love because it is someone who takes care of you and treats you well (most abusers are charming with children, give them games, get involved with them until they have total confidence and children come to love them very much), on the other hand they hate what they He does that abuser but they think that if he is doing it a person who loves them can not be so bad, they enter into a very difficult mental contradiction. For many children who were abused, the abuse was carried out by someone close to their family, so they have to deal with feelings of love and hate for that person at the same time. There are many documented cases of children who were abused and denied for years, even in adulthood, until finally brought to light. Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland" If he sits in a Q&A and tries to explain his position I REALLY HOPE there is a knowledgable MJ fan there to turn up the pressure on him and challenge him on his claim.Ĭhrist, I'd imagine most sensible people would have trouble believing his explanation on that point. In fact he didn't realise he had been abused until he reached almost 30 years old(!) REALLY!?!Įven in 2008, when he was happily having a family barbecue with MJ and his kids, he apparently didn't realise he had been abused. So, as a 20 something adult in 2005 he apparently didn't realise the horrific incidents he describes in his legal filings were abusive. His current claim is something like this.he ALWAYS remembered his abuse but was emotionally unable to process it or realise that he had been abused. Kind of impossible to suppress a memory in those circumstances. Even he realises that excuse isn't going to convince anybody when the one thing he's been asked about his whole life is his relationship with MJ. No he doesn't claim repressed memory, although that was what was initially discussed on here I think. as 'Fails to maintain basic standards of accuracy and accountability'. The Daily Mail online has apparently been labelled by this app.
The Daily Mail is currently complaining about a new app ('News Guard') which 'labels' online news outlets according to their reliability. I also wouldn't be surprised if their family members (mothers and sibs) who are also said to be appearing in the film, might have been paid.Īs regards the UK tabloid coverage, I was amused to see that one of the main offenders, which always picks up adverse MJ stories, is the Daily Mail (Daily Fail as it is more commonly known).
Body language leaving neverland free#
However, I'm sure they are likely to have received plenty of free legal services from Finaldi and Co. I've seen that some news outlets are saying that R and S have not been paid for their appearance in this film.
If you think that grounds for a legal complaint are ' 7 years of rape' or 'a wedding ceremony' then one incident of inappropriate photography or touching might hardly (to a young and genuine victim) seem worth mentioning! I hope that MJ fans don't turn up and 'throw rotten tomatoes' or whatever, as this would just give the press more to write about, and will add more fuel to the publicity fire.Īctually, I think that R and S's claims regarding MJ are so completely outlandish, that they are more likely to prevent other people from coming forward (in relation to other cases). I'm sure that the 'Q and A' is also a publicity stunt, and that (if R and S appear) the questions will have been carefully staged, and the answers carefully rehearsed for 'press quotability'. They are surely hoping that more complainants will come forward, if not related to MJ, then certainly in relation to other cases. The other aspect to this film, is that it will be used by Finaldi and co as a 4-hour advertisement for their law practice.
0 kommentar(er)
