MovieChat Forums > Leaving Neverland (2019) Discussion > "Documentary" with 0 insightful facts

"Documentary" with 0 insightful facts

posted 6 years ago by Heisenberg (6730)
18 replies | jump to latest

I'm sorry to bump this page again, this film does not deserve it, but I had to point this out.

I watched this "documentary" waiting to be informed on some facts, and possibly new facts, about MJ alleged sex abuses, but it only presents a one sided testimony of some hard to believe memories. It's not a fair study of their case: its documentary value is only the filming of these interviews, with these people telling us whatever they want.
There's no filter, no counter argument, no fact checking, no comparison with proven evidence.
The "inteviewer" never nails them with the right question (like he should have): not only these memories are hard to believe, they don't match with investigations and actual proven facts.
I don't know what happened between them and MJ for certain, but it's either:
1-nothing happened
2-something happened and now they enhanced it to get the money
3-what they describe in these interviews happened
This movie does NOTHING to clarify the truth.
If anything, this movie took me on MJ side: it's obvious that the "I didn't know it was abuse when I repeatedly said I was not abused-but through therapy I found out it was" is a LIE: both of them are lying to some extent to navigate around the statute of limitations and get money for their version of facts.
So that's the one and only fact we can collect here: these men are lying about something.

Now, everything else they say here is up for grabs: is that the only lie they tell us, and they are only lying about "realizing it was abuse" while everything else is true, so they should get some compensation for the abuse even if they really lost their chance years ago?
Or are they lying about other stuff too, like the anal sex and the oral sex?
Or is their whole testimony a lie, nothing happened sexually with MJ and they are after some undue payoff jumping on the "MJ-the-molester-gravy-train"?

I don't want to be like those judges in the far west that thinks a prostitute could not be a reliable witness because of her profession, but certainly the fact that these two men lie about one fact doesn't make them look like very solid witnesses about everything else they say.
It would be tragic if they are telling the truth, even more so if they are not believed, but I have to say, after seeing this film and the lies they say in it, I find myself on MJ side.

[–] thalia (313) 6 years ago

Basically the show is testimony from victims and witnesses. Wht man would invent the stuff that was said?

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

Well, actually it's just tales from two man-claiming-to-be-a-victim-20-years-after, and their families who witnessed exactly squat.
And the man who would invent the stuff that was said in these "interviews" is the same man who would use the same invented story to sue the MJ estate for a billion dollars.
This movie is reinforcing said story just by being broadcasted on HBO.
It still presents 0 facts.

[–] maul (1658) 6 years ago

People who have 1.5 billion dollar lawsuits?

[–] Threadkiller (3088) 6 years ago

It"s because it's not a documentary. It's an utterly fraudulent and disgusting yet inexplicably well promoted tabloid smear piece.

[–] Indiscipline (770) 6 years ago

I just came away from it thinking that everyone in the doc seems like an actor, very comfortable in front of the camera. They seem very capable to cry on cue and show any emotion they need to. I don't understand the need to hear input from the wives or brothers or sisters. This should have stuck to the two fellows and their mothers. That being said, I still believe that Jackson was a creepo and always will.

[–] dmac8 (5050) 6 years ago

newsflash: docs have never been about reality

[–] Starduster (268) 6 years ago

I have raised these points several times. You cant change peoples minds.
Something I was waiting for actually turned up. A statement from Corey Feldman. While I am a bit disappointed that he feels that these 2 have any right at this point, to make such claims, he completely agrees that this is MUCH too one sided and comes at a time where Jackson has passed and has no defense.
Corey has claimed abuse in a Hollywood pedophile ring. He has always been consistent with his claims. He still claims that Jackson was NOT HIS OFFENDER.
Feldman has given a VERY HEARTFELT statement of his friendship with MJ. He said that he was suicidal at the age of 11. He hated his life, he hated his looks he hated everything. He said that with MJ he learned to love himself and to be strong. He says that he feels that MJ changed his life and made him want to live.
Does anyone think that Feldman would show up at the funeral of one of his abusers and say "glowing" testimony about his relationship? CERTAINLY NOT!
Yet Wade Robson gave a eulogy at MJ's funeral that was quite similar. NOW he is accusing him af the most heinous acts imaginable. THIS IS TOTALLY ILLOGICAL! Yet we are supposed to believe it. He was an adult. He was not forced or bribed. He said GLOWING things about his friendship with MJ at his funeral.

A person doesnt just wake up one morning or go to therapy and draw the conclusion that they were abused in the ways that were described. Kids arent stupid. They KNOW this is WRONG.

This is NOT a documentary. Its a "hitpiece" to destroy Jacksons name and legacy.
They cant get money from Jacksons estate. Their court case was dismissed because of no evidence and lack of credibility.

I think the allegations of this abuse are something that will haunt MJs kids for years to come. Why should they be made to suffer?

[–] thalia (313) 6 years ago

What man would go on international tv and talk about his ass being licked?

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

I instinctively think somebody that wants money.

I have to admit, it's difficult to think that a victim would say such things unless he wants money. Or unless he wants to publicly smear his perpetrator.
But come on, after metoo it's hip to say this very private and delicate and in this case horrible and terrible stuff in public.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 6 years ago

"it's difficult to think that a victim would say such things unless he wants money. Or unless he wants to publicly smear his perpetrator."

Or because it's true, and is describing exactly what happened, in detail.

Do you think it'd be better to continue to keep quiet about all this? They'd already done that.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

No, "because it's true" still makes it difficult to think that you'd say all this stuff for everybody to hear.
If anything, it being true makes it even more difficult to believe.
One thing is to say "he molested me" to the police, responding to thalia's question, another thing is to say that. I don't think a victim would say that stuff publicly "because it's true".
I've done a lot of stuff, way less obscene or awful as this, that I won't say out in public "just because it's true". I have to have a reason, and the reasons I can think of are the ones I wrote.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 6 years ago

Not to me it doesn't.

This is many years after the fact, lawsuits were filed, and dismissed due to the statutes of limitations having run out, so that avenue to expose MJ was/is most likely closed. (I don't think they'll win an appeal.)

On top of that, they knew they were facing an uphill battle getting people to believe them, given they were going up against probably the most famous cultural icon and superstar ever. Who had also been taken to court twice for the same thing. AND, worse, they had to overcome the fact that they'd both testified on MJ's behalf.

They were approached by a documentary-maker, who was also the interviewer, creating and asking the questions. They, and their families, answered the questions he asked.

A lot of people are convinced because of all the details they provided, because it lays out so clearly not only how this happened, but how pedophiles in general groom not only the kids, but the parents too. He did this in a way that's never been done before, knowing it had to be done this way to uncover how it's done.

I doubt revealing publicly the things you've done would result in the greater good of awareness, protecting past, present, and future victims, the way this has.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 6 years ago

"A person doesnt just wake up one morning or go to therapy and draw the conclusion that they were abused in the ways that were described."

That isn't what happened. If you saw this film, you already know this and are deliberately misstating what happened. Have you seen it?

The court case was dismissed solely because the statute of limitations had run out. NOTHING to do with a lack of credibility or evidence.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

"The court case was dismissed solely because the statute of limitations had run out. NOTHING to do with a lack of credibility or evidence."

That's not exactly true either. The court case was dismissed, period.
You are saying it had nothing to do with a lack of credibility or evidence, when in reality it was just dismissed: the court DID NOT say "we are dismissing this case solely because of the statute of limitations, because it would totally win as the credibility and evidence is so solid". They just dismissed it because they had ONE reason. That's enough.
The statute of limitations was a glaring one, so they had to dimsiss it because of that.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 6 years ago

"The statute of limitations was a glaring one, so they had to dimsiss it because of that."

Exactly what I said: the case was dismissed because the statute of limitation had run out, period. The dismissal had nothing to do with evidence or lack of evidence, or credibility or lack of credibility.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

Yeah but nothing do to doesn't mean that they were legit neither.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 6 years ago

I didn't say that it meant they were; they simply weren't considered, but it's an outright lie to say the case was dismissed for any reason other than the statute of limitations.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

I concur