My professional eye on sordid unpleasantness always saw MJ as an “emotionally congruent” paedophile. This also informed his talent, such that it was – he understood what young people liked. And this is my point, really. He was a cracking dancer, could sing (sometimes, though the breathy thing was laboured [ha!]), and had the “mad as a badger” persona hand-made for newspaper copy.
The thing I don’t get is folks saying he was a great musician. He wasn’t. There are two proper albums, one better than the other. “Off the Wall” is brilliant, bar “she’s out of my life” which would be better swopped with “Billie Jean” to make something “The Nightfly” in it’s genius. I suppose “Thriller” has its moments (BJ, PYT, Human Nature), though i’m not a fan. The rest is trying-too-hard pish with a sappy dimension that gives me heartburn.
The genius of Michael Jackson’s music was ROD TEMPLETON and QUINCY JONES.
If people must decide they won’t listen to him because of his offences, maybe an album with serious performers cover the best songs would keep it out there? Chaka Khan could do justice to a lot of the material, IMHO.
Miles Davis beat his wife.
My wife complains I always beat her.
Scrabble is such a savage business.
I think you are right, sir. I am roundly thrashed and will shut up now.
If I only listened to music by music by morally virtuous artists, I would have a very small record collection.
Nah it is a worthwhile discussion. Only recently there was discussion about how MJ music seemed to have eacaped the boycott but this recent doco appears to be a tipping point.
But where does one stop or start ?
There isn’t a one size fits all answer to that.
I think each person will have their own red line(s) on personal conduct issues, if at all.
Agree but we are being dictated to these days as to what our resoonse should be.
I’m sure there are moral crusaders out there, but I don’t feel anyone is telling me what to think when it comes to whether I should listen to MJ, or Gary Glitter or Rolf Harris. It appears there is just a natural acceptance that it’s not OK to play Rock and Roll part 2 at football games any longer. And that’s unfortunate, only because it’s a great song and part of my youth. I suspect there will be a similar unspoken collective airbrushing that will take place regarding Jacko.
As Si says, everyone will calibrate their tolerance in different ways. Where does wife beating sit on the scale compared to paedophilia? Did I stop listening to Miles and John Martyn? No I didn’t. So maybe there’s an unconscious line drawn there.
@nickduvet the thing is we are being told what we can listen to.
I want to hear the new Ryan Adams album but I cant because it has been withdrawn from sale.
The thing is Adams has not yet been charged with anything. If you take away the hysteria over the girl who was underage who he has never actually met and yes inappropriate texts were exchanged. Do you think it’s not entirely feasible she disguised her age because she was infatuated with a ‘rock star’?
The other two main complainants were exes at least one of whom aspired to be a musician and who believed he could open doors for her.
Of course he could absolutely have a case to answer and may be guilty as hell but shouldn’t we wait for the legal process to run its course?I
Judging by the biography I am reading that was written by his tour manager of several years his behaviour was mainly drunken and boorish – halfway through the book and no mention of any sexually predatory actions.
I believe everyone has a right to due process, but it seems to have become the norm for multiple accusations to be made and the alleged abuser faces an uphill battle to clear their name. Pete Townshend is another example. According to Daltrey’s autobiog that I just read, the police never found any evidence that Pete downloaded any kiddie porn. But the accusation stuck to him for a long time afterwards and maybe still does.
In the case of Ryan Adams, I don’t know what the reason is for withdrawing his album. It’s not necessarily that anyone is saying you can’t listen to this because he’s an abuser. Perhaps it’s damage limitation (reputational and commercial) for the record company. Why spend anything to promote a record while there’s an allegation hanging over the artist? Let’s wait until the dust settles
Putting aside massive personal deficiencies, he wrote Don”t Stop Til You Get Enough, Wanna Be Starting Something and Billie Jean (amongst many others), so he was indeed something of a genius. Also a better singer than you give him credit. And the fact he was lead singer of the Jackson 5 as a pre-teen is also pretty incredible. He could also dance.
Not sure how writing 3 mediocre songs make him a genius…
I would say great songs.
Yep – shit hot songs.
I’d say great records. Superb production and players but the songs themselves are very thin. Can you imagine a solo acoustic guitar performance?
Imagine no more:
I knew it.
“Can you imagine a solo acoustic guitar performance?”
*sigh*
I would disagree.
I agree with the Count – the songs were mediocre at best. The hype surrounding them and the videos that accompanied them propelled them to a status they didn’t deserve.
Stevie Wonder has more talent in his little finger than Jacko ever had. All style no substance.
I’ve said it before, but in the 90s I was a big Oasis fan – buying all their records on the day of release and playing them to death, even Be Here Now. But by around 2002 the stench of the staggering obnoxiousness of the G*ll*gh*rs was so overpowering that I just couldn’t get anything from their music but a feeling of nausea. The fact that otherwise-sensible people maintain that NG is the genius he thinks he is won’t change that.
There’s arguably an important argument for not letting MJ to fade from public consciousness (not that he will) because this whole horrible story should be a lesson to everyone about the power of money and fame allowing people to do horrible things – see also Weinstein, Trump, er, Rolf Harris.
PS. Watch out, paedos – if you’re not careful we’ll boycott your records ten years after you’re dead. That’ll learn yer!
My nuanced view is … “Michael Jackson – dance? My arse.”
I’ve made the regrettable decision to never ever listen to his music again.
(See what I did there?)
Your arse or never ever (land)?
Not that this alters my view of him, but I have had the sedative which killed him, Propofol, three times during hospital procedures. Each time I had no memory for 24 hours and was off my tits for a further two days. MJ took it every night for years to get to sleep. That he was slightly bonkers in his later life came as no suprise to me.
It may be that, in a similar fashion to Jimmy Saville, this opens the floodgates to lots of other allegations. The odd thing with Jackson is that, despite accusations, he still insisted on ‘friendships’ with kids. Surely his legal advisors should’ve been telling him to grow up and make some chums his own age? I guess they probably did.
I
With that and the manner of his death, you’d almost think that he spent his last years surrounded by cynical parasites who didn’t care about him, as had Elvis.
….hang on….
In a (granted, probably approved by the Jacko Politburo) documentary about the making of Thriller a couple of years back, plenty of musicians and QJ were willing to go on camera and say MJ brought plenty of musical/ arrangement ideas to the studio.
As I said on another thread, a genius for collaboration is a form of genius too: Jackson had to fight his record company to get Quincy Jones on board in the first place.
It seems daft to say he wasn’t a terrific singer – even though probably only he thought the percussive ticks he introduced to his delivery were a great idea.
His real achievement, if we’re being honest, was to make himself the most famous person in the world (by which I mean the entire world – seriously, move outside Europe or the U.S. and ask anyone who is the biggest star in music, even now..)
I don’t know anything about this stuff, but I would guess his f*cked up childhood might be used as an excuse for a great deal. However, the details in the interviews paint him as a very calculated serial predator..
MJ is probably, in terms of the numbers of people who knew about him when he was alive, the most famous person who has ever lived. Considering his tussles with the Beatles catalogue it’s ironic that he arguably became bigger than Jesus.
What’s that I can hear? It’s the muffled sound of the US midwest screaming “Burn the Moose!”
…and on the subject of universal recognition can I be that guy who points out that it’s Rod Temperton
BOOGIE NIGHTS ARE ALWAYS THE BEST IN TOWN!
If I’d said television* was more popular than Jesus, I might have got away with it.
(*or The Ramones)
…and now it’s all this.
Admittedly McCartney should have been more alert (like Yoko seems to have been at the time…) but Jackson’s apparent going behind his back to secure the Beatles’ catalogue meant I had his number long before all the other stuff.
Sounded like a real sneaky, greedy and self-serving manoeuvre against someone who he described as a friend.
It is any wonder he didn’t have anyone he could call that at the end?
Not sure how I feel about this. He was always very, very odd but his life was so extraordinary you could almost understand even if you could never forgive. A paedophile is a paedophile most famous man in the world or not. If “Off The Wall” popped up somewhere I wouldn’t reach for the off button, it remains a tune of the highest order. Would I search out Jackson to listen to? Probably not.
I am just wondering what not playing the records of a dead paedophile achieves? I mean if it turns your stomach to listen then I get it.
Aint gonna be starting something in terms of modifying his or any pedo’s behaviour. I suppose with radio stations not playing Gary Glitter denies Gadd a royalty.
Hmm I dunno.
For me, it’s the stomach turning thing. Something I feel but cannot logically explain. The lines are blurred. Today, I can comfortably listen to Miles Davis without giving a thought to his bad behaviour. However, I haven’t been able to listen to MJ for years. My gut churns.
Ultimately what Miles did was bad, but you don’t know what goes on in a marriage where there is something deeply unforgivable about someone preying on children over a period of years. Perhaps as I don’t care about his music, much as some of it is fun, I have no doubt he was a long term paedophile and should be seen as such. And actually, not much of this is new really, is it.
I think there’s been a calculus shift with MJ. Previously it was ‘easy’ for many to dismiss his public accusers as they were a small minority of his tweenie posse and tainted by having traded their silence for money. The new accusers would seem to have little to gain and the weight of numbers will inevitably shift the balance of probability in the minds of the wider public.
The new accusers are appealing the result of their multi-million dollar lawsuit. One of them seems very far from credible.
I’d say there are plenty of men, famous and not, willing to claim online to having befriended MJ as kids, visited Neverland, and never saw anything inappropriate. And none of them have anything to gain financially. Whereas every single accuser has stood to do so, enormously.
I’m not sure how one goes about deciding that someone who claims they were systematically abused and outlines that abuse in horrific detail lacks credibility. They seemed pretty traumatised, consistent, guilt-ridden and ashamed to me.
That’s what happens in these he said/she said situations when there is no forensic evidence. Whose story do we believe? Again, it boils down to gut feeling. Is this person convincing or not? They certainly came across as very convincing to me.
Consistent? One of them was either lying extremely well under cross examination in court (and in other interviews on YouTube), as an adult, when saying Jackson never touched him, or was lying extremely well in the documentary now that he’s got a court case going.
As Taj Jackson has said, anyone who spends four hours watching the documentary should at least spend ten minutes researching the accusers.
Consistent with eachother. And with other accusations against Jackson. I don’t know if you’ve met many victims of abuse, but they can be in denial for years. I found their stories of feeling they alone in the world could stop their hero from spending his life in jail fairly compelling. Do I find a later life change of perspective, once their own children come along hard to swallow? Not in the least. In fact, it’s happened in my circle, where one guy has waited until he was late 40s to accuse a particular teacher of sexual abuse. Suddenly, friends who have long stood by this teacher have admitted inappropriate behaviour and the seemingly innocent gatherings of 12-14yo boys in his room at lunchtimes now looks like obvious grooming.
He certainly deserves an Oscar for one of his performances, the question is which one?
He says that having a child (and, of course, not his contemporaneous financial difficulties) spurred him to publically contradict his previous accounts; whereas hearing the accusations of another alleged victim, Gavin Arvizo, just a couple of years earlier hadn’t been enough to motivate any empathy or honesty and he was perfectly willing to publically denounce Arvizo as a liar.
I’m not saying I think MJ is innocent, but to say that you don’t see how Wade Robson’s credibility can possibly be called into question I find somewhat bizarre.
You seem pretty invested in the MJ fan side of things Gary. I’ve never been a fan and watched the program without any need to believe or disbelieve. I was aware that MJ fans were hard at work discrediting one of the interviewees, but had no idea which it was. As a disinterested viewer, I found both interviewees credible, but if one has some ulterior motive and is lying, it would not change my opinion that MJ was most likely a paedophile – not that one person’s opinion matters over any other.
I agree with you that one has to find one’s own dividing line between what we are comfortable listening to. Whilst I wasn’t an MJ fan, I was a huge Gary Glitter fan back in the day and even wrote to Jimmy Saville to ask to meet the guy – some dreams are best left unrealised. Like you, I haven’t stopped listening to Miles or John Martyn and won’t be banishing Morrissey or Ryan Adams from my collection. My guess is I’ll still appreciate the Michael Jackson tracks I ever did like, which tend to be one or two early hits with the Jacksons and a single or two I remember from his early solo career.
No, not a fan at all. I’m very much just an interested observer, but I don’t have any strong feelings about MJ one way or another (amazing dancer, a few good songs, loads of really crap songs). I just feel that the documentary was one sided and emotionally manipulative. I do think there’s a possibility that MJ wasn’t a pedophile or an abuser but stupidly laid himself open to suspicion on account of his eccentricities and thereby to extortion due to his massive fortune. But he might well be guilty, for all I know.
One thing I think we can be fairly sure of, though, is that Wade Robson’s credibility is open to question.
There was one really weird bit in the documentary. It was very trivial and certainly had little, if any, bearing on the credibility of the accuser, but it just sort of struck me: when Robson said that he and his wife were going to visit MJ and his kids and MJ nagged him to bring some wine. When he brought a bottle, MJ immediately poured a pint glass, downed it, proceeded to get sloshed and went to bed early leaving the kids alone downstairs.
Everything about this story sounds false.
In the documentary itself one of the accusers’ mothers mentions the well-stocked wine cellar at Neverland, with the very best wines and champagnes. Would MJ really, in desperation for alcohol, have to rely on a guest to pass by the supermarket on the way over? As I say, a very trivial point, but I couldn’t help wondering what prompted such a seemingly ill-thought out fib.
We have no way of knowing. I used to work with underprivileged kids and those who’ve been abused at the age of 7, as Robson claims, can be pretty messed up individuals Gary. For me, the standout moment was watching Jackson’s video to one of the kids, telling him that he loved him. The picking up then dumping of pre-teen kids as playthings, the sharing beds with kids, the creepy hand holding, the porn stash… This was a man with very little moral compass or regard for others’ wellbeing, irrespective of the child abuse cases.
I’m agree with all you say. My objection was solely to the idea that the new accusers have nothing to gain and that both their accounts ought to be considered credible.
Sure. I only gave my own impression and have nothing to say on what ‘ought’ to be considered by anyone else.
Clearly they’re in a world where there’s a high price to be paid for upsetting the fans as well as potential rewards if beans are spilled and appeals won. Not easy to keep your integrity, credibility or even sanity.
Ah, but you did have something to say on what ought to be considered credible. That’s why I commented, you young rascal.
Not really looking for a discussion, but I just thought, with all the hoo-hah that the documentary has caused, that it’s worthwhile pointing out that there are alternative narratives that deserve consideration.
Oh did I?! Well my wider point was that you can see the shift in public opinion away from one of apparent indifference/exceptionalism and I think that’s probably right.
FWIW I agree with you completely Gary. Is there a court case going though?
I think Taj Jackson says in one of the recent interview clips that Robson’s appeal (his case having been dismissed on purely technical grounds regarding dates) is underway. He’s suing two of MJ’s companies, basically for facilitating child abuse.
For what it’s worth, the only musician who’s music I have studiously avoided since I read an account of his beliefs and behaviours was Ted Nugent. I hadn’t heard any of his stuff before i read about him, but I found the description of his politics and attitudes so repulsive I mentally crossed him off my list there and then. Despite having a fondness for mental blues rock.
If I’d heard about what MJ was up to, I suspect I’d have blocked him out as well, and wouldn’t ever have bought a single track he’d recorded. But I didn’t, and I have a ton of his stuff, and I love a lot of the music he made.
So maybe what it comes down to is whether I knew about the artist’s misdemeanors, whether physical or intellectual, before I heard the music they made – if they hooked me in with music before I found out they were sordid or sickening, the art won out in the end.
I felt the same about the Nuge, but the bastard sneaked into my orbit without my permission by a) being sampled by the Beastie Boys and b) being a member of the excellent 60s psych band The Amboy Dukes, stalwarts of many a compo.
At least MJ had the courtesy to announce himself properly, with those funny squeaks and yelps that could only be him.
I hear you Vulpes but I couldn’t live without “Stranglehold”, one of the greatest rock guitar tracks ever. Soz.
Very harrowing documentary to watch.
For another perspective, I thought MJ’s nephew, Taj Jackson, comes over quite well on the various clips of him doing the rounds of interviews. Articulate and sincere.
Haven’t seen the documentary & probably won’t.
Having carked it, he’s not going to be put on trial (again), but I don’t think anyone who hasn’t drunk the ‘ King Of Pop’ Kool Aid can feel anything other than extremely icky about MJ. Obviously a deeply f*cked up indivual ( look at his physical transformation over time – somebody literally uncomfortable in in his own skin) with an abusive father & denied anything approaching a normal childhood.
Made great pop records obvs, but whether folk are happy to play them or have them played, is a matter for them surely.
Do they separate the work from the artist or just feel pretty sick about what on the balance of probability looks well dodgy to put it mildly & conclude they can’t find innocent pleasure in the music anymore?
If corporations, radio stations etc make a policy decision to ban it all, is it legitimate to ask at what point in the career should the ban commence? From Off The Wall , when he still had a human face? From Thriller , when he started to look odd, so say the least? Or say from Bad , when he started to look like a pasty freak? Or perhaps right back to The Jackson Five days, when I think we can all agree, he wouldn’t have been abusing anybody?
For me, I don’t play his stuff anyway but I won’t consider passing on I Want You Back or ABC for a moment, because they are sublime & what he may have done later can’t taint that for me.
For the record, I was a massive Glitter fan as a kid, & a band I was in played Rock n Roll Pts 1& 2 and I Didn’t Know I Loved You Til I saw You Rock n Roll, but I haven’t played even a snippet of a track by him since he was busted. Just can’t do it.
Fortunately, there’s a couple of Glitterband available for when childhood nostalgia hits.
I take the point about repressing memories, the shame, etc of victims of abuse and that is why it takes years for them to speak,
I’ve not seen the documentary and have no plans to. The man was never found guilty in law, and he cannot defend himself now. I am still going to listen to and enjoy much of his music, the thing that saddens me is that I will probably never get to dance to it again in a club or at a party.
Can’t call myself a fan, most of the music just wasn’t for me, in fact the vocal ticks were a complete “no thanks” from me whenever I heard them. But the sheer joy in the performances of ABC and I Want You Back have to be admired, and they are part of my childhood so it’s hard to truly shake them off as they are associated with happy childhood memories, ie kids parties and listening to the radio on family car trips, usually driving somewhere on holiday. I can totally understand the appeal of the Off The Wall album however.
When he started those bloody irritating vocal ticks and then the later crotch grabbing, I just thought “right that’s definitely enough” and tuned out whenever I heard him.
Why did no producer ever say “Good take Mike, great singing. Just one thing… have you ever heard of Tourette’s?”
Yes.
The ridiculous over-use of that vocal tic means I don’t listen to MJ’s mid-to-late-career music by choice. Sets my teeth on edge.
And my opinion (everybody has one, just like arseholes) from the first allegations was “Yep. Paedo” and it still is.
That’s such a problem in all these celebrity cases though: we all have opinions based only on our knowledge of the people involved that we’ve gained from the media. I kinda think the tenet of remaining innocent till proven guilty in a court of law can’t be emphasised enough. Any other opinion, though we all have one, really is truly worthless and perhaps better unexpressed.
The more I read about Jackson and the trials (just the last couple of days, after seeing the documentary) the more I think there’s room to defend him from the accusations, or at least keep an open mind. It wouldn’t astonish me if he were proven guilty, but I don’t think there’s been a remotely clear-cut case yet, as reflected in the FBI investigation conclusions and the courts’ verdicts.
I’m not sure how much of an open mind we need to keep when an adult shares his bed with a rotating cast of pre-teen children, sticks kids heads on naked/pornographic photos, alarms his bedroom and pays off children who’ve accused him of molestation. One or two ‘tells’ there, I’d say.
The bed sharing is put down to his “childlike personality” by many who knew him. It’s a weak defence and an incredibly stupid thing to have continued doing in the circumstances, guilty or not. I can’t understand why other adults around didn’t put a stop to it, unless they were truly convinced by the “childlike personality” and the innocence of it all.
I’m pretty sure no child pornography or illegal pornography was found.
Taj Jackson claims that the payment to the Chandlers was in order to concentrate on the criminal trial without the distraction of a civil trial, and that it never prohibited Chandler from further trials or from being a witness in the criminal trial.
I dunno. I just think there is a possibility that a genuinely innocent and giving human being may be being condemned cos he was so wacko.
I think you’re going out of your way to avoid what’s in front of you Gary. If a neighbour of yours slept with young boys – specifically not ‘children’, but boys, discarded them when they reached puberty, had an alarm on his bedroom, had a habit of sticking children’s heads onto naked photos and kept paying off people who accused him of molestation, I’m guessing you wouldn’t be quite so willing to make allowances. Or indeed let your kid anywhere near him. Jackson was an adult. Who exploited the power differential between himself and his all too willing admirers ruthlessly. It wasn’t any kind of lapse on behalf of those who advised him. He treated young boys as his playthings and even if all the staff witnesses and victims are lying and compromised, nothing can excuse that.
All the circumstances are certainly against him, but I wouldn’t vote to hang him, if we hung people, on the evidence presented.
The whole “childlike” argument emphasises his total difference in every way from some regular Joe neighbour of mine. As I say, it’s a weak defence, but believable and backed up by some credible testimony (one testimony I found very convincing was child abuse victim Corey Feldman’s – near the end of the video posted up above, I think).
Most of what you say is emphasised in the documentary, and it’s very compelling, but it’s only one side and it’s not the side the courts have gone with so far.
Here’s an article from the Huff Post on the matter that presents the other side well:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-child-porn-found-at-neverland-thenor-now-the_us_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_cs=sb-N5IiBR7-eEf8CIl_HvA
Edit: I’m not sure he did “keep paying off people who accused him of molestation”, by the way. I’ve seen that it’s been alleged, but would be very interested in the proof.
Occram’s Razor, innit.
Yeahbut, I protest on account of Occam’s Razor involves simplification, whereas the OP title was all about the nuance. Nuance, nuance, nuance. He just loves his nuance, does Vince. This world was never meant for one as beautiful as him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michael_Jackson
23 mill if you are innocent is a chunk of change.
From that wikipage:
While Jackson sought medical help for his faltering health, his legal team and friends, such as Presley and Taylor, took control of his defense and finances.[42] Jackson’s legal team would meet three times a week at Taylor’s home to discuss the case.[42] Eventually, Presley, Taylor, and Jackson’s team agreed that Jackson was too sick to endure a lengthy trial, and that he should settle out of court.[45]
Jackson’s insurance company “negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel” and was “the source of the settlement amounts”, as noted in a 2005 memorandum in People v. Jackson.[87] The memorandum also noted that “an insurance carrier has the right to settle claims covered by insurance where it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements”, as established by a number of precedents in California.[87]
In 2004, Jackson’s attorney Thomas Mesereau said: “People who intended to earn millions of dollars from [Jackson’s] record and music promotions did not want negative publicity from these lawsuits interfering with their profits. Michael Jackson now regrets making these payments. These settlements were entered into with one primary condition – that condition was that Mr. Jackson never admitted any wrongdoing. Mr. Jackson always denied doing anything wrong … Mr. Jackson now realizes the advice he received was wrong.”[90] Jackson explained why he had settled: “I wanted to go on with my life. Too many people had already been hurt. I want to make records. I want to sing. I want to perform again … It’s my talent. My hard work. My life. My decision.”[69] He also wanted to avoid a “media circus”.[91]
It’s $23 million, not $100,000.
?
Not if
a) you can afford it and
b) you are innocent
There are always going to be inconsistencies with the victims statements in cases like this. I say cases like this, when there have never been cases like this really. Michael Jackson was one of the most recognisable people on the planet. One of the wealthiest too, with very expensive lawyers and a lot of people who relied on him financially and were struck by that blindness you get when you are so close to fame. One of the most chilling bits of the documentary was when his lawyer flamboyantly promised to absolutely destroy anybody who came forward with allegations. And they did.
And there were plenty of allegations, from victims and from staff members. In fact, one of the staff members was a mother of a victim. As the American justice system and financial lawsuits seem to go hand in hand, in a way that we in the UK find very peculiar and somewhat distasteful, it’s an easy first line of defence for both his legal team and his fans to claim that everybody speaking out is just out to make money.
His lawyers succeeded in their threat of destroying the claimants, dredging up all kinds of dirt from their past to discredit the accusers. The ones they couldn’t discredit enough got paid off. I cannot for one minute believe that his expensive legal team who were so successful with shutting down any accusations made from former staff members felt it wiser and more cost effective to pay a family off with over $20m rather than defend the case if it was untrue. Had it been a small payout, maybe, but that’s an awful lot of money. Funnily enough, around the time of the Chandler case, Jackson took on extra security, including members of the LA Bloods gang, which would have nicely discouraged any staff members from speaking out.
But there are going to be inconsistencies with the victims’ statements, because the victims are so messed up by it all. For starters, they were children. Children who had systematically been groomed from a very young age, with promises of helping make them stars (shades of Ryan Adams, of whose alleged victims nobody is doubting, as they were adults when they were abused) and whose families had been bamboozled with displays of his generosity. You can see how these families were so dazzled by it all, even if you do find it a bit sickening. And these poor children grew up thinking it was normal.
Child sexual abusers are incredibly manipulative, hence the term grooming. It’s not something they are going to advertise, although Jackson appears to have been doing his best to do so. I’m a qualified childrens nurse and have done courses in recognising child abuse. The courses weren’t easy to get through and it wasn’t easy hearing the two victims on the film talk about their experiences. I’ve seen some horrible things and met some horrible people. Away from those experiences though work, a friend of mine’s dad got locked up a few years ago and that was an awful situation too. A more genial pensioner you couldn’t wish to meet, which made hearing of his (repeated, which led to his jail term) offences even worse. But that’s what paedophiles tend to be like, as they’re not going to get very far acting like the child catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
Abusers choose their victims well. Just look at Jimmy Savile. The comments the Jackson victims made about the threats Jackson made to them are all too common. The children were being introduced to things from Jackson as being normal, when they clearly weren’t, whilst being frightened to death of anyone finding out because of what will happen to them if they do. Ultimately Jackson succeeded in getting them to the point where they expected or even wanted the sexual contact, which is the ultimate aim of the grooming.
His pattern seemed to be to dump the kids once they hit puberty, leaving behind kids who are completely messed up. Not only abused for so long, but now who feel rejected and, as they begin to learn that what they have done isn’t the norm, kids who are ashamed of what they had done. It is so difficult for people to speak out in circumstances like this. They are scared of Jackson, scared of what he said will happen to them, scared of what their family and friends will think about them, scared they wouldn’t be believed and even ashamed of what they have done. It’s very common for victims to deny anything happened for a very long time before speaking out about it, even without the knowledge that their abuser has lawyers who re ready to ‘destroy’ you if you say anything. And just look at the hatred that is now being thrown at theses two men from Jackson’s family and fans.
But with cases of sexual assault or sexual abuse there is often going to be a ‘my word against your word’ aspect, particularly after time has passed, and that is what puts a lot of victims off and it is shameful. Yes, there will occasionally be false accusers, but these are outnumbered greatly by victims that keep quiet for fear of not being believed, or even people who do speak up and aren’t believed. I get the impression with this particular case that only photographic evidence would convince some people.
But a lot of the evidence is right there, hiding in plain sight. The string of pre-pubescent male companions, all of whom get replaced one puberty kicks in. The admissions of sleeping with these boys and of giving them alcohol. The sheer volume of accusations, from victims and staff alike, over decades. The confidentiality agreements the kids’ families used to have to sign upon first visiting Neverland. The career ‘grooming’ that he was doing at the same time. The list goes on.
There are some of the people who are around Jackson when they were kids who are leaping to his defence, just as the two from the film did previously. They explained their reasons for doing so in the film and they are totally understandable. Maybe these other people are at a similar stage. Maybe they are, as some suggest, still in receipt of hush money. Or maybe they were never actually abused themselves and are telling the truth. Who knows. But the accounts from the two men in the film sounded pretty damning to me, particularly when the things from the previous paragraph that are on record are considered, and I think they have been very brave in speaking out about this. I just hope that any other victims can feel able to also speak out, not just victims of Jackson, and that any that don’t have found some sort of peace and are able to lead happy and loving lives.
Lots of conjecture there Paul, very few facts.
I don’t want to be seen as an MJ defender – I neither know much about the case nor care much about the man – but I can’t understand why people are willing to unquestioningly accept the documentary, particularly Robson’s testimony, at face value.
You speak about the “sheer volume of accusations” – I’ve read about Jordan Chandler, Blanca Francia, Gavin Arvizo and now James Robson and James Safechuck (every one of whom both claimed and also denied their own allegations, every one of whom demanded money.) Who were the others?
Very well put Paul. Classic abusive grooming behaviour and also classic victim shame and damage. Gary, for someone who claims not too care that much, you seem to have the Jackson family PR script committed to memory. There’s not a single issue raised by the documentary that you seem willing to give any credence to, focusing instead on the ‘whataboutery’ of the Jackson superfans. You take enormous comfort from the inconsistencies of abused men, ignore completely the testimony of the victim who hasn’t yet been smeared by the Jackson family machine and of the fact that no court has found against Jackson – just as no court found against Saville, Let it go bro – defending a paedo so isn’t a good look for you.
I’m not so much interested in defending him as understanding the case. Unfortunately I think how these cases work is that people aren’t allowed to question the accusers/victims without being criticised for doing so.
Because only the two people involved -alleged abuser and victim- can know the real truth, our emotional response to their account is vital and their credibility must be examined.
I actually think James Smithchuck is an extremely credible witness and I believe him.
Enormous “comfort” is so wrong a word to use as to be bizarre and shows your total lack of understanding of me or my curiosity.
You started off this discussion saying the accusers had nothing to gain. I pointed out that’s not actually true and that one of them seems somewhat lacking credibility, so you said it isn’t possible to assess a victim’s credibility. When I disputed that, you contradicted yourself and have since just stuck to talking about what paedos in general do, the circumstances we all know about, and how invested I am in defending MJ. I’ve made it clear that while I’m definitely interested in trying to understand whether MJ is guilty or not, I have no agenda beyond that (tbh, I suspect you’re the one with a different agenda) and I’m not so interested in paedo behaviour or the grooming process in general, being quite aware of those things. I’m interested in what few factual details surrounding this specific case can be gleaned. Whether or not those factual details sit well with your established “he’s guilty and you’re defending him” agenda is completely irrelevant to me.
To be clear, my opinion as previously stated: I wouldn’t be astonished if MJ were proved guilty; I think there does exist a case for arguing he might not be guilty and it’s wrong to ignore it; I don’t think Wade Robson’s testimony can be considered unquestionably credible.
And I’m curious to find out any more factual information. That’s it.
Keep going Gary, I am sure the message will sink in eventually.
What ‘facts’ would convince you? What facts are usually uncovered in cases of systemic sexual abuse or rape even? So much of it comes down to my word against your word, which is why the party with the best legal team usually come out on top, the tactic usually being to rake up as much dirt from their past as they can throw at them to destroy their character. This is what has happened with Jackson and is why a vast proportion of abuse and rape victims are scared to come forward. Just look at the amount of women in Hollywood who are coming forward years after the event to speak about how they were subjected to all kinds of disgraceful behaviour from people in positions of power. Where are the facts in many of the accusations against Kevin Spacey, Dustin Hoffman, Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein? What are the facts that support Michael Jackson? That he ‘loved kids’ cos he said so? That he was kind and generous? Tell that to Paul McCartney.. That everybody who sued him are just after his money? That is conjecture, how can anybody deduce that the financial gain is their only or even their main incentive in a culture and city where financial lawsuits are thrown around if someone’s coffee is too hot. Does someone have access to their inner thoughts? What else? All the facts that are out there are very consistent with grooming.
We have the undeniable facts that Jackson shared the bed with numerous boys aged between 7 and 13, that everywhere he went he was accompanied by these boys, that the boys would share his room on tour, with their parents in rooms some distance, that Jackson gave the kids alcohol, that Jackson bombarded these kids with phone calls and promises, that at least 6 children and various staff members have made accusations, with similar accounts of events,, and that Jackson has paid vast sums of money to accusers.
You didn’t include Terry George, a British kid, on your list of known accusers, and he is thought to be the earliest victim, with his case dating back to 1979. But you also haven’t included the family and staff members who have spoken out. LaToya said that the family knew something was amiss, stating that she and her mother were ‘outraged’ to discover checks for a ‘substantial amount of money’ were written to parents of the boys he had sleeping over as early as 1984, going on to state that her mother wouldn’t go on record because Michael was her only financial support. Jermaine also spoke out. Investigations by newspapers and magazines claimed to have uncovered many more pay outs by Jackson and his family. It was often commented that the lid will be kept on all this until the Jackson estate ran out of money. Didn’t they sell Jackson’s rights to the Beatles songs a couple of years ago because they were struggling financially? And yes, that last bit is conjecture!
The staff members who spoke out include his former business adviser, Myung-Ho Lee, a former security guard, Ralph Chacon, a former maid, Adrian Marie McManus and former cooks Philippe and Stella Lemarque. The latter three all claim to have seen him sexually assaulting Macauley Culkin, despite his repeated denials. The cooks stated that Jackson’s modus operandi was to keep the kids up late and bombard them sound and light shows, games and videos until they were so overstimulated that they barely noticed his fondling.
A former close friend with Jackson, Eddie Reynosa, in 1994 said ‘he’s had little boys around for nine years straight, 24 hours around the clock. People in show business couldn’t understand how long it took to get the talk going. The public is 100 years behind on [the allegations]’ and that others in Jackson’s inner circle ‘looked the other way. They were afraid of being fired.’
In the late 1990s, after leaving clinical nursing, I worked for a company owned by a mental health nurse who once looked after Michael Jackson. Yep, he was breaking confidentiality when we briefly spoke about Jackson, but the idea of Jackson being an innocent man-child is a load of old twaddle.
“What ‘facts’ would convince you?”
Enough to vote on a jury to hang him (were that the punishment)? I’m not sure. Concrete evidence, certainly, but I can’t see that happening. But regardless of, and because of, my inability to answer that question, I’m interested in reading the surrounding facts, without taking a particular stance (at least for now).
As I said at the beginning of this thread, I’m not looking for a discussion (but happy to have one). I’m just interested in reading about the facts. If I dismiss a “fact” as being already debunked elsewhere, that doesn’t mean I’m pleased to dismiss it or I’m trying to score debate points, or certainly not that I’m trying to defend MJ. It means that “fact” has been dealt with, got anything else? When you state the oft repeated fact that he slept in bed with little boys, my reaction has to be “yes, we all know that, I think he has a very weak but arguable defence on that” as I’ve said above. Just repeating it isn’t going to achieve anything.
But when you ask “what facts?”, the ones you then state are exactly the kind of thing I am interested in reading, thank you.
I hadn’t come across the names Terry George or Eddie Reynosa before, for example, and that’ll give me something new to look into now. Some of the other facts have been disputed and/or explained (the staff), others I don’t think have, not adequately (La Toya).
(Btw. I never said that everybody who sued him is just after his money. That word “just” would indeed mean conjecture and would also change the nature of my comment entirely. I think every accuser so far has been involved in a claim for money, lots of it. That’s just another fact and as such it should be considered).
In my mind’s eye, Weinstein, Spacey, Jackson etc are bang to rights. The truth is only Bill Cosby of those you list has been found guilty in a court of law. The test of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is incredibly difficult to pass without corroborating forensic evidence in these cases. Jackson, himself, was found not guilty in a court. There still is a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. Is that now changing? Do we now assume every accusation is true and, therefore, the accused is presumed guilty? That seems to be the case in social media.
Whenever Tom Watson talks good sense, I remind myself that he used parliamentary privelidge to name Leon Brittan as a paedophile, based on the testimony of one individual who is now the subject of a court case for making false accusations. If it’s difficult to achieve a verdict of guilt beyond reasonable, it’s even harder to prove innocence to a false claims. Proving a negative is nigh on impossible.
How do we weigh up the evidence presented in Leaving Neverland? There is clearly a bias, a narrative and an emotional pull. It was never going to be balanced or nuanced as the OP says.
One thing that upsets me is how others are pointed at to be included in culpability. I’m thinking of well meaning staff, in various professions, doing their best in difficult circumstances. Sometimes, you’d think they were equally guilty of heinous crimes. Blowing whistles on the powerful has always been fraught with danger anywhere in the world. Imagine doing that in Trump’s America today.
Vince does like his nuance. That’s, like, his thing.
Funny that with so many suggestions of cynical opportunism on this thread Tom Watson suddenly gets mentioned.
Quite.
Watching the children dancing, and MJ’s dancing himself, as an asexual chap, he certainly seemed to be pretty groin-oriented with plenty of pelvic thrusts and crotch-grabbing. Sexualising children is part of the grooming process. So it looks like pushing boundary stuff to me, and those who let their boundaries get pushed get worked on more. It looked like it at the time, too. As for the lack of pornography and sexual interest in MJ, well, you would expect it to be kept safely if it existed, and nevertheless, the sheriff’s search of his home was pretty informative.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160621193645/http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/mj-docs.pdf
Not all materials paedophiles have are illegal; grimly, they are quite able to get off on Mothercare and Gratton’s catalogues by looking at the child underwear pages. I once had a patient who used to time his wanking to when “Byker Grove” was on.
I refer you to the Huff Post article above. It dismisses, debunks or defends all those claims, plausibly.
But really I suppose this issue interests me because I keep thinking, what if? What if he was a genuinely good person who did loads of good and the lying moneygrabbers are winning? Could that be possible? After all, it so often is the way of the world. No one wants to be seen doubting victims of child abuse (much less referring to them as “lying moneygrabbers”!!!) but it’s essential to explore that possibility in pursuit of truth.
(And there are shedloads of money involved.)
As I say above, I found some aspects of the documentary very manipulative (for example, a photo of him that reminded me of the child catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was used more than once, to well creepsville effect) and overall too one-sided. Reading and viewing on-line, I believe there is a strong case for his defence even in the light of all evidence presented so far, as well as in the light of this documentary, and it isn’t being acknowledged (partly because the documentary was so powerful and partly cos Wacko was so darn wacko).
The UK 60s Tamla Motown run of 45s end with TMG 721 (“Someday We’ll Be Together”), Jackson and his appalling family first rear their heads in the UK on TMG 724.
That leaves me with about 400 Tamla releases (including associated 45s on Stateside, Oriole etc.) to choose to listen to.
Call me a tough marker, but I’ve made my mind up from when I start not listening to him.
The dodger was born in 1958!
I find it all very sad. I want to believe he was just an innocent Peter Pan figure who liked being with children but the fact that it was seemingly only boys of a certain age and that sleepovers were so common, it feels like it’s in plain sight. You can have a Disneyland type place and have lots of fun things – but you don’t need to have sleepovers. Most people would reasonably accept that this is a bad look, at the very least.
There was a bloke in our area near our school who had his front room converted to an amusement arcade (space invaders, pacman and etc) and teenage boys were invited in to play the games on the condition they were shirtless. He was defiantly of the view that there was nothing wrong with this and that nothing untoward happened. His name was distinctive and was a local byword for general dodginess but the boys I knew said he was all right and it was fun going there to play the machines. A Google search reveals he is in prison now – you can sort of guess the rest.
The ‘MJ is innocent’ lot dismiss the sleepovers with reference to the size of his bedroom (“2 storeys, the size of a duplex” according to Macaulay Culkin). The oddest thing is that he continued having sleepovers after the Jordan Chandler accusation. Incredible stupidity, astonishing arrogance or genuine innocence?
My biggest problem with the case is the fact that MJ wanted Wade Robson to take the stand in the 2005 trial. Why would he want to put one of his victims on the stand and subject him to hours of cross examination, knowing he could say the wrong thing and reveal the “truth”? Again, incredible stupidity, astonishing arrogance or genuine innocence?
Following the documentary (which is now on YouTube for anyone who hasn’t seen it) a deluge of “debunking” videos have been put up. Some of them are done very well and thoroughly (every single one of the points made on this thread has been addressed). I found the interviews with MJ’s niece Brandi Jackson very interesting. She dated Wade Robson from the age of 12 till the age of 19 (until he had a rumoured affair with Britney Spears), throughout the period he claims he was abused, but isn’t mentioned in the documentary at all.
Saw the first programme last night and just as my wife said “it’s a bit slow, isn’t it” it veers sharply into some rather graphic territory. If it turns out MJ did none of those things, a man in his 30s maintaining close friendships with seven year old boys is deeply wrong. Even someone as skew-wiff as Jackson is still an adult, who can manipulate a 7 year old very easily. Most of us want a partner to be an equal but he wasn’t like that.