Discussion in 'Documentaries' started by Richard Channing, Mar 3, 2019.
Now, that I totally get where you're coming from. It's down to what each of us wants to believe.
Even though he wasn't prosecuted, there were allegations said about him right? If I recall correctly that is, people would back up Saville because of his celebrity status and all that he did for charity, that and the fact some people were too afraid, or that his victims were children who normally wouldn't have been believed based on their background.
I think the big difference between Saville & Jackson was that the claims against Jackson were all available to view when the Chandlers filed their abuse claims against him - all the claims since then have followed the exact same senerios - copycat if you will.
With Saville the claims were made to the police - by hundreds of people, none of whom knew what other people were claiming - therefore not copycat but independent claims.
Were the stories both Wade & James told the same as Chandlers?
Then again, it could simply be that the same pattern followed each boy he abused.
There are miscarriages of justice because the system is not perfect but I've not seen any convincing evidence that suggests that is what happened in this case.
I've not watched all of the documentary, I've only seen part of if, but if a witness changes his story for whatever reason, it has to be viewed in the context that he committed perjury when they addressed the court and his evidence doesn't carry any special addition weight over that given by other witnesses who denied any abuse went on. All it changes is the testimony of one person but not the overall case for the defence.
The truth is no one knows for sure what the truth is. I might sound callous and uncaring about what possible victims of child abuse have said but the hard fact is they provided no evidence to support their claims and there is no reason to believe their story now is more credible that the one they told 25 yeas ago particularly as there has been some suggestions that they have changed their story for financial gain.
As much as I believe he abused young boys, I would never think you or someone else saying similar things are callous or anything like that.
You have a different opinion based on what you've seen, read and heard to me. That doesn't make me right and you wrong, (or vice-versa) it just shows we're seeing completely different things.
It's such a complicated story because of everything that's out there, and that makes it completely fascinating.
Only the boys who slept alone with MJ know that absolute truth.
Yes there were allegations about Jimmy Saville but my point is that they weren't tested in court so he was never cleared of being a child abuser so it is reasonable to accept the weight of evidence that was.
Michael Jackson was cleared of child abuse. The court heard all the evidence at the time and he was found not guilty. That's why comparing him to Jimmy Saville is not fair.
Do you plan on watching it all, as well as the Oprah Winfrey programme AFTER NEVERLAND?
I'd be very curious about what you would make of it after viewing.
Was that me? I don't even know if I started with that
I think where I'm coming from with both MJ & JS is that they are both dead and no longer able to verify/deny what's been said.
Yes, I plan to watch the rest of it soon, probably later this week. I'll tell you what I think afterwards.
I was making a general point and not directing my comments at anyone in particular because many people have made the Jimmy Saville comparison.
I can see why people are making the comparison but they are totally different cases. Michael Jackson was able to defend himself against the allegations he faced and the court accepted his account of what happened. Therefore, in one case (Saville) you have allegations and in the other case (Jackson) you have allegations that legally have been rejected.
I started watching the documentary (though at 4 hours it won't be something I finish quick) and while it is certainly engrossing, and I have always actually thought there was something disturbing about MJ and his boy sleepovers, I'm not going to weigh two accounts in a film over evidence presented in court. And sorry, but I don't consider anything edited as "fact" or documentaries anything other than another kind of fiction, though probably following historical happenings closer than other genres. If people choose to, that is certainly their right, but I have always been against witch hunts, and I am not going to change my mind now just because I happened to have always found the particular witch scary. Do courts always get it right? I am sure not 100%. And yet, even in the infamous O.J. trial, the civil court did get it right.
An interesting fact is that since it's original screening Leaving Neverland has already had 45 minutes of footage cut due to incorrect information and/or timelines.
The might of the Jackson Estate's legal team amassed and firing on all cylinders there.
Maybe we should have listened to Latoya all those years ago. In light of recent events I have a newfound respect for her honesty and bravery. I don't think she would go on record and on TV making such allegations if she wasn't convinced they were true. She doesn't strike me as a vindictive person or someone who would fabricate such things about her own brother.
yeah, that must have always been true. I must say, I find the most disturbing parts of the documentary MJ's own voice on messages luring in the boys rather than the accounts of the alleged victims themselves.
I Believe La Toya was abused the same as the rest of the Jackson kids, but I also believe her husband who was her manager at the time manipulated her into doing the book and making money from the claims. It was probably highly embellished. I had read up on this a couple of years ago. The family rubbished her claims because of the husband's shady past and that went against her.
The really chilling thing was that fake Mickey Mouse high pitched little girl voice he used on everything public. As if he was a child, and then the private business voicemail where he sounds like a gruff grown man. Just so creepy. And all those pictures of him posing with the kids just seem so sinister now. Looking at the gazes the kids have in their eyes with him. They are besotted.
Yes, that does seem to be the case. But were the allegations about Michael made in the book? Or is this something separate she spoke out about around the same time?
I don't believe she commented on Michael as an adult, though I may be wrong. I don't remember that. This was all more to do with them as children. She had said that Michael as a child was terrified of his father, that all the kids were. That even today (mid 90s) he would punch any of them right out and none of them would do anything about it. I watched loads of interviews about this with La Toya a few years ago. She was estranged from the family for a long time.
Separate names with a comma.