Asante said:

I would really like to see this as I grew up loving the music by that artist.

He's probanly guilty as sin yes, but I still want to see it with me own eyes.

Is Leaving Neverland online somewhere?

Probably will kill my mood but I gotta see it.

---

tyrannicalrex said:

It's on my watch list. I believe what the victims say, period. He was a very freaky weird person and I do not, nor did I ever idolize him. Some of his songs are ok, but I never placed him a pedestal of being some super performer like he was portrayed in the media/life. His parents are partly to blame or mostly for the way he was I think. Especially his dad. Then when surrounded by fame and money he could just pay off lackeys and sycophants that would do anything for money to cover any tracks or trace of his pedophilia.

Ever since that one 2 hour interview at neverland a few years ago where he said they (the kids) sleep in his bed sometimes, it was over for me in my head,that was an immediate conviction and I will never believe otherwise. AND they did find a secret room behind the back of a closet where there was a bunch of memorabilia, could have been a place where he did his deeds.

---

tyrannicalrex said:

Yeah, but mcculkin is in some strange conspiracy BS involving hollywood/pedogate/pedowood. He also did that rogan podcast and he eluded to something very vaguely that he is at least very wealthy in spite of things that may or may not have happened. How does anyone know those 2 didn't sign an agreement for a lot of money? 12yo kids know what they are doing mostly sometimes and especially if they had been groomed and obviously been around many adults their whole lives including to their parents maybe agreeing to and signing something for a lot of money. Why is doing a band thing called "pizza underground"? Why did he post a vid of him eating a whole cheese pizza? Why is it mentioned in home alone (cheese pizza)?Why is he doing a voodoo donut thing when they are also implicated in the conspiracy about pedos?

---

feevers said:

tyrannicalrex said:

Yeah, but mcculkin is in some strange conspiracy BS involving hollywood/pedogate/pedowood. He also did that rogan podcast and he eluded to something very vaguely that he is at least very wealthy in spite of things that may or may not have happened. How does anyone know those 2 didn't sign an agreement for a lot of money? 12yo kids know what they are doing mostly sometimes and especially if they had been groomed and obviously been around many adults their whole lives including to their parents maybe agreeing to and signing something for a lot of money. Why is doing a band thing called "pizza underground"? Why did he post a vid of him eating a whole cheese pizza? Why is it mentioned in home alone (cheese pizza)?Why is he doing a voodoo donut thing when they are also implicated in the conspiracy about pedos?

---

I don't know about pizzagate, but it's completely possible he just didn't want it to effect his career. Being labeled as "the molested one" may sell a few books at first, but who knows how it'd play out long term. Especially when the one you're accusing has a billion supporters, many who are more then willing to send death threats to and stalk accusers.

It's also possible he was just never touched. MJ was truly a master manipulator, maybe he befriended a famous child and didn't molest him just because he knew he could use him to sway public opinion if other kids ever spoke out. Hell, he used the kids he did molest the same way, but with bribery and blackmail. Going up against one celebrity is tough, two is far worse.

---

MoonFarmer said:

Co or Tx?

My youngest brother lives a few cities over.

---

Quote:

molesting a child dying of cancer who got to meet him through the make a wish foundation, and then ruining the child's life further once he went to the police.

---

Quote:

Michael Jackson "stashed pictures of animal torture and nude children" inside locked closet at Neverland Resort 

Michael Jackson kept pictures of animal torture, nude children and sadomasochistic pornography in a triple-locked secret closet at his Neverland Resort, it has been claimed.

Investigators at the Santa Barbara sheriff's department reportedly made the macabre discovery during a raid on the star's home in 2003, when he was facing child sex abuse charges, according to a US news website.

The closet, which was said to have three deadlocks attached to it, was found at the rear of Jackson’s bedroom, Radar Online reported, citing what it claimed were court papers it had obtained from a source close to the investigation.

It comes as video footage emerged which showed the moment police raided Jackson’s home in 2003, at which point they are understood to have found the locked closet.

The video clip shows officers walking from room to room as they pass bizarre life-size statues of Batman, Superman and the Tomb Raider heroine Lara Croft.

And one photograph purported to have been taken inside Jackson’s closet shows how it contained images of young nude boys and a signed portrait of Home Alone star Macaulay Culkin.

“Don't leave me alone in the house” is written at the foot of the portrait, apparently a gift from Culkin to Jackson.

Among the material seized in the raid were “notes, diaries, documents, photographs, audiotapes and videotapes,” investigators said in a written report submitted to Santa Barbara County court. 

They also uncovered a series of books. One of them, named in the report as “Robert Maxwell Pictures,” contained “old photos, some nude, some of young children (nude and dressed).”

Another, entitled “Room To Play,” depicted “photos of children that are altered, morphed head on older bodies, kids made to look sexualised…some are nude photos of kids." Neither book according to the Santa Barbara County Sheriff Department met legal requirements to be considered child pornography.

Other books contained images depicting sadomasochistic pornography, animal sacrifice and child torture.

One such image reproduced in the report appears to show a young girl being strangled with a noose.

“The vast majority of the pictures were of teenagers and/or young adults,” one investigator wrote.

“Some of the pictures depicted individuals wearing no clothing, or in a partial state of undress."

“Based on my training this material can be used as part of a ‘grooming’ process, by which people are able to lower the inhibitions of their intended victms and facilitate the molestation of said victims," they added.

In 2003, prosecutors in Santa Barbara had described Neverland as a fantasy resort which Jackson created to groom young boys before plying them with alcohol and molesting them.

However, the star was acquitted of all child abuse charges in 2005, and died four years later.

Representatives for Jackson have fiercely denied the claims, dismissing them as “sleazy clickbait.”

They said fans would rather remember Jackson as a talented singer than “see his good name dragged through the mud by tabloid trash."

Radar Online also quoted “insiders with close knowledge of the raids” who claimed that sexually explicit images of Jackson’s own nephews were also found at the resort.

“The documents exposed Jackson as a manipulative, drug-and-sex-crazed predator who used blood, gore, sexually explicit images of animal sacrifice and perverse adult sex acts to bend children to his will,” the source claimed.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/22/michael-jackson-stashed-pictures-of-animal-torture-and-nude-chil/amp/

---

koods said:

---

ewww, I remember that fucking creepy vid when it came out. My mom loved that shit.

Quote:

Last week, as the world geared up to remember Michael Jackson on his seventh death anniversary, a deluge of negative publicity hit regarding allegations of “disturbing” child porn that was supposedly uncovered during the 2003 raid of Neverland, conducted prior to Jackson’s 2004 indictment on charges of molesting a minor. The highly publicized trial in 2005 resulted in Jackson’s acquittal on all fourteen counts. The problem is that the police documents in question and the list of items seized from Neverland are not “new” or “recently unearthed” documents, as some media outlets have mistakenly claimed in an effort to bolster salacious headlines.

These were all items that were entered in court back in 2005 ― items that were well known to both the prosecution and defense and were presented before both Judge Melville and the jury. None of the items seized from Neverland fit the legal definition of child pornography, and in fact many of the items that are currently creating the most media hysteria were not pornographic at all. They were legal art books; a few of them containing some examples of adult erotica, but again, these were not titles that could be in any way deemed as pornographic or even obscene. This isn’t to say that Jackson didn’t own any pornography at all. The truth was that a sizable amount of adult heterosexual pornography had been confiscated in the raid, but Jackson was a grown man and this type of pornography is not illegal to own.

In the absence of any hardcore “smoking gun” evidence against Jackson, the prosecution tried desperately to make a case for several legal art books which Jackson owned as part of an extensive library, one that contained over ten thousand titles on art and photography (subjects that were of interest to him as inspiration for his own lyrics and films). These art books, as they were written up and described in the original police reports, were clearly stated as not being pornographic in nature but as items that could “possibly” be used as part of a “grooming” process (however, it is important to note that this was not a claim the prosecution was able to successfully prove in court). Secondly, it has been confirmed via a statement issued by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department that several pages of the document ― which originated with the publication Radar Online-appeared to have been falsified, with images that were never part of the original documents, claiming those images “appeared to have been taken from internet sources.” Since this story spread like proverbial wildfire through the tabloid media ― and even to legit mainstream media who apparently never bothered to fact check either the origin or contents of these documents ― we really must pause to consider how the media operates in spreading such hoax stories on celebrities. We also must ask some hard questions about why better laws are not in place to protect deceased persons-famous or not-from this kind of libel.

---

Quote:

When Michael Jackson died in 2009, Wade Robson—the former choreographer whose allegations of abuse are at the center of a controversial new documentary, Leaving Neverland—wrote in tribute to his friend:

“Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music, and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of humankind. He has been a close friend of mine for 20 years. His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever. I will miss him immeasurably, but I know that he is now at peace and enchanting the heavens with a melody and a moonwalk.”

Robson was twenty-seven years old at the time. Four years earlier, he testified at Jackson’s 2005 trial (as an adult) that nothing sexual ever happened between them. Prior to the trial Robson hadn’t seen Jackson for years and was under no obligation to be a witness for the defense. He faced a withering cross-examination, understanding the penalty of perjury for lying under oath. But Robson adamantly, confidently, and credibly asserted that nothing sexual ever happened.

What changed between then and now? A few things:

- In 2011, Robson approached John Branca, co-executor of the Michael Jackson Estate, about directing the new Michael Jackson/Cirque du Soleil production, ONE. Robson admitted he wanted the job “badly,” but the Estate ultimately chose someone else for the position.

- In 2012, Robson had a nervous breakdown, triggered, he said, by an obsessive quest for success. His career, in his own words, began to “crumble.”
That same year, with Robson’s career, finances, and marriage in peril, he began shopping a book that claimed he was sexually abused by Michael Jackson. No publisher picked it up.

- In 2013, Robson filed a $1.5 billion dollar civil lawsuit/creditor’s claim, along with James Safechuck, who also spent time with Jackson in the late ‘80s. Safechuck claimed he only realized he may have been abused when Robson filed his lawsuit. That lawsuit was dismissed by a probate court in 2017.

In 2019, the Sundance Film Festival premiered a documentary based entirely on Robson and Safechuck's allegations. While the documentary is obviously emotionally disturbing given the content, it presents no new evidence or witnesses. The film's director, Dan Reed, acknowledged not wanting to interview other key figures because it might complicate or compromise the story he wanted to tell.

---

feevers said:

Anyone else watch this on HBO yet?

Jesus Christ.

That was one of the darkest and most depressing things I've seen in awhile. The man was a real life super villain.

Repeatedly molesting a child dying of cancer who got to meet him through the make a wish foundation, and then ruining the child's life further once he went to the police.

Being basically a child pimp and going from kid to kid, stringing them along after they got older and he dumped them, so they wouldn't turn on him. Manipulating every aspect of their lives to make them dependent on him and too fearful to ever speak out.

---

PocketLady said:

There’s two sides to every story....

Quote:

Last week, as the world geared up to remember Michael Jackson on his seventh death anniversary, a deluge of negative publicity hit regarding allegations of “disturbing” child porn that was supposedly uncovered during the 2003 raid of Neverland, conducted prior to Jackson’s 2004 indictment on charges of molesting a minor. The highly publicized trial in 2005 resulted in Jackson’s acquittal on all fourteen counts. The problem is that the police documents in question and the list of items seized from Neverland are not “new” or “recently unearthed” documents, as some media outlets have mistakenly claimed in an effort to bolster salacious headlines.

These were all items that were entered in court back in 2005 ― items that were well known to both the prosecution and defense and were presented before both Judge Melville and the jury. None of the items seized from Neverland fit the legal definition of child pornography, and in fact many of the items that are currently creating the most media hysteria were not pornographic at all. They were legal art books; a few of them containing some examples of adult erotica, but again, these were not titles that could be in any way deemed as pornographic or even obscene. This isn’t to say that Jackson didn’t own any pornography at all. The truth was that a sizable amount of adult heterosexual pornography had been confiscated in the raid, but Jackson was a grown man and this type of pornography is not illegal to own.

In the absence of any hardcore “smoking gun” evidence against Jackson, the prosecution tried desperately to make a case for several legal art books which Jackson owned as part of an extensive library, one that contained over ten thousand titles on art and photography (subjects that were of interest to him as inspiration for his own lyrics and films). These art books, as they were written up and described in the original police reports, were clearly stated as not being pornographic in nature but as items that could “possibly” be used as part of a “grooming” process (however, it is important to note that this was not a claim the prosecution was able to successfully prove in court). Secondly, it has been confirmed via a statement issued by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department that several pages of the document ― which originated with the publication Radar Online-appeared to have been falsified, with images that were never part of the original documents, claiming those images “appeared to have been taken from internet sources.” Since this story spread like proverbial wildfire through the tabloid media ― and even to legit mainstream media who apparently never bothered to fact check either the origin or contents of these documents ― we really must pause to consider how the media operates in spreading such hoax stories on celebrities. We also must ask some hard questions about why better laws are not in place to protect deceased persons-famous or not-from this kind of libel.

---

Full article https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-child-porn-found-at-neverland-thenor-now-the_us_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8

---

Quote:

"There were photos of nude children but they weren't sexually graphic"

---

PocketLady said:

Also, this...

Quote:

When Michael Jackson died in 2009, Wade Robson—the former choreographer whose allegations of abuse are at the center of a controversial new documentary, Leaving Neverland—wrote in tribute to his friend:

“Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music, and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of humankind. He has been a close friend of mine for 20 years. His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever. I will miss him immeasurably, but I know that he is now at peace and enchanting the heavens with a melody and a moonwalk.”

Robson was twenty-seven years old at the time. Four years earlier, he testified at Jackson’s 2005 trial (as an adult) that nothing sexual ever happened between them. Prior to the trial Robson hadn’t seen Jackson for years and was under no obligation to be a witness for the defense. He faced a withering cross-examination, understanding the penalty of perjury for lying under oath. But Robson adamantly, confidently, and credibly asserted that nothing sexual ever happened.

What changed between then and now? A few things:

- In 2011, Robson approached John Branca, co-executor of the Michael Jackson Estate, about directing the new Michael Jackson/Cirque du Soleil production, ONE. Robson admitted he wanted the job “badly,” but the Estate ultimately chose someone else for the position.

- In 2012, Robson had a nervous breakdown, triggered, he said, by an obsessive quest for success. His career, in his own words, began to “crumble.”
That same year, with Robson’s career, finances, and marriage in peril, he began shopping a book that claimed he was sexually abused by Michael Jackson. No publisher picked it up.

- In 2013, Robson filed a $1.5 billion dollar civil lawsuit/creditor’s claim, along with James Safechuck, who also spent time with Jackson in the late ‘80s. Safechuck claimed he only realized he may have been abused when Robson filed his lawsuit. That lawsuit was dismissed by a probate court in 2017.

In 2019, the Sundance Film Festival premiered a documentary based entirely on Robson and Safechuck's allegations. While the documentary is obviously emotionally disturbing given the content, it presents no new evidence or witnesses. The film's director, Dan Reed, acknowledged not wanting to interview other key figures because it might complicate or compromise the story he wanted to tell.

---

Full article - https://www.forbes.com/sites/joevogel/2019/01/29/what-you-should-know-about-the-new-michael-jackson-documentary/#51bc37a2640f

---

Most MJ defenders claim that he was so messed up and "quirky" because of the abuse he suffered as a child.

But they can't seem to understand how in the world a child who was abused might not act completely rationally.

Sure it seems weird. Most child abuse goes unreported, forever. Many incest victims still love the perpetrator (and MJ became their family), and both of these guys detailed exactly how and why.

Obviously no one except those involved knows for sure what happened, but if he wasn't a well loved performer everyone would have no doubt he did it.

PocketLady said:

Quote:

"There were photos of nude children but they weren't sexually graphic"

---

Couldn’t see this quote anywhere in the article feevers, but perhaps I missed it. It seems to be saying there were no photos of nude children, as referenced in the attorney’s statement.

I think it’s important to remember that people do have agendas and can lie, however convincing they may seem. I worked as a High School teacher for many years and was told never to be in a classroom with a child with the doors closed, because so many teachers had been wrongly accused of goodness knows what by children with a grudge/agenda. It’s funny how both Robson and Safechuck both have financial and career troubles. Sure, they might not get any money from the documentary directly, but honestly, do we think they are not going to profit from this at all? There will be a book soon enough, maybe another law suit.

Anyhow, I’m not necessarily saying that they are lying. I am saying we shouldn’t all be so gullible as to just believe what we are told without any evidence, just because it sounds horrific and shocking. The Momo hoax this week is a great example of people believing whatever they are fed without fact checking anything themselves. How many of the people who watch the documentary are going to research Robson and Safechuck, or the other side of the story at all?

---

Quote:

So people are getting their facts from a movie now? I wonder how they feel about the documentary showing the great alien invasion of ‘96. I think it was called Independence Day.

---

feevers said:

There's a lot more to the documentary then just stories...

Phone recordings
Pictures of love letters
Creepy video
Diamond crusted wedding ring and other jewlery given to the boy who hes always holding hands with
Etc.
4.5 hours worth of grossness.

Despite what he did/didn't do, if anyone can watch that and still think he didn't want to fuck kids, there's something wrong.

---

PocketLady said:

Fair enough, I missed the quote. As I said, I’m not defending anyone. I don’t know what happened, and nor does anyone else except for those two, most likely. But, I do think that the tendancy of humans to blindly believe anything they are told accounts for a lot of what is wrong with this world.We should question everything, especially when presented with zero evidence in a completely one-sided documentary.

---

Asante said:

I was molested as a child too, and it did extreme damage to my mind.

Which just as for you makes this MJ thing way more of a *personal* rollercoaster ride than for the general public.

You having seen it, as one abuse survivor to the other - is it worth watching?

---

feevers said:

Asante,

The director stated the goal of the film is to shine light on the grooming process and the depth of the internal struggle sexual abuse survivors exeperience. Whether you believe MJ did it or not, it's worth it for that alone.

I think it will be therapeutic for many victims of abuse and lead some to re-assess their past and seek out help to come to terms with things. There's a lot to it that would make the average person say "wtf", but would help an abuse survivor to feel they're not alone in what they experienced.

I just watched the follow up interview with Oprah. I feel like if you watch that you'd get a good vibe of whether or not watching the whole thing is worth it.

The Wade guy is hard to read, but if James is faking it he needs to be given every acting award available and a PhD in psychology. He seems like he's really struggling still to this day.

---

Asante said:

The urgent suggestion that I would get my head beaten in with a hammer my perpetrator had on hand if I didnt comply, and then, if I told anyone ever after, was the extent of my grooming.

No unforgettable time at neverland for me.

Why didn't they speak up at the trial when this was a case?

---