about the violation, but she said that with Jackson, because he was so childlike and lived in a playground, the boys didn't really see him as a man and because he was so subtle in his seduction of them and in the way he introduced abusive actions they did not really realise that they were being abused, it all seemed naturally part of a very 'special' relationship and to that extent was 'consensual', except that children as young as they were could not give consent to something they did not understand.

She also thought that it took them a long time to realise that what had happened to them was abuse and that they were more upset and damaged by discovering that what they thought was a close personal friendship with Jackson, was actually no more than a means to an end for him and once he lost interest in them physically they were out the door and replaced.

I think he was an outstanding musician (not to my taste though) an outstanding showman, and am outstanding manipulator, who engineered things for his own ends.
I do believe he was childlike, in some ways, which is why he sought out young children, and replaced them as they grew up a little too much.

I have watched the whole gruelling 4 hours and MJ groomed the parents as well who were influenced by his fame, and flattered.

He was a paedophile in plain sight - always being photographed with children but very childlike himself with his toys and fairground at Neverland - it was a good cover. He has ruined lives.

I listened to a YouTube video about Gary Glitter whilst I was painting my bathroom a while back.

The girl he groomed married him at 16, and it wasn't until some years later that the enormity of what he had done dawned on her (and her parents, apparently - but I have to ask what on earth they were thinking when she used to go and stay with him at 14)

It can sometimes be difficult to separate the artist and the music from their behaviour/beliefs, Wagner for example.

Having said that, whilst some of Michael Jackson's music could be considered to be among some of the best pop music of its time, his behaviour leaves it tainted to say the least.

I think the reason Jackson got away with it is because everyone still thought of him as sweet little Michael.. Had one of his older brothers behaved in such a way with those boys people would have been more suspicious. I only saw part of the documentary, however. Often wonder about his marriage to the Presley girl. I don't think she's ever spoken about it publicly, has she?

Did he do those things? I think the balance of evidence shows he probably did. If he went shopping for jewellery with the one boy there must be sales staff who remember them. House staff surely knew what was going on.

He was certainly a strange adult male, living like a child. This would seem to have been a ploy to entrap innocent children. It would be naive to believe that all talented artists are good people.

I think a large portion of blame must surely rest with their negligent parents. I would never have left my child for a sleepover with a man/woman I didn't know. They let their boys down when they should have been taking care of them.

A court found him not guilty .these men spoke FOR him not against him in that case. Money is the only reason they are back in the spotlight

Exactly paddyann.

And yes, I am cynical about this. Something seems distinctly off.,

Well I am sure MJ was wealthy enough to fund his followers and his protection entorage to keep his nasty secrets as long he could afford it.
The rumours and such have been suspected for years.

I didn't watch it so can't really comment on whether I think the men are telling the truth. Generally, though, I don't think the vast majority of people who make accusations of abuse are likely to be lying. It must be such a humiliating and embarrassing thing to talk about.

I think Michael Jackson was a fabulous, talented entertainer. His dysfunctional childhood, with a bullying father who apparently kept calling him ugly, no doubt contributed to his weirdness.

Without him being alive to defend himself, he can't be pronounced guilty of abuse but neither can he pronounced innocent.

I suppose because I'm a great fan of his music, my grandchildren really like him too but I think don't think I'll encourage this from now on.

A court found him not guilty .these men spoke FOR him not against him in that case.

They were frightened children when they testified, Paddyann, and MJ had told them that both he and they would spend the rest of their lives in jail if they ever spoke of "the secret".

If you have watched the whole 4 hours of the film, and have seen the families, seen the men's wives, listened to their turmoil, I think it speaks for itself.

MJ will not, of course, be found guilty as such, just like Jimmy Saville.

DH and I watched the first 2hrs yesterday and I'd describe us as fairly cynical people, but we had no doubt that the two men were saying what had really happened. We felt sickened by the calculated grooming that went on, and even though I went through all the 'terrible childhood, lack of adequate role-models, isolated from reality' arguments, I was left feeling that I really don't want to hear any Michael Jackson music ever again - and I used to love it.

And like Savile he is still dead. I am cynical about some of these allegations around Jackson. There was undoubtedly some criminal activity but I agree with KatyK the parents must bear a great deal of responsibility for allowing their children to be vulnerable to this predator. Money & fame were more important than their children's safety it seems.

I’m watching the MJ film in first and starts. It needed some serious editing in my opinion. Overlong and leaden.

I stopped playing MJ songs years ago, even though I was a fan of his music. I just felt uncomfortable.

In 1993, Oprah Winfrey visited Michael Jackson at his Neverland ranch for a television special – Jackson’s first interview in 14 years, watched by more than 90 million people worldwide.

This week, Winfrey hosted an hour-long show about the King of Pop with a very different tone, in front of a studio audience of sexual abuse survivors.

Radio 2 has stopped playing his music and in America the film could prompt “America’s [Jimmy] Savile moment”.

Like JS I think it was grooming in plain sight. I believe the allegations.

I watched it and have absolutely no doubt that those children were abused by MJ. It wasn't until they were adults and realised that it was abuse and not 'love' as he told them, that the horrific phsycological effects hit them. It takes years for an abused child to be able to talk about what happened, if at all, and the shame never goes away. It's only in recent years that we have brought this sort of thing into the open and have started to teach our children to recognise it and speak about it. As for those mothers - words fail me. They were obviously seduced by money and refused to see what was going on under their noses. Even now all they could talk about was how it had affected them - me, me, me, not the children. It was only his fame and money that allowed him to get away with it for as long as he did.

I haven’t yet watched the documentary, but my work colleagues have and were discussing it... my question is what on earth were these children’s parents thinking/doing/ allowing these situations to develop, my feeling is that that they have to take an element of responsibility in all this....

I totally agree Willow.

The parents have a lot to answer for, not just the mothers but the fathers as well. Safechuck's father was very "pro MJ" according to Mrs S.

However, Wade Robson's mother left her oldest son and her husband in Australia and went out to the US with Wade and her daughter, all for MJ. As my Mum would say "Her head was turned". And now she seems surprised that the older son also doesn't want to speak to her.

For those who say they don't believe these men's stories, there is no doubting that MJ entertained young boys at Neverland and that they had sleepovers. What do the doubters think was happening during these times? Even MJ's sister, La Toya, spoke out against this back in the 1990s. www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9JBIk-Xh9M

Childlike to me suggests somebody with limited faculties who is trusting and kind. MJ in my opinion faked this to get what he wanted.

I decided to watch it and make my own mind up - which is that I believe them. When this is coupled with the $23 million he paid out to silence Jordan Chandler and others, plus a previous documentary I saw where one of his "minders" talked about the system of alarms leading up to his bedroom (so that he had plenty of notice if anyone was approaching) & another one who basically said: yes, he took boys into his bedroom and so what? Plus the guy who talked about himself as the person stars call in to "clear the evidence". Then there's his sister LaToya speaking out in 1993: "Michael Jackson's sister LaToya said her brother was a paedophile - and demanded that his alleged victims are listened to. LaToya, 62, claimed that she had seen cheques paid out to boys for "very, very large sums" to keep them quiet". (She later withdraw the statement, it is said under pressure from her family and her abusive husband of the time - who is said to have links to the mafia). I'm sorry - but it all adds up to one thing - he was a paedophile who groomed boys and their parents; and then paid them off later. And those around him covered his tracks (he was, literally, the goose that laid the golden egg for all of them). And his family still own the rights to his music, so they want to keep the cash flowing in.

I am pretty sure none of the children are biologically his. Two of them share one mother - Debbie Rowe. But according to them, he was a good loving father. That's good enough for me.

About the allegations. I do believe them - in fact I was amazed when he was found not guilty at his trial. But to me the HUGE difference between this case and that of Savile, is that in Jackson's case he was investigated and did go to trial, and the evidence just wasn't enough to convince the jury for whatever reason. While I feel for the victims I am very dubious about the benefits of dragging it all up again in public, not least because two of Jackson's kids have had their own struggles coming to terms with everything and I'd have preferred if they would not be immersed in another scandal surrounding their family. With Savile it was different because the victims had never had the chance to be heard before and they deserved some airing, while with Jackson all the victims would have been able to have their testimony heard at court but some of them chose not to at the time for various reasons. If they had, then he might have been found guilty.

PS Forgot to say - LaToya said that she was sexually abused by her father, Joe, hence her need to speak out and try to protect other victims.

I read that he had two children by one donor and one by another but all three had the same carrier.
Whatever the truth is we shall probably never know.
Michael IMO wiped out as much of his racial looks as possible and put it down to other causes.

The mother of one of the boys said Jackson asked her if she would leave her son with him (I think she said for a year) while she went home. She refused and MJ said 'I always get what I want'. She didn't leave her son with him for that long.

I can quite easily separate my liking for some of his music from the allegations of his conduct.
It's a fact that fame, or being in the presence of someone famous, can turn heads. The parents of those boys were to blame for allowing unfettered access including overnight stays with a male adult they did not 'know'.

I just thought I would mention how edited those interviews will have been. To say the mother’s were only interested in how they had been affected is unfair when hours of filming get reduced to ten minutes. If that’s the way the programme makers wanted to show the mothers that’s what we get to see. They were naive and probably greedy but groomed like their children. I wept for the boys but also for their mothers and for the guilt they will always carry. And for so many other mothers who couldn’t believe it could possibly happen to their children.