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.

Well it doesn't get much more passive agressive than that.

'It sure is'.. well, it doesn't get much more passive agressive than that.

I'm leaving this thread now. I don't like the name-calling and I'm not strong enough for it.

Well done to those who are able to continue to fight for his name, you are strong.

That's why others stopped posting I think. It just goes to further prove what has been said all along. It's not a factual claim and the film has stirred emotions here. There is no logic or subjectivity, just raw emotion. I still think it's an apt term in these cases.

Still no response Sagrada? Or you just going to ignore the point I made?

Okay, well here it is so you can see what the context was.

twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1116430719750852609

“When I first saw [Leaving Neverland] I realized that a lot of people were going to get triggered by watching it and a lot of people will not understand what the pattern is because I had done 217 shows trying to get people to understand that it’s not about one person,” Winfrey told Noah.

CherryPlum

I’m not angry. At all. I’m not ‘triggered’ either. I just wish you would show other posters some respect and stop using the term. It is misplaced for some and incredibly insensitive to others.

‘Ridiculously obtuse is not name calling.

You also need to stop assuming that the last two accusers and the documentary are the sole reason MJ is now seen as a paedophile. Even if you somehow managed to discredit both of them, a large amount of people would still believe he was a child abuser. The signs were there way before they spoke out.

Still no response?
Cc, I responded to you.

Well, I disagree and feel it describes the reaction perfectly. It's not misplaced at all, it's exactly what happened. To be fair you do come across as angry and upset at the fact someone disagrees with you on such a sensitive subject.

You aren't alone though, Sagrada calling CherryPlum a "child abuser denier" (is that even a term?) is I think where the name calling came into play, not the obtuse bit. You were talking about misplaced and insensitive the naming calling from your side of the argument in this (and the previous thread) is worse IMO.

Have your beliefs. That doesn't give you the right to make ridiculous insults and comments about people with opposing views - comments that are not true.

Blueberry I haven't once used the word triggered, or triggering.

I'm not angry, I'm not upset, it's not a sensitive subject for me. It's not emotive for me. It's not my abuse. I'm not triggered.
You know what you're doing. You've been asked several times to stop this but you're so aggressive you're doing it on purpose. You're showing yourself. You're showing what kind of person you are, as you have throughout the whole thread. It bothers me none 🤷‍♀️

Which other thread? Baffled.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/telly_addicts/3525990-Leaving-Neverland-Michael-Jackson-and-Me

Same story, people being called disgusting names, just like you did.

I'm defending the use of the word and why I used it. If people choose to be offended by it then it's up to them. The same word can be used to describe different things.

Tell me how many threads did you post on about Michael Jackson before this documentary aired? If it doesn't bother you, why are you calling people "child abuse deniers" in thread about a topic which nothing is likely to come from?

The truth isnone of us know. We are just forming our own opinions and beliefs.

I'm not responsible for what other people say. You implied I'd been on other threads saying whatever you're insinuating- how sly.

How many threads did I post on before the doc aired? None that I recall- I'm not preoccupied with the man. I posted on this one which is about the documentary, having watched it. As people do.

Hmmm, I never said that you were responsible for others, unless I missed that.

I guess you haven't noticed but there are more than one of you answering commenting on this thread, so not everything is aimed at yourself. I did give you a clue when I said "you aren't alone". It was a general comment about the state of affairs on here.

Why don't we get this back on topic instead of the bickering back and forth and making people feel like they can't comment on the thread?

thetwits the documentary was not changed.

@thetwits

"Maybe they should be prosecuted for lying in a court of law."

Many, MANY people lie for their abusers in a court of law, including victims of domestic violence. No judge is going to prosecute a victim who felt they had to lie.

The train station (of which there were 4) existed in 1993. Regardless;

"Dates and times is everything if it was me I would sue."

Why Do Victims Lie?
acestoohigh.com
Children and adult victims of violence and abuse are routinely called upon by police, attorneys, advocates, and judges to be witnesses and to tell their stories. But many victims lie or recant their testimonies.

Often victims’ stories change over time; they might recant their original testimony. And when a victim who initially described abuse later withdraws the allegations, minimizes them, or expresses confusion about what happened, police, attorney and judges often conclude that the victim lied.
Truth, however, is very rarely the issue. In child abuse cases, it been reported that nearly 75% of sexual abuse victims initially deny abuse and that nearly 25% eventually recant their allegations. Many reasons have been identified for the relatively high percentage of adult victims who fail to press charges, refuse to cooperate with prosecution, or do not pursue protection orders. Other reasons seem less intuitive: love, attachment based on a shared history, and hope that things could be better in the future. This may be difficult to understand – how can a person love someone who hurts and abuses them? But studies show that victims cite loss of love more frequently than fear and lost income. Appeals by abusers still in contact with their victims (whether allowed or not) are usually not to the victims’ fear but to their sympathy. They say things such as: “I miss you”, “I miss the kids”, “I miss our life together”, “We can’t let “them” come between us”. And they invoke memories of happier times, and promise to change.
Child victims are commonly asked to testify in presence of their abuser. Research suggests that loyalty to family members, or fear of their reaction to abuse allegations, may contribute to denials, recantations, and reluctance to disclose. Court hearings can be a very traumatic experience for children and can elicit many adverse reactions that limit their testimony. Victims of sexual abuse often experience symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Children with PTSD often enter an “avoidance” phase, in which they deny abuse or recant because they cannot cope with the anxiety. Child victims may also be reluctant to cooperate with authority figures because they have experienced complex trauma resulting from abuse at the hands of a trusted adult.
acestoohigh.com/2015/09/23/why-do-victims-lie/

"I'm not saying she wasn't being dignified. People are throwing stones and its hitting his kids. He's dead what now. Look at this thread all talking about her loving father. She's dignified but people on here can you call yourselves dignified gossiping behind a screen."

So a paedophile should not be discussed just in case it's hurts their children?

How about the paedophile should think about that, and how their actions may hurt their own children, before they molest a child? Why is the onus on the VICTIMS to keep quiet? Why is not the onus put on the paedophile to not molest, if one cares about his children so much?

Yet here you are, gossiping about 2 male victims of sexual abuse, and pulling apart their story. That's hypocrisy.

"They all took the money if it was me I would fight to put him in jail. I am a mother of 4 children if someone puts a finger on my child I will go to jail."

At least two boys did not take any money. And you ignore why people take money. Because going to court is often so traumatic for the child, they are re-victimised again. Often, police and court-appointed child psychologist liaison suggest to the parents to not go to court. The best interests of the child is always the top priority and sometimes the best interest of the child who has suffered trauma is to not re-traumatise them. That's why.

Also a couple of parents did try to take him to court. One of them was Arvizo. Jackson got off. So the message is, why bother when rich and famous perpetrators like Jackson and OJ Simpson will just avoid punishment anyway? You get re-traumatised in a brutal (for the victims) trial, and then get no justice. May as well just take the compensation and use it for therapy, when people like Jackson and Simpson get away with molesting/murdering.

"so what about the parents are they normal people who were tricked into trusting him."

Just as you have been tricked into believing him, it isn't the parents' fault that Jackson was a master manipulator who fooled us all.

@thetwits
"The only reason why I don't 100% believe is because they said he didn't and then years later he did."

That is EXTREMELY COMMON for victims of child sexual abuse. Maybe you just didn't realise that.

"Why would parents allow there children to stay with a grown man."

Because they believed, like you do, that he would never do anything like that. Besides, you are blaming the wrong person. Instead of blaming the parents, why don't you blame the PERSON WHO MOLESTED?

@ccmrob12
"Be interesting to know if they both end up getting perjury cases brought against them? They might up with a failed appeal and criminal charges for their lies."

How absolutely spiteful and absurd! It is EXTREMELY COMMON for victims to lie for their abusers in court. Even battered wives lie for their husband. NO judge is going to CHARGE A SCARED VICTIM who was manipulated and forced to lie. Get real.

"However, why sue for millions if it is justice that they are both after?"

Why not? You could re-write it and say if Jackson wanted justice for himself and vindication, why did he settle out of court?

"Another interesting point is the people saying his son being born triggered the change of heart. His son was born in 2010. He didn't make these complaints until 2013. He was still friends with the family through 2010 and 2011 when he begged to be a part of the Cirque Du Soleil show. Wade's money issues started around the time he made the claims, convenient that eh?"

Yes, it was after he had his son when he made the claims. So it wasn't the day after his son was born, so what? What's your point the fact is, seeing his 3 year old son playing and all innocent made him realise. And he didn't have any money issues, so that is a myth.

"Another interesting article, he set up the Robson family fund after the doc to try and raise money. He now claims it was to raise money for child abuse charity, but why call it that in the first place."

So he renamed the charity for the purposes of clarity after Jackson fans were harassing him and took his charity out of context. And he clarified it. So that is a problem how?

When are you going to see Jackson and the Jackson estate is shady as ....!

@thetwits "What has money got to do with justice."

A lot. I always find it very strange that some believe people who have been abused don't deserve compensation. I mean, how did we even get here? Why is compensation a 'bad' thing? If you fall over on your way to work, you get worker's compensation. If you break a hip by falling in a pot hole, you can get compensation from the local council. Even James Hardie workers were entitled to compensation when diagnoses with Asbestosis or Mesothelioma.

So, why is it wrong to seek some sort of compensation - and that type can only be in the form of money when it comes to abuse, if you were abused by a child? When did we as a society begin to think compensation for child molestation is wrong? Most people who are abused DO want monetary compensation. That's just natural, and common sense.

@ccmrob12 Yes we know the tabloid media are being fed stories by the Jackson estate, yet the train station existed in 1992, that was cleared up. And, the train was there in 1990. Can't have a train without a train station.

@thetwits "Sagradafamiliar the reason I brought it up if you open your mind for a moment is because if that can of beer weren't there he would have gotten away with it.

Even the most hardened criminal will get caught out eventually."

But Jackson did get away with it. Really, you've argued against your own viewpoint. As you yourself said, that rapist would have gotten away with it, but for one beer can. This should give you pause to think that people get away with it all the time because of no 'physical evidence'.

You've made our point, but don't realise it.

Just caught up have you?

Compensation is no bad thing. But to claim hundreds of millions of dollars before any guilt has been confirmed just smacks of desperation. The timing didn’t help when both men appeared to be suffering from financial difficulties. It’s well documented that both were suffering money issues at the time they decided to sue, it’s not a myth.

Wade Robson can’t decide the reason he testified for Michael and didn’t tell the truth. He has changed his story that he didn’t know he was being abused at the time, to saying he was scared, to saying he wanted to protect Michael. How can your story from he was scared of telling to truth for fear to wanting to protect Michael. He can’t get his story straight. I don’t see how it could be both.

Regarding MJ settling out of court, his insurance made the payments to settle the civil case as he was on the Dangerous tour at the time and it would have cost more to cancel shows. It was also to close down the civil case so focus on the criminal case in 1994. The chandlers were free to give evidence in that but didn’t. As I have said before why not? If it were your child would you not want justice if you were free to give evidence? I would. They didn’t they took their money and ran because it was all they were after all along.