Michael Jackson

Of course showering with someone, of any age, doesn’t constitute abuse! Not in itself. There would need to be more. Maybe there was, maybe not.

Sparkefizz: at least on a jury you would have all the available evidence before you were asked to make a judgment. If there isn’t enough evidence, the case doesn’t go ahead as far as I’m aware. People here are making judgements without proper evidence.

Of course many people are distraught and tearful when they talk of abuse they have experienced, but that is not the only invariable emotion to that experience.

Some people cope with abuse by disassociating themselves from it, by talking about it, if they talk at all, as if the person they are, is separate from the body it resides in and they talk of the experience as if they were watching it from a distance rather than as an experience.

Disassociation is a recognised reaction to trauma and a recognised mental disorder.

M0nica, I believe the most likely reason the documentary was made is for the money for the production company. That doesn't automatically make something suspect of course. Most shows made are either educational or entertaining or both. This documentary is educational. But it also has the capacity for causing people harm and unhappiness - possibly even the victims themselves as a lot of people they interact with regularly may start to behave differently towards them. There are a lot of other people who can be hurt too. It might have been better to make it less personal. Faces and identities concealed etc. And less graphic detail. Some of these detailed expose's of abuse can backfire and inspire the wrong sort of people. I have read books (part way through) purporting to be memoires of abuse victims which I have had to put down when I found myself questioning whether it was simply child porn under the radar due to the detailed descriptions of acts.

I think their names were already so well known from other court cases and publicity that the effects you fear are unlikely.

I also think that now and again it is right and acceptable to have an explicit and detailed description of abuse like this. I think this programme made clear how wrong so many assumptions that people, including me, have, assumptions that have been aired on this forum in this or the Shamima Begum thread, about how paedophilia works.

We think of a child being groomed and then being abused and intimidated by the abuser when they complain or unhappy and fearing what was happening. Now we know how paedophiles can not just groom but seduce children so that they become complicit to the abuse and do not recognise the abuse until a long time after, because of the overwhelming kindness and loving care the abuser has shown them. It takes a long time for them to see that the love and care was just a means to conceal abuse.

Yes, this documentary may have caused problems for some viewers - but that is the case in any hard hitting documentary and if we are never to show a documentary that might cause upset for some viewers, documentaries would become very anodyne and platitudinous.

Were it to be followed up by more such programs, then I think I would question their purpose.

If all that was needed to determine guilt was to watch a documentary, we wouldn't need courts of law.

I didn't see the MJ documentary but even if I had and had come to a conclusion as to the truth or otherwise of the two men's testimonies, I think such a conclusion would be unreliable.

In a court of law witnesses can be questioned in more detail and other evidence presented. It is not taken for granted that everything a witness says is true, even if such witness comes across as very convincing.

It seems to me, therefore, that no-one can say, one way or the other, that MJ did what has been claimed, but neither can anyone assert that he was innocent.

The fact that MJ was an extremely wealthy man and his estate has continued to amass wealth complicates things. It is possible that the hope of financial gain is behind these resurrected allegations. Alternatively, the allegations may be true and the men in this documentary were, through misplaced loyalty or fear, unable to tell the truth when the case was previously heard.

Either way, we'll never know.

I'll continue to enjoy MJ's music and videos but will generally avoid doing so while my grandchildren are around.

loethan, these men did not suddenly emerge from the undergrowth, much of what they had to say was already known and there had been court cases, pay-offs and gagging courses. All this program does is add detail to what was known.

Your argument is akin to saying anybody who said nothing about being molested by Jimmy Saville until he was dead should not be believed.

Hurdy Gurdy, I apologise and I am very sorry you suffered abuse. You seemed to be wanting to say MJ was innocent until proved guilty which is a fine sentiment. Personally I do not believe showering and sleeping with young boys was in any way " normal", and I found his whole childlike personna irritating.

Also every person reacts differently. I have only seen a tiny clip of the programme but it seems MJ got right inside the heads of the two men and they are very confused.
Again, personally I have no wish to sit through hours of this sorry tale as the thought of it sickens me.

Thank you Lily65

Eloethan If you read previous posts you will see that it is not just the documentary by any means, there is a great deal of other evidence and testimony, much of it going back 30 years.

As Monica says, these men did not suddenly emerge from the undergrowth.... and there will be others, I am sure of it, who will now feel safer about revealing themselves.

I just hope to God that no one I know ever needs to bring this sort of allegation because this thread has been an eye-opener in very much the wrong sort of way, and I would be frightened to see what they would be up against.

In the film, one of MJ's lawyers in an old news clip from his first court case, issued the threat to anyone who accused MJ saying "We will come for you!"

How terrifying must that have been for young boys who had been told that they would spend the rest of their lives in prison if "the secret" was ever revealed. No wonder they denied it.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread.

I watched it and I believe them.
To address some of the points others posters have made.
I recognised the insidious nature of his grooming because I was abused by a family member from 11-15.
They thought MJ loved them and were also scared of what would happen to him and them if they told about the abuse.
This also applies to the fact they didn’t testify against him in court, and it was MJ for Gods sake one of the biggest pop stars on the planet!
My abuser is still alive so I don’t talk about it and have never confronted him. Once MJ was dead they must’ve felt able to tell their stories.
They were worried their mothers would feel guilty for not protecting them if they told what had happened- once a again, rings a bell.
They got no money for making the documentary btw.
Re McAlly Culkin, he may well not have been included in the abuse because he was famous himself and not so vulnerable as the others. On the other hand he is one messed up adult so he could’ve been abused and not want to tell as it makes him look weak.
I’ve always loved MJ and his music and was sad when he died. I shall still play his music but it has been tainted definitely by these allegations.
Sadly there is just too much evidence for them not to be true, not just these boys but the ones who followed them after he dropped them for being too “old”.

PS why would two people make up something like this? People feel ashamed and marked by abuse and it would’ve traumatised their families to hear about it. They would have to be totally cynical to collude over this to get money from it and I just don’t buy that they would do this, the two men didn’t even know each other at the time when they were boys and yet that had very similar accounts of what happened.

I think this will be the 'tip of the iceberg' considering Jackson's age.
More to come, maybe.