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.

Wasn't he talking about the child abuse he suffered as a boy at the time? When he was 'fake crying'? That's a bit harsh!

I mean what I say - why are you so invested in defending MJ? You have the theory that we are all ‘triggered’ Into believing he is guilty. What is your motivation for believing so emphatically in his innocence?

You believe he is innocent, I don’t, do yes - I do class you as someone who is defending a paedophile, just as you would view me as a paedophile accuser. Why do you have such a problem with that?

You have been informed time and time again as to why the stories may seem inconsistent, yet your viewpoint does not waver at all, you take no other theories on board, even that if experts in the field. Why?

It's not just my theory, that people have been triggered by it. Everyone seems to be celebrating Oprah on her interview with the men, but she's the one who I first heard use the term. As an abuse victim herself, she didn't find it offensive so I assumed a fair term to use. The first (and only place) I heard of it being called offensive was on here.

I don't think you can call someone a paedophile defender when he was never found to be a paedophile. It's your view that he was, but I don't feel I am defending one. If he was then I certainly wouldn't be defending it. I think it's disgusting and abhorrent. I have never once used the term paedophile accuser either for the record.

I have massive issue with their stories, yes. As do many, many others. I'm not talking about was it a Friday or a Monday or which month it was. I am talking about solid proof of their stone cold lies.

For example, Wade saying he was left at the ranch when his family went to the Grand Canyon. His mother signed two legal depositions in 1993 and 2016 stating her whole family had gone on that canyon trip and mentioned nothing about Wade being left with Michael (who would dream of doing that anyway BTW). She had no reason to lie during these statements, as if anything leaving Wade with Michael would have added to the story he was safe and trustworthy.

Also James claimed in the film he was begged to testify for MJ towards the end of the trial. Safechuck was never asked to testify for Jackson’s defence, it's documented specifically that he was one of the kids excluded from giving evidence. The judge ruled long before the trial began that testimony could only be heard about certain children, and Safechuck was not one of them. The judge refused testimony from Brett Barnes and James Safechuck as no one has suspected them of being abused and this is backed up with the court documents. All testimony about Safechuck was literally banned from the courtroom. So Jackson’s defence cannot have asked him to testify, and certainly not after the trial was already underway.

If they were telling the truth they wouldn't need to do this. It's also a trend that all the people so far who have taken legal action have been found to be equally untrustworthy. What the odds of that?

When people say they see the hurt in James and see he is broken, could it not be equally explained (and he is a trained actor, that's how he met MJ in the first place) that deep down he feels awful for doing this and what he putting MJ's kids through? Time might tell on this and it might not. Maybe we will never know.

That is what I am basing my belief on. I have found nothing believable about them as people, Wade Robson being the significantly more suspect through all this. It's certainly not a standard case and it is most definitely an anomaly in the real world.

. I am not invested at all, you make it sound like I am part of the Jackson estate!

Really? Why do you keep going on and on and on then? Rehashing the same tenuous reasons why you are convinced MJ is being falsely accused, when its clear that 99.9% of people on this forum think he was probably guilty?

Are you an MJ impersonator? Have a collection of MJ memorabilia? Being paid by the MJ estate to try and keep the pro MJ propaganda at the top of every thread? There really seems to be no other explanation to why someone would go so far against prevailing opinion for so long and just keep on repeating the same pro MJ propaganda the estate is attempting to get out. Someone with zero real posting history.

I dont know why you're bothering as nothing you have said has made anyone change their opinions that I can see.

The teacher did not necessarily know Gavin well but was doing their pastoral duty of care wrt safeguarding. I would have done the same.
ccmrob's last post at 13.20 is fair and is the reason why legally there would be a reasonable doubt.
On previous threads several posters did say they felt triggered by Reed's documentary and the sequence of grooming, being made to feel complicit in the abuse, subsequent denial then having it resurface later (especially when their kids were born/of the same age) resonated with them. It rang true because they had been through it and therefore the men's new testimony was convincing in itself even though nothing else 'new' came out of the documentary.
There has been a cultural shift and social change post Metoo but there are also those that cannot believe he was acquitted on all 14 counts in the first place and that he should have served 18 years.
As I said, interesting case and a huge rabbit hole if you are interested in how people get away with things in plain sight or how slander and extortion work depending on your viewpoint.
I am not going to police ccmrob's opinions or seek to silence them or question their motives - it's a debate forum, it's what we do here procrastinate, mostly One man's armchair detective is another's tricoteuse. Was ever thus. I prefer that to an echo chamber any day.

Cause it's a discussion board isn't it? Isn't that kind if what they are for?

It became vastly obvious a long time ago, people weren't going to change their mind on this subject. They've made their mind up, guilty as charged. After that it just became a case of answering the points aimed at me.

Can you explain the two lies that I referred to in my last post above yours? Why lie if they are telling the truth. And I don't mean lies about other things, I mean lying specifically about their version of events? Why do they need to if they are telling the truth?

I know you see people not returning as some sort of victory @ccmrob12 however personally I've been on holiday and only had time to respond now.

Firstly I'll say there has been copious amounts of evidence posted and you are ignoring it. And you're also ignoring questions as to why on earth Jackson had so many children friends and how it is he's so unlucky to have a number of young boys accusing him of the exact same thing?

Secondly, Oprah has used the term "triggered" in absolutely the right context, she used it sensitively and in relation to how CSA survivors experience feel. You are using it to mock people and bolster you're opinion that everyone is wrong because "triggered". You clearly still don't know what it means.

Thirdly, why are you banging on about people not changing their minds? Do you really think a poorly made 13 minutes YouTube video compilation made by a fruit loop superfan was going to sway us when there so much evidence to prove MJ was a pedophile?

Fourthly - and I say this as a favour to you - please do basic research on things like legal terminology before posting here and embarrassing yourself. I have read the court documents you posted, and I have some knowledge of American law. A "Fourth Amended complaint" simply means a plaintiff (in this case, Wade Robson) has a legal right to amend a complaint to correct facts, add information that may be relevant and add new claims. This is fairly common in abuse cases as events, dates, people etc are remembered. IT DOES NOT MEAN THE PLANTIFF HAS CHANGED THEIR STORY. That is absolutely key here. The court documents you oddly believe are so damning actually state that in the state of California, child abuse allegations in civil court have to be brought before the complainant starts their 26th birthday. Wade was older than this when he tried to sue the Jackson estate. And Because of legal precedent set in Quarry vs Doe (2012) there are actually 2 exceptions to this rule in which Wade would have been allowed to try and sue the Jackson estate:

1. If he could show he took steps to stop MJ further abusing other people. He did not
2. if he can prove the abuse took place as an intentional move orchestrated by both MJ and MJJ productions. He could not prove this (likely because his mother was complicit in allowing visits to Neverland)

It's important to point out that not meeting the above criteria doesn't say anything about the validity of a claim - but legal precedent means exceptions to rules can be really specific.
In summary - those "signed court documents" just state that Wade wasn't an exception to the "rule of age 26"

I will tell you what it makes me so pleased that there's no statute of limitations in the UK. Imagine being given only to age 26 until you can get justice for the sexual abuse you suffered as a child. No wonder so many people get away with it. Mightily convenient for the likes of Jackson.

Anyway, I digress...you're talking out your backside, on pretty much every post. And lastly - there are NO inconsistencies, NO lies, NO changes stories in either Wade or James's accounts, and you haven't proved that there are.

You say you specifically don't believe Wade and James. Well, do you believe Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo and the other two accusers whose names escape me (but can find out with a swift google)??

The judge refused testimony from Brett Barnes and James Safechuck as no one has suspected them of being abused and this is backed up with the court documents. All testimony about Safechuck was literally banned from the courtroom. So Jackson’s defence cannot have asked him to testify, and certainly not after the trial was already underway.

Do you have a source for this? I find it very hard to believe that it's true. It's not how the law works. No one suspected Wade Robson or Macaulay Culkin of being abused either, yet they testified. And IIRC James Safechuck said that he was called by MJ before the trial began. Despite what you see in courtroom drama movies, witness lists are generally compiled and those people are deposed (in layman's terms, have a practice run in front of the defence and prosecution teams) before a trial begins.

Wade saying he was left at the ranch when his family went to the Grand Canyon. His mother signed two legal depositions in 1993 and 2016 stating her whole family had gone on that canyon trip and mentioned nothing about Wade being left with Michael (who would dream of doing that anyway BTW). She had no reason to lie during these statements, as if anything leaving Wade with Michael would have added to the story he was safe and trustworthy

Yet in Leaving Neverland, she said that she did leave him to go to the Grand Canyon. So yes, Joy Robson has lied at some point - but how does that make Wade a liar?? And how does that one thing about his mum lying, to you, Make you 100% certain that Wade is lying about everything? Especially in the face of so much evidence to the contrary!

When people say they see the hurt in James and see he is broken, could it not be equally explained (and he is a trained actor, that's how he met MJ in the first place) that deep down he feels awful for doing this and what he putting MJ's kids through?

How does it feel, those straws you're clutching at? Also, starting in one commercial age 9 is hardly a "trained actor"

I know you see people not returning as some sort of victory @ccmrob12 however personally I've been on holiday and only had time to respond now.

You have made that up, thanks for trying to think on my behalf. Hysteria at work again?

Thirdly, why are you banging on about people not changing their minds?

If they had a story (sorry account) which was true, surely it would be consistent?

A "Fourth Amended complaint" simply means a plaintiff (in this case, Wade Robson) has a legal right to amend a complaint to correct facts, add information that may be relevant and add new claims.

He has chosen to do that 4 times since 2013.

Anyway, I digress...you're talking out your backside, on pretty much every post. And lastly - there are NO inconsistencies, NO lies, NO changes stories in either Wade or James's accounts, and you haven't proved that there are.

If that were true, then there would be no one defending him on here. I have pointed out a couple of lies in the posts above these which you casually ignored. I'll let you catch up if you would care to give your thoughts?

You say you specifically don't believe Wade and James. Well, do you believe Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo

Nope. I don't. The Chandler case was a shakedown of the highest order, the recordings of his father were enough to convince me alone. The fact Jordy was free to testify after the money was paid out but didn't told me that case was nothing to do with him.

The Arvizo case, not going into detail about the maids and the boys mother, the jury themselves said Gavin was found to be unreliable with holes in his story. They said he was found to whole unreliable witness.

Hope you had a nice holiday :)

Do you have a source for this?

The source was Private Investigator Scott Ross, who was working on behalf of the defence in 2005. He pointed this out and there is an interview with him on youtube.

The maid who testified at the time said she saw several boys molested, including Robson and Culkin. Those 6 were allowed to testify.

Safechuck and Barnes were not.

I have included the transcript.

Yet in Leaving Neverland, she said that she did leave him to go to the Grand Canyon. So yes, Joy Robson has lied at some point - but how does that make Wade a liar??

Because they now have the same story. I think she is lying now. In 1994 and 2005, she had no reason to lie. As I said, if anything it would have worth saying he had been with Michael when they went on holiday to give more credence to the fact Michael could be trusted. She had no reason to lie then. So I think she is lying now.

Apologies it was Jonathan Spence, not Brett Barnes who was the other boy.

And IIRC James Safechuck said that he was called by MJ before the trial began

I've just gone back and watched the documentary again, as I wasn't sure which point in the trial Safechuck referenced. He mentions Michael calling him three times, the first two times he doesn't say if it was before or during the trial. The third time, he very clearly mentions that Michael contacted him again near the end of the trial to try and convince him again and apologise for getting mad before. It's clearly a lie as the transcripts from the case show (posted above) he was never going to be allowed to testify during that trial.

Not necessarily ccmrob, the call came from MJ himself not his legal team. The guy was hardly in touch with reality and was very used to getting his own way, who is to say he spoke to anyone beforehand or that his lawyers were even aware of the call?

Again, that's his word. Seems to carry no weight when we know that he was never going to be allowed to give evidence, even if he wanted to. MJ was weird not stupid. The FBI would have been tapping his phone lines, you don't think they would have heard these calls he was making to people?

Having watched that part again, I find it astonishing that the Mum knew Michael was going through this very famous case, what he was being accused of, knew something wrong went on between her son and MJ but said nothing. Can I ask all the peeps on here who believe these guys are telling the truth, how many would do the same?

I don't think I would do the same no ccmrob. I'd want to rip the bastard's balls off and see him serve a lengthy jail sentence but if:

1. My kid was begging me not to tell/put him through it
2. My kid was going to be hauled over the coals in court
3. I was scared of what heavies might do to us
4. I was scared of potential perjury charges for us
5. I was scared of the death threats and the vitriol which would ensue
6. I was scared I would be up on potential negligence charges
7. I still had mixed feelings towards someone I had also thought of as a son/ was still not free from having been groomed as well as the financial inducements I had had before so felt guilt myself

then that might be enough for me to take pause and want to sweep it under the carpet. It might be morally reprehensible but it would take a very strong person to put themselves and their loved one through that. She did not necessarily have the same moral scruples or strength of character to do that and denial/self-preservation are going to outweigh what she ought to have done. Or protecting her son further after having failed to do so previously. Essentially James saying Don't testify, he was a bad person is a very clear message that Mum, you're going to perjure yourself/he is not innocent. But are you going to poke the elephant in the room if you don't want to confront it? One of them was having a row with their husband about it iirc and the other still does not want to hear the details of the abuse even now. Totally fucked up. And in it deep with regard to having benefited financially in the past. There are more selfless reasons whereby protecting my son from the fallout would be worth my silence and there are more selfish reasons to do with protecting myself from the public flagellation wrt my parenting fails. (Same reason as the tapas 9 in the McCann case may have exaggerated how many times they checked on their kids in total/changed the timeline - nobody wants to be seen as negligent/a bad parent and noone is going to willingly throw themselves under the bus). We all want to do the right thing. We all would want to think we would stand up and get justice. But the Jackson Machine and the lawyers would have been hard to stand up to and the Fandom hard to live with (Jordan has changed identity/location twice? and Gavin had a hard time too) It's not palatable that you would throw other children under the bus and it's not palatable that you would not seek justice/retribution for your own but if your kid is begging you to drop it and wants to keep it to their grave then that gives you a let out to bury your head in the sand, no?

His mother signed two legal depositions in 1993 and 2016 stating her whole family had gone on that canyon trip and mentioned nothing about Wade being left with Michael (who would dream of doing that anyway BTW). She had no reason to lie during these statements

She had every reason to lie. It's the same as what I said above - Wade's mum is not likely to admit 'Yes, we were on holiday and all went to the grand Canyon except Wade who I left with a 30 something year old non-family member' You say it yourself: Who would dream of doing that?
The same person who would have maybe let Jackson have her son for half the year (again, wtf) the same person who wants to ostrich the actual details of abuse and whose son went non-contact with her for a period?
You have financial inducements, you have convinced yourself all is well, you have convinced yourself you are seeking showbiz breaks for your talented son...if there is the even smidgen of doubt/damascus moment where you realize: Shit, that's not going to look good in court, me leaving my kid behind...are you really going to admit that's what you did? You have stronger faith in human nature if you think these mothers would not put themselves first when they basically pimped out their kids.

Sorry if I have attributed some of the above to the wrong mother - I think it was Stephanie whose husband was unhappy with the decision not to testify again? It was Wade's wife who went nc with Joy for a while and Joy who cannot listen to details? Cannot remember whose kid MJ wanted to have for a year...would ave to revisit the doc but my point is, that both mums failed to protect their sons.
But I ought to say that Dennis and James snr are as culpable as Joy and Stephanie - the former allegedly gave permission for Wade to miss out on the Grand Canyon, the latter saw Jackson kiss his son on the mouth and thought it was fine (my DH says he would not have thought that was fine and we are very much a tactile family who kiss each other).
It's really all a mess but the question of what would you do? doesn't really work here as all of us, ccmrob too?, would never have allowed our kids to sleepover with an adult in the first place. Once that happened, the parents were complicit - not to blame for the abuse, that's the fault of the abuser - but nonetheless, like the staff, they enabled it. Yes, there was grooming/starry-eyed awe/large suites we couldn't imagine the size of etc but when it comes down to it, they didn't do their job properly.

And by that I mean, if you have to press your ear against a closed door to ascertain what your baby is doing on their playdate with a 30 year old, then just maybe you should consider why the door is shut, why you feel the need to listen in and...again, ask yourself why an adult wants to spend time with your kid without you being there.
When your gut tells you something, you really ought to listen to it.
I can only think that people try to normalize situations which are not normal as a defence mechanism because of not wanting to confront /polite socialization or because that person has brazenly normalized something/dismissed doubts to such an extent that, even if every nerve cell is screaming at you, you fail to see what is directly in front of you because, who could be so brazen?

I can't find anything online about MJ's phone being tapped during the trial, was that an assumption or do you have evidence of that? I found some news reports about the FBI being concerned about the court being a target for terrorism but that's it. Presuming the phones were tapped calls to Safechuck asking him to testify were not what they were listening for and were not likely to have been reported as suspicious. The FBI have not released any statement since these allegations so how can you say with any certainty that those calls did not take place?

Ffs. I can’t believe what this thread turned into. No amount of “evidence”,( and I say “evidence” on the loosest terms), will take away the fact that there is no smoke without fire. I am sickened there are people going out of their way to make excuses for what he did. Appalling.

ccmrob12 you sound so brainwashed. I can imagine you going on holiday to Disney Land as an adult without kids.

@RageAgainstTheVendingMachine that's a fair post. I just see it that she would go into self preservation mode at that point when she was all about MJ, what could she do for MJ. She admits as much in the doc, she was telling Wade you need to help your friend. If she was going to lie, she would have told them Wade stayed with Michael because A: he begged her to stay B: she trusted Michael. That would have been excellent evidence to convince any jury in MJ's favour.

After the allegations, I think in 2005 Whoopi Goldberg did as much on live TV. She said she had left her child with him.

But after all you have posted, you still aren't sure of MJs guilt of these crimes? Tells me something.

I am sickened there are people going out of their way to make excuses for what he did But we don't know what he did, do we? You say it like he was convicted. There is a difference between making excuses if it was proven beyond all reasonable doubt, and showing why these men appear to be not telling the truth now.

@FoxFoxSierra do you really think the FBI publish a list of people they monitor, or have monitored in the past? Please...did you really google that?

@RageAgainstTheVendingMachine

Quick question, did you see the video Scott Ross did, it's about 2 hours long, but very interesting to note he is still friends with Wade's brother. The one who was in the doc. What did you make of it?

Ccmrob the FBI have released files on Michael Jackson! There is no mention of his phone being tapped though. Regardless even if they did they were hardly going to treat a call to the Safechucks asking for their son to testify as incriminating evidence were they?

If it happened how James said it did, absolutely. What about the calls and faxes Wade claimed Michael sent him telling what to say and coaching him? Why weren't they given as evidence?