I feel upset, sick and cheated by Leaving Neverland

[Persimmonn]

I was one of those people who kept saying the men are out to make money. That there’s no evidence etc. But I finally watched the documentary yesterday and it’s hurt me a lot. I feel like I was lied to my whole life. I know it sounds so melodramatic and selfish but MJ was my idol growing up. I remember being 7 years old and dancing and singing his songs.

Now I feel sick to the core. If Wade Robson and James Safechuck are lying, then they’re incredibly good liars.

MJ was a paedophile.

He had girls in his bedroom too? Oh that must mean he isn't a paedophile then.

Everyone famous needs an alarmed bedroom... or maybe it's just the ones that invite small boys and girls to share their beds that need an alarm to let them know that staff are approaching.

No you've misunderstood me, I'm referring to people who say 'why did he only have boys in his bedroom? Never girls. Ah it must be because he fancied boys'. People jump to the conclusion that he must have been an abuser. What I'm saying is that they are ignoring (or simply don't realise) that he often had girls over too. There are so many things that people ignore.

I find it odd that some men have come forward and made this horrific accusation and people immediately say 'I believe you'. Why? Why do you believe them? What is convincing you that they are telling the truth?

'What is convincing you that they are telling the truth?'
It fits in with the wider picture.
A grown man sharing a bed with underage boys on a regular basis, having 'special young boy friends' who were all of a type and age, who were then replaced as they got older for a younger model is in no way an innocent way to behave.
He was a sexual man, but just not interested in grown women.

I'm listening, but still there's nothing telling me outright he was guilty - because it fits in with a wider picture is not a good enough reason to assume guilt. Not everything always fits a mould or pattern. Life's not like that. We can't say to ourselves, ah yes this fits a picture therefore it is true. We must see both sides and be objective. It's not right to decide someone is guilty based on pre-conceived ideas of how the world works or how people usually think.

Regarding the comment about him being a sexual man but not into women, I just don't see how you can surmise that he wasn't into women without knowing him intimately yourself.

cherryplum there are loads and loads of posts over the 31 pages of this thread from people explaining exactly why they believe he was guilty if you would care to read them! My take on why he had girls in his bedroom too, well you're taking that as evidence that he didn't abuse boys - maybe that's the reason? I think the was a lot more intelligent than anyone realised.

Wrt buying James Safechuck the ring - Safechuck has said he did buy a ring on that shopping trip, it would be a bit risky for him to say that if it wasn't true don't you think? All it would take would be for someone from the shop to say no ring was bought and that would be proof he was lying. As for him later buying a ring himself, I doubt they would have the same things in store 20 years later but if they did that again would be evidence of lies

Am I missing something about the ring? How does buying a ring make someone a paedophile?

Buying a child a wedding ring is very normal isn't it?

It was a conversation from earlier posts. Tbh I'm a bit pissed, I will post more tomorrow when I can articulate a bit better

Ha Fox!

OK well I have read a lot of the posts explaining the reasons why people believe them, however I don't see any of those reasons as being compelling evidence against him so I'm trying to understand what I am missing here. People seem to be basing it on their feelings, their intuition - there is no concrete evidence against him and there never was.

Oh stop being so ridiculously obtuse CherryPlum. And RTFT. People have said over and over again why they think he was a pardophile.

How am I being obtuse?

What would you call ‘concrete evidence’?

Safechuck said it, we've established that is his claim, which doesn't help I'd be more interested in what the shop said he bought, that would fit his story and corroborate what he is saying. Again that is on Safechuck because he didn't come forward when he had chance to in 2005, it's makes finding the employees that much harder. But if he had have done it would have been the smoking gun that the jury were looking for.

As it is, it is only his word that Michael bought him a ring, or that he bought anything at all. It doesn't sound like he bought anything at all from the news reports about it all at the time.

Going back to this theory that Michael like young boys, if what Dan Reed is saying is true and Safechuck got the dates wrong that the abuse stopped, then this means the abuse stopped in 1994, not 1992. If that is true, that puts him at 16/17, which goes against their whole tangent. Safechuck is saying Michael had to have abused him while he was an older teenager.

MJ married Lisa Marie in May 1994 which makes even less likely he would have been abusing Safechuck in 1994. Lisa is quoted as saying: “I believed he didn't do anything wrong, and that he was wrongly accused and, yes, I started falling for him. I wanted to save him. I felt that I could do it.” It just wouldn't have made sense for him to marry Lisa Marie and then carry on abusing during that time.

Concrete evidence would be the sort of stuff admissible in court and likely to result in a guilty verdict. I just haven't seen any.

I'm really not trying to be obtuse. I can see that there are many people who have made up their minds, evidence or not, and that just isn't right or fair.

I've seen over the past few threads about it, that people want it to be true so much that nothing will change their mind on this. That is why the few who did ask questions, got shouted down and stopped posting. It's funny how such an emotive subject turns people into online abusers, of people they don't even know. Sad really but the documentary caused that by triggering these emotions in people.

online abusers

.

And more use of the word ‘triggered’. I just wish you could see how ridiculous you sound.

I didn't say Triggered, as it upset people before, I said triggering. Also, Oprah said it first, don't see anyone shouting her down for it, only people singing her praises.

You are so passive aggressive/violent you are aren't you. A real transparent individual. I've explained a couple of times, that this isn't an emotive subject to me. That I'm not triggered. I've seen other posters explain to you why, at length, as victims of abuse themselves, your use of the term 'triggered' is disrespectful, diminishing and offensive. Yet buoyed by another child abuse denier, brandishing your weapon of choice.
Having read all your posts, it comes across strongly that you just really don't like Robson and Safechuck over anything else. That you find them distasteful. That you think certain things should be kept quiet.

Yet here you are again* that should've read.
And oh, I do apologise, I should have noted that you conjugated the verb differently so as not to be insensitive. That changes its meaning doesn't it 😂

It is difficult for me to stand up against a person who accuses me of being 'ridiculously obtuse' for raising a question or speaking a view. Nobody has ever called me ridiculously obtuse in all my life. I can imagine lots of people who believe he is innocent are afraid to speak up. I can see that you want to shout me down, and your anger is palpable. It's clever the way the documentary has brought about such feelings of anger in people.

I can understand it, that anger, because child abuse is sickening, stomach-turning, vile and unthinkable. But that doesn't mean he did it.

Hold on a second, most of the way through these threads I've been called a 'paedophile apologiser' and 'enabler', as well as anyone else who dared to not say "I believe them". And I'm the passive aggressive one?

Are you actually going to address my point? Did you tweet Oprah to let her know that the use of the word has offended you? I bet you didn't, yet she used it in the same way I did.

You are right about one thing, I find it massively distasteful of them to drag Michael's kids and family through this over lies and money. I find it distasteful to other abuse victims that this might go down as another failed attempt to jump on the #metoo bandwagon.

What do you feel that I think should be kept quiet? I have said no such thing.

I think someone on this thread just referred to me as a 'child abuse denier'. That's absolutely sickening.

It sure is.

Cc I'm not offended, I don't like how you keep patronisingly and aggressively using the term when you've been told it's offensive and inappropriate though. Right here on this thread.

No I didn't tweet Oprah. I don't use Twitter. I haven't seen the context she used it in. I wouldn't dictate to a child abuse survivor how to use a term she's qualified to use, either, if she did say it.