Reseñas de usuarios

I am at one with the previous comment by Theo. This so-called 'documentary' is one of the most biased pieces of television I've seen in a long time. Irrespective of your opinion on the current case against Michael Jackson, you would still be hard pressed not to find this programme leaving a nasty taste. I find it hard to believe this could ever be shown if the case was taking place in the UK, as the whole tone implicitly suggests that Jackson grooms his young male friends, before rejecting them once puberty hits. There are a few interviewees who support Jackson, however, the editing and script are predominantly misrepresentative. There's a plethora of archive footage to back up the director's agenda, but very little in the way of investigative journalism. Indeed, a very dangerous film.

The fact that the UK media , again, paid people to support the UK media's general agenda against Jackson should be enough to dismiss this production as credible. But it's made worse by using a deliberately dark color scheme, sinister music to plant the idea that something dark and sinister happened to the men featured here even if they themselves do not claim anything dark and sinister at all. Frank Cascio, Emmanuel Lewis and Damion Stein should be presented as evidence that Jackson's contact with boys was in fact non sexual since all three of them are among the men who consistently denied any abuse but since what they say does not fit the UK media's agenda they make sure that the viewer would believe the opposite of what they actually say. Damion Stein's account being used to sell the idea that Jackson moved onto younger boys when they hit age 14 is particularly hilarious since Damion said the first time Jackson invited him to his condo was when he was 15, supposedly too old. The production also ignores the fact that Jackson was closer to Damion's mother with whom he had endless phone calls including during the night, which ultimately made the husband suspicious and recorded the calls. These calls were made public in 2005 and they actually show Jackson's interest in women not boys. Hence, this production simply ignores this evidence. The idea that Jackson moved on to younger boys is also contradicted by Frank Cascio, one of the interviewees, who met Jackson when he was four and remained a close friend of him well into adulthood. In fact he was there in Neverland in 2005 while the Arvizos also stayed there, and, ironically was named one of the conspirators against the Arvizos. How did Jackson move on from Frank Cascio if he was still so close to him at age 20 that he involved him in a conspiracy (a charged obliterated during the trial , by the way). The filmmakers also ignored the timeline. They claim Damion was Jackson's boy between 1985 and 1991. But this was the same period when Safechuck was friends with him too, and Emmanuel Lewis, and Frank Cascio and Eddie Cascio so who replaced who? The film ask "what attracted Michael Jackson to Macaulay Culkin" ...then lets Diane Dimond answer that , her putting words in Jackson's mouths , which has absolutely no record at all, that Jackson marvelled at Culkin's lips. Nevermind that fact that Culkin too has consistently said Jackson never did anything even remotely sexual with him, or ever commented on his lips or smile, but where does Dimond gets this from? There is no record at all of Jackson ever commenting on male features, one way or the other, in writing or in speech. However Dimond once called Victor Gutierrez, one of his best sources, and surprise surprise Gutierrez wrote in his book that Jordan Chandler said Jackson told him Culkin has "beautiful thick red lips". Problem is Jordan himself never said that, Gutierrez put words in his mouth as he did throughout his book. Any production that let Dimond repeat the pedophilia advocate Victor Gutierrez's fantasy as it it had been historical fact , without fact checking it should be considered tabloid garbage, no better than the Sun's or the Mirror's countless degrading and factually challenged tirade against Jackson.