Michael Jackson

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

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 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”.

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.

Thank you Lily65

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And for all the people who say "I don't know because I wasn't there", I just hope you never have to sit on a jury because that would be no excuse whatsoever.

HurdyGurdy I am sorry to hear about your experiences.

Not all of us are the same as you re showing our emotions. Men often try to keep their feelings under wraps, especially if they feel that once they start crying they will never stop. Couldn't you see the trauma in their faces? I really thought it showed.

MJ himself said that he shared a bed with various small boys. Why would a man do that? How do you explain it yourself or justify it?

His sister also outed him back in the 1990s for abusing young boys. Why would she say that?

Also in the 1990s 2 Mexican boys accused him of assault but the charges were dropped, although an FBI file was opened on him.

The 2 men in the documentary, plus their wives, their mothers, and the brother and sister of one of them - are you saying that they were all lying? That they are all absolutely amazing should-be-Oscar-winning actors?

We know that MJ shared the bed with children, that he had security locks and alarms leading up to his bedroom so that no one could approach the room without him being aware, we know from his housekeeper that he showered with whichever boy was staying with him - why did Jackson do all of this? Are you saying that he did it all but without any sexual abuse? Doesn't showering with a young naked child constitute abuse in your eyes?

I watched a documentary about MJ many years ago when he was going through one of the court cases. I felt very uneasy to see a young boy lying across his lap.

I just don't understand how anyone, not just you HurdyGurdy (I am not picking on you) can explain away these things, and many many others. There have been 5 accusations by young boys against MJ, plus also the 2 Mexican boys. Are they all lying in your opinion?

Readymeals As I understand it, you believe that any documentary is automatically suspect because it will have been made by a company who will make a profit on it.

Where does that place all those documentaries that have examined really serious issues and brought them into the public gaze. Are they all to be dismissed and ignored because the company concerned is a commercial company.

I think this program served a very serious purpose. So many people were dazzled by this man his music and his money. In the same way that in this country Jimmy Saville, did something similar on a smaller scale. Both men were surrounded by persistent rumours of misbehaviour, but these were ignored because they made so much money for themselves and other people.

It is also a study of how paedophiles manipulate children. As this thread has shown there is a belief that paedophiles groom and then attack children, but these documentaries have shown just how subtle the seduction can be so that the children are made complicit in their own abuse and it takes them many years to realise what actually happened to them.I certainly found it revelatory.

Sparklefizz - “Perhaps you should watch the whole programme instead of keep falling asleep and then judging on a few minutes here and there. Just saying ...”
I haven’t been in position to watch both programmes in their entirety yet, but I do intend to.

Lily65 – “you obviously inhabit a different planet if you think an adult " sleeping with " children is OK. As if any amount of money would even touch the sides of the bills these victims will pay for therapy.”
I have re-read my post twice now, and nowhere in it can I find the part where I said I thought it was ok for an adult to sleep with children. Can you please quote the exact part of my post that you interpreted as my saying so.

I don’t know if Jackson was guilty or not. I wasn’t there. We can all choose our sides based on which side we choose to believe. Both sides have their own agendas to promote.

I don’t think the level of detail shared was necessary. It was audio porn. And I would think any paedophile watching would have been loving the descriptions.

I was abused by my uncle from around the age of 8 until the age of 14, when I made the choice to never seen him again. I’ve never spoken in detail about what he did to me – no one needs to know. But I talk about it in general terms when appropriate, and I have never managed to say more than a sentence without becoming tearful about it. I was in a training course last year (completely unrelated to abuse) and myself and four of my colleagues all ended up speaking of being abused – not in explicit detail – and we all ended up in tears. I don’t understand how anyone can be emotionless when talking about such traumatic events.

Admittedly I’ve not seen the whole programme yet, but from what I did see, the two men were too matter of fact about the things they were describing – which were absolutely awful – for it to ring true to me. Just my opinion, based on my own experience and reactions.

I too side with these men, and any others living in silence because of what wicked things were forced upon them.
I have thought this for years, I didn't need the documentary to shed any light on it but if it makes people more aware that this man has ruined lives, then so be it

And Jackson's daughter was photographed with a bong recently, and has used drugs for years. And let's not forget that "Blanket", the youngest child, was dangled over an upper floor balcony by MJ when he was a toddler.

As BlueBelle says, who knows what else they saw or experienced.

I am ashamed that since this film people in the UK are buying MJ's music again, whereas in the US sales have slumped. Each time his music is played in a public place or purchased, it is supporting the Jackson Estate. MJ was always a cash cow for the rest of the Jacksons, and although I used to enjoy his music and do think he had great talent, my heart is far more with the children he damaged - other people's and his own.

And if I can add to Sparklefizzs posts Jackson’s own daughter has tried to commit suicide more than once and has tattoos to hide her self harming scars The youngest child lives as a partical recluse with his grandmother he is so shy this is the legacy of being bundled around with faces covered and who knows what else or what they saw
There is a huge volume of mistrust, sadness and harm around Jackson and his family and yes I think he was badly damaged by his own family but his abuse does need airing in just the same way Jimmy Savilles was There is no difference both are dead so escaped punishment

Yes, Lily65, you're right, the 2 men are broken ... their mothers are broken, the brother and sister of Wade Robson are broken, Robson's father committed suicide - and these 2 brave men are just the tip of the iceberg, and because they have had the courage to speak up, others are now coming forward.

I salute them.

BlueBelle Well said again!!

When light is shone in these dark corners, "lost children" (even if they are now adults) may be able to think about their own situations and feel less alone.

I won't be watching it as I would find it depressing and sad. A quick glance at the 2 men who have made the allegations tells me all I need to know. They are broken.

No way in a million years was Jackson acting in an honourable way.

Oh come on, BlueBelle!. There is no remote connection between a programme about an earthquake killing people and a programme about people describing in detail what they say MJ did to them.

We talk about everything in my family, believe me. As I have already said, I am in no way denying that the fact of abuse needs to be put in the open. It wasn’t when I was young. It is now. That’s good. We still don’t need two long programmes about a specific case, only notable because the alleged perpetrator is (for some reason beyond my comprehension) famous.

Bluebelle I am sure the program was made for one reason only - same as every program other than government-sponsored public information broadcasts. That is to make money for the company who made it.

Let me address your point about gaining knowledge and outing the pedophiles. We already knew about this. At the time of his trial most of this information including some specific details were in the public media - you know how it is in america, there is no rule about witnesses, victims, or suspects speaking on TV in legal cases. We already had the knowledge of everything these men had to say.

But now, these victims have children, and now these children who may have lived in relative anonymity are going to have other kids at school saying "your dad's gay" "Your dad's a pedo lover" or whatever other poorly understood taunt they can come up with. One hopes they were not allowed to actually see the documentary, but parents sometimes talk to each other infront of kids then it gets around.

What do we gain ! You really need to ask ? we gain knowledge, we gain openness, we gain the right to out these paedophiles, to try and open people eyes to what is going behind closed doors It’s the very nature of its secracy that gives it power

You calling it ‘entertainment’ well that says a whole lot about you, the programme wasn’t done in any way to titalate or give pleasure it was done to give information and facts and to try and impart some understanding about a subject that has always been hidden....it needs bringing out into the open, it needs to stop people being afraid to know it exists if there was a programme about an earthquake killing people would you call that entertainment ?

I hope no one in your family ever needs to talk to someone about abuse