Yes, I hadn't realised that the second half is 2 hours long... how they going to fill that?
Well, I don't know about you, but for me the second part was just as important, describing the effect it had on both victims into adulthood and the effect on both of their families after they told them the truth.
I look forward to watching it. At the rate I watch stuff at the moment though I reckon that'll be sometime in 2021
I found it riveting. Obviously the graphic detail was pretty unsettling but absolutely needed in order to tell their story.
I have to say, having heard stories of how manipulating Jackson could be in terms of business, the stories of grooming resonated with me on a different level, and opened the gates to my belief of those two boys.
I don't know how to feel about the whole thing, still.
Yes, it was odd that Jackson wanted to sleep with young boys in his bedroom, though it is explained he had multiple beds in his large bedrooms so that doesn't mean 'in the same bed'. For these allegations to have been true then every person associated with him would have to have been fine with it, paid off or whatever as surely they would have known something was up. That's a hell of a plan and hard to believe now that after he's gone that none of the staff/team around him have said anything.
Then we have the FBI decade long investigation which turned up nothing at all, so Jackson is either the cleverest criminal in history to have evaded the FBI of all organisations or there really was nothing untoward going on.
The accusers having lied previously then makes it hard to fully believe them now. They share the same lawyer, they have the same stories but their evidence giving just didn't ring as fully genuine. Their parents jovially telling stories and then switching on a dime to "but they were being abused" doesn't ring as genuine. Why would you recall those times in such a light way when you knew what was really going on?
Then there is Safechuck's involvement with MJ's estate until 2011 and his accusations only came out after he had been let go from an MJ production of Cirque du Soleil and been made bankrupt.
I'm not saying MJ is innocent, I'm not saying the boys are lying, but I think this one sided "documentary" isn't doing either side any favours. If anything it's just made the water muddier rather than any clearer. Unless someone can come out with video proof or one of his team breaks ranks I don't think we will ever get to the bottom of it, we'll just keep having these types of programmes that don't really prove anything. Michael is dead, so at this point anyone can accuse him of anything and he can't defend himself.
It then adds to the "can we still enjoy his music?" debate. Can his work as an artist still be enjoyed or is everything about him tainted forever over this?
It then adds to the "can we still enjoy his music?" debate. Can his work as an artist still be enjoyed or is everything about him tainted forever over this?
Netflix have yet to <shift-del> the House of Cards files after the Spacey accusations, which slightly surprises
me. I don't tend to watch movies and TV shows more than once, so difficult to say whether I could watch HoC knowing what I (seem to) know now. Music is of course different. Dunno, I enjoy Jackson's work (unlike Gary Glitter, and Johathon King's) so uncharted water...
Their parents jovially telling stories and then switching on a dime to "but they were being abused" doesn't ring as genuine. Why would you recall those times in such a light way when you knew what was really going on?
Nadia Sawalha made a good point about this on Loose Women. A great film maker will take his subject back to that moment in time, so it's not unusual that the happy emotions felt at that time come through. Obviously this was more jarring because it cut between their version of events and the boys', but once the story caught up to the point the parents were told of the abuse, I felt the emotion was clear to see. The relationship between mother and son is strained, and one mother does not even wish to know details of the abuse so is clearly still in some form of denial.
The accusers having lied previously then makes it hard to fully believe them now.
This is the main point being raised by those that doubt Wade and James, and on face value it's a perfectly reasonable assumption, but actually shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the grooming process.
I ask you, have you ever heard of a battered wife defending her husband in court? Swearing his innocence to friends and family, almost guilty to admit she is a victim of abuse? If she finally found the strength to report him, would she be getting all this doubt and anger? It is fundamentally the same in this story, except the man was the biggest star in the world and the women was a 7-12 year old boy in awe of him.
I doubt the story, but I'm not angry at all. Nor am I saying Michael is innocent and am some superfan defending him, I'm not that big an MJ fan actually.
Despite the above, they had been free of Jackson since 2009 and the extensive searches of his home and constant interviews with him and his staff and nothing was found. At all. The timeline is also interesting with the lack of money and the loss of a job with Safechuck which triggered this whole story. Both men admitted they were his friends and went from being his closest companions getting everything their heart desired provided to them to basically being forgotten about and replaced. Anyone in that position could turn to wanting to do something to get back at them, driven by jealousy, anger and feelings of betrayal. The length of time since and the fact that Michael is dead means it's a lot of "he said/did" and no rebuttal.
Of course if there is hard proof of it then I hope Jackson is rotting in hell for what he did, but there hasn't been anything brought to light so far that is making me think he without a doubt did it and hasn't just been the victim of exploitation from money hungry greedy types. Jordan Chandler and his family were happy to take $20+ million to drop the case. Really? So they'll happily take money from the supposed abuser and drop it and let him carry on abusing? Either they were very naive, selfish people or they were just in it for the money - and that's exactly what they got.
As I said it's all really tricky and I don't think we'll ever be able to get a definitive answer one way or another.
For the same reasons ITV "wasted money" on a documentary suggesting Savile was a child molester? It really does make me laugh all these people saying "He's dead, he can't defend himself" - but that didn't get in the way of those same people castigating Jimmy Savile.
Presumably because having spoken to the film makers in advance they believe the allegations to be serious, credible and so worthy of investigation. That whatever doubts there may be are outweighed by the testimony of those making the accusations.
I've not seen the programmes yet, but previous documentaries of this type (and the publicity they create) have lead to sexual abuse victims having the courage to come forward in other cases, meaning those criminal acts (whether by celebrities or not) can be exposed, and where possible, prosecuted. It gives experts and even general members of the public an insight and understanding of the grooming process, allowing them to even flag up 'dangerous' situations before they can turn into abuse. Of course there is the risk of overreaction, but this isn't 'wasting money' - it's ensuring that such allegations aren't just forgotten about or some attempt made to sweep them under the carpet.