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.

*Cringing at attracting ire for making another post. Just going to put this out there, then I've got to do other things. ccmrob brought up Corey Feldman regarding testifying in Jackson's favour. I just want people to consider this. Even though he may not have molested Feldman, Feldman actually said back in 2005 that MJ gave him wine and showed him a book with nude images. He was 13. That’s grooming. He may never have physically abused him but that’s still abuse.

And Feldman willingly admits Jackson gave him wine, and that he showed him a book with nude images.

He admits that himself. Do supporters of Jackson genuinely believe that is appropriate behaviour? Ok, for example, put it this way: you read in the news that an older adult gave a 13 year old girl wine and showed her nude images......
......Would you still think that was ok?

That is at the very, very barest minimum, an abuse of boundaries, if not sexual abuse. At the very rock bottom minimum. That is an abuse of boundaries and is very inappropriate behaviour from an older man toward a vulnerable child.

Feldman's own words show that he may not have been sexually abused, but Jackson DID abuse him and blur the boundaries and engage in inappropriate behaviour.

Just something to think about.

Bravo Luna - great work this afternoon!

What a gifted poster you are.

Weird guy with a weird interest in children. Makes me sick hearing him on the radio.

Anyone who supports him is a pedo sympathiser and needs to ask what sort of man chases children around the world, gives them alcohol and wants to sleep in the same bed. I know... dirty pedo Wacko Jacko!!

I certain after watching the documentary and everything I’ve read that MJ abused those boys.

There were interviews with LaToya Jackson from the 90s saying she believed he was a paedophile, she said that their mother hated him and made reference to the financial support given to the Jackson family from Michael, she also said that she had seen cheques written out to the families of boys who had been sleeping over with him. In the most recent interviews with her she has retracted all of those claims and said that her ex husband had made her say it. Does anyone really believe that?! There are so many people living off MJ's estate and the royalties coming in, is it really likely that she was forced to make untrue statements that she now feels compelled to retract without going into any details about how she was forced to make those allegations or is it more likely that she was telling the truth then and now that she sees her family facing financial ruin she has to retract what she said before?

ccmrrob can you please show me where it is documented that James Safechuck, who has been the director of an IT company in California for 20 years, and his wife, who is the director of a Marketing company in California, have ever had money troubles.

ccmrrob can you please show me where it is documented that James Safechuck, who has been the director of an IT company in California for 20 years, and his wife, who is the director of a Marketing company in California, have ever had money troubles.

In 2013, Safechuck suddenly remembered that he had been abused by Jackson as well, and decided to join the lawsuit. He did not mention that this epiphany coincided exactly with his inheritance circling the drain after a relative died and the surviving siblings started suing each other – including himself and his mother – for control of the family business. A massive co-incidence, don't you think?

Docs here.

www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.564084.1.0.pdf

There are no documents there that show that James Safechuck has ever had financial difficulties.

FoxFoxSierra - So you wasn't aware of her abusive relationship with Jack Gordon? She is an abuse victim, why don't you believe her?

She made up with the family in the late 1990's, it's not like she's only just changed her mind on all of this in light of these new allegations? You don't half twist things do you.

There are no documents there that show that James Safechuck has ever had financial difficulties.

Interpret that how you like, but I would think that family members fighting over the family business that he was the director of, would cause financial strain, unless you think lawyers are free?

Seriously though, you don't find it odd that the right before he joins the lawsuit, he's involved in a legal battle over his family business we he is faced with being outsed and having huge legal bills?

Luna, maybe that was inappropriate, esp the drinking. But you have no idea to the circumstances, what was agreed with his parents, if they knew of course? This was back in 2005 right, when Bashir was digging for dirt?

How about post all the details though for clarity.

"We went to his apartment, and I noticed a book that he had out on his coffee table."

“The book contained pictures of grown men and women naked. And the book was focused on venereal diseases and the genitalia."

“I was kind of grossed out by it. I didn't think of it as a big deal."

Sounds like it was some sort of medical book he left out, rather than porn as you seem to make out? That's how I interpret your use of the word nude images. It's going to sound like I'm making excuses, which is fair enough, but you find books like that in a library. I remember finding a book which sounds very similar that that in my library in secondary school.

*I saw the interview with the Jurors. At least one admitted he felt he was guilty. Others said they felt they couldn't convict 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

I'm not sure how you think that helps your argument? Seems to me it's the other way around.*

Actually, they said they wanted to see the evidence, and hoped for a smoking gun, but the evidence just wasn't there. The witnesses were not credible or believable and that is why they couldn't convict.

*Re the train station, what you said is absolutely not true.
t is important to note that there were officially FOUR different train stations at Neverland ranch.

If you look up the map of Neverland ranch on Google, you will find the following train stations listed:

4 Electric Train Station
8 Main Train Station
25 Train Station
41 Zoo Train Station.

There was a document showing a datestamp for a train station. It didn't show which one. And when some went to look for plans, the people who owned the plans were...... MJ's estate and a bank associated with the estate. And they would not release them.*

Okay I will rephrase that, there was only one 2 tiered station, the one James specifically referred to in the film, the with the upstairs room in it. The one which was built in 1993 and opened in 1994, the most famous one by the clock mural.

Even Dan Reed admitted it was the same one and confirmed there is no doubt about the dates being right. He seems to accept they messed up, why don't you? Seems a bit silly that you are still fighting that point but the director has held his hands up on twitter.

but please direct me to the section that says "the claimant is on his 4th amended complaint

I have already pointed it out once, but I will do so again for you. If you got most of the way through the document then you will have gone to far, it's on the first page.

Ccmrob I would respectfully suggest that it is you who is twisting things. I never at any point said that I didn't believe LaToya was a victim of abuse but I don't believe that she lied about what her mother said or that she knew about money given by MJ to the families of boys around him and to me her retraction sounded very odd. If you shout others down while accusing them of doing it to you you make your argument look a lot less credible.

What are the dates of these interviews? Did she say it while she was under the management of Gordon? If it's during that time, then I'm afraid it holds no weight.

It was during that time she said she had proof he was a paedophile, but she would only sell it with the bid starting at half a million. She wouldn't reveal, or ever has revealed what they was, leading me to believe it was BS and just about money. She said he husband put her up to it which is fair enough considering he made her do Playboy twice and tried to make her appear in a porn film also, so seems to fit with the theme.

I don't see where I have twisted anything? Please enlighten me.

unless you think lawyers are free?

I think directors of IT companies (not the family business) have plenty of money to pay for lawyers.

Do you really think any man would pretend to have been raped by another man to make money? Would you? Only a very few sociopaths would be able to do that. What are the chances poor Michael Jackson encountered 6 of them? Much more likely there was one very fucked up individual there - him.

calpop, if he is telling the truth then why the widely documented lies in his story? He wouldn't need to lie, surely if he was telling the truth.

Also, where did you find out he was a director of an IT firm? Google has him down as a software developer? Can't find any other details than that.

It's going to sound like I'm making excuses,

Every post of yours has sounded like your making excuses, which is because you are.

he was a director of an IT firm? Google has him down as a software developer?

Can't find any other details than that.

Not great at this research and finding evidence really are you?

He is listed as a company director on his linkedin, with previous jobs as a developer and software engineer. Viewable after a 10 second google search .

The truth is that both Safechuck and Robson are sucessful, wealthy men. They do not need MJ's money. They did not even receive any payment for the documentary. They have also remained dignified and shown great integrity in the aftermath of the documentary, neither have gone to the media to sell stories even though they would have been offered a awful lot of money for it. I also think they could probably make quite a lot of money at the moment if they decided to take action against those who have spent the past few weeks slandering them as well as the harassment, abuse and death threats they have had to endure.

@Luna. Brilliant posts , and well done for not rising to provocation of other posters and all the 'ranting' comments. It's completely obvious that certain posters are projecting, and you are not the one who sounds like you are ranting on this thread.

ccmrob12 - could you please give an example of what you WOULD class as evidence against him, because I'm getting the feeling nothing at all would convince you he was guilty; and even if it did, you would still somehow blame his victims for the abuse in some way.

The more you post, the more worried I am getting about your motivation in protecting a paedophile. Why are you so invested in defending MJ?

I don't see where I have twisted anything? Please enlighten me?

I answered that question already but I don't think you are reading anything that doesn't fit your viewpoint. It seems that you are hellbent on sticking with your preconceived ideas of MJ as naive victim of malicious liars intent on getting rich by any means necessary despite all of the facts pointed out to you by many of us on here.

So you wasn't aware of her abusive relationship with Jack Gordon? She is an abuse victim, why don't you believe her?

You don't half twist things do you.

^ 2 more quotes from you here.

In answer to your other question, yes the original interviews were during the time she was married to Jack Gordon, I do not consider that to automatically mean they are lies as there are other things she said during that time about their childhood which she later retracted despite Janet and Michael both backing up her original claims. They are still on YouTube if you're interested to watch them.

It's years since I saw the Martin Bashir interview and at the time I remember feeling that it confirmed my view of him as being a child, now I think that that was the purpose, he had no intention of stopping so he had to give us something to make us see it as innocent
.....................................................................................................................

Ironically the documentary had the opposite effect for many including Gavin's teacher-counsellor who contacted social services as a result.
Bashir knew what he wanted to convey in the edit but Jackson condemned himself.
You are correct in that it was supposed to be a vindication for Jackson as Uri Geller was told by Bashir that the documentary would bring justice for his friend with regard to the Chandler case (even though that was 8 years before, apparently Bashir had been requesting interviews for five years).
On one of these threads a pp thought Jackson was trying to 'get ahead' of the second investigation but I really don't believe that - because as I said, the documentary itself set the ground for it.
He didn't know what was coming at the time of filming because there was no re-investigation at that point. The documentary and subsequent furore caused all that.
It was a huge - and some would say deserved - own goal.
Bashir interviewed MJ over 8 months from May 2002 to January 2003. Documentary was shown in the UK on the 3rd Feb, and in the States on the 6th with a repeat on the 17th.
The Arvizos initially wanted to sue Bashir.
Social services were involved and claimed there was no case for child neglect against Gavin's mother or abuse from Jackson.
The lawyers and police were involved when Gavin disclosed later which led to the court case. The Bashir documentary was the catalyst for this chain of events and while the doc was being made Jackson also had his Blanket-dangling scandal. Plus he was fighting with Sony at the time. Karma can be a bitch sometimes.
That said, Bashir was a weasely documentary-maker (there are some good ones out there but even people who I think are generally trying to do good like Michael Moore manipulate to serve their agenda). Dan Reed has made a name for himself now but did not protect Robson and Safechuck adequately imo: His fact-checking was piss-poor and the train station date error would undermine Safechuck's future testimony in court (fwiw I think their appeal will be rejected but even so Reed was negligent). His prediction that the floodgates would open has also not happened (not surprising given Jackson's MO for long term relationships with his possible victims).
I was on the last two threads arguing the toss for both 'sides' as legally it is an interesting case with a lot of disinformation out there. I haven't contributed recently not because of paedophile apologist accusations but because after three or four threads, the debate has not changed my view which is that I still think a civil suit in his lifetime might have brought back a guilty verdict but criminal would still be Not Proven. What would have swayed Gavin's case would have been Robson's current testimony back then but what evidence needed now would be any staff witness or family member coming forward against Jackson who did not have any past grievance/payment for their compliance/testimony. Sadly no-one is going to do that.

@Blueberrybell Off topic, but can I ask what you mean by this please?

The more you post, the more worried I am getting about your motivation in protecting a paedophile. Why are you so invested in defending MJ?

You say paedophile like he was convicted in 2005. Why are you so invested in calling anyone who disagrees with you a paedophile defender or apologiser. If you feel the need to believe the proven lies of these two men, go ahead.

I am simply pointing out that I don't believe he was guilty, and why. I am not invested at all, you make it sound like I am part of the Jackson estate!

ccmrob12 - could you please give an example of what you WOULD class as evidence against him, because I'm getting the feeling nothing at all would convince you he was guilty; and even if it did, you would still somehow blame his victims for the abuse in some way.

A consistent story for a start. The fact is both have been caught out lying trying to explain their version of events, and you would not need to lie if you were telling the truth about what happened.

I am not blaming victims of abuse for anything, I simply don't believe these two are victims.

Rageagainstthevendingmachine the post you quoted was a few days old, if you'd read further you would have seen my later post where I said I had just rewatched it! Thanks for the summary though

I think Martin Bashir is an amazing interviewer and I thought he did really well there. I think that they both went into that with ulterior motives and while it was cringeworthy in a lot of places a lot of people did fall for the ethereal asexual manchild act which was exactly what he was aiming for. I still maintain that MJ was a very clever and devious man, far more than anyone realised but watching it back with a more critical eye I could see some parts were an act - the fake crying for instance. I didn't know it was Gavin Arvizzo's teacher who called social services, that is interesting that it was someone who knew him well - maybe there was something more beyond the obvious that rang alarm bells for him/her?