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.

Ooh I don't know, maybe because they weren't monitoring them?!

No offence, if they were they wouldn't let the public know. If you don't believe he was monitored then fine. I think anyone who believes he wasn't is naive.

I didn't say he wasn't monitored but I see no evidence that his phone was tapped. As I have said twice already if it was then his correspondence with James Safechuck would not be classed as compelling evidence for either side. We're going round in circles here.

Agreed.

Have you seen the video I referred to with the private investigator Scott Ross? He briefly touched on the subject on there as well as other things.

It’s a very interesting watch.

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

I hope it tells you that I have been foreman on a jury before.
In a civil suit, when the burden of proof is lower, I think I would indict.
In a criminal court, I would have found myself in the position of some jurors at the time: the prosecution case was not strong enough.
I am not a particular fan of Jackson's music, I like 3 songs he did. I think he had an abusive and dysfunctional childhood.
I think he was lonely and fucked up and had too many yes men and too much money.
None of which defends perpetuating abuse.
But being on a jury - and I've done it twice - means putting aside your gut reactions, emotions, knowledge of rape conviction stats etc and looking at the hard evidence in front of you. Obviously how someone comes across in court is subjective and the veracity of their testimony is a personal judgement - this is where it becomes difficult.
When witnesses are flawed - as many of us are - it is easy to use that against them and an abuser will look for vulnerable people. But it is difficult when you don't have seem to have one witness who isn't compromised in some way.

I listened to Scott Ross - I found him credible and felt for him when he was concerned that his working relationship with Wade's brother might be affected by this.

I listened to Scott Ross - I found him credible and felt for him when he was concerned that his working relationship with Wade's brother might be affected by this

The bit when he got to the meeting with Wade's brother was very telling. It was like Wade's brother had to support him as they are family, but when Scott told him he would be on the other side he already knew and accepted it.

What's also interesting is that they still work together now, if Wade's brother thought he was/had defended a paedophile, do you think that would be the case? I don't think so. That tells me a lot.

Honestly ccm I give up. I can't engage with someone who is so incapable of logical thinking. There is clearly a reason you're invested in this and nitpicking at things that aren't there or can be explained, in the face of so much evidence that he molested boys - my money is on you being MJ impersonator - so I will say that to further avoid embarrassment perhaps do a bit of research before spouting tripe like "Wade Robson changed his story four times". No he didn't. The world has apologists like you, that's something victims have to deal with, but at least have the good grace to argue using facts and not speculation and rumour. But I'm done arguing with peadophile supporters TBH, so I bid you adieu.

And I had a lovely holiday thank you

Because I don't say "I believe them" I'm incapable of logical thinking, nitpicking, an MJ impersonator, apologist and (the worst for last) paedophile supporter. Okay then....I'm arguing why I don't think he was a paedophile not because he is/was one! Do you even know what you are accusing people of? I don't think you understand the words you are using.

It's gone from paedophile apologist, just just out and out supporter now? Wow, this mockumentary really triggered you hasn't it. Hysteria has gotten the best of you? Wow!

Think you need another holiday to go and lie down.

Back on topic, be interesting to see how far (if any) they press with legal action on this with Reed. He should have checked the facts better before putting this out, and he didn't. Might come back to bite him on the backside.

www.billboard.com/articles/news/8507510/michael-jackson-estate-hits-back-leaving-neverland

He was a genius as far as song writing and performance is concerned..but he was a tortured soul and couldn't function as an adult..and understand reality. His lyrics have the ick factor in hindsight.and was always portrayed to be odd by the media, but he made money so the truth was out there but swept under the carpet! Notice since the BBC stopped playing his music there has been an increase of airplay for his lesser talented siblings

I haven’t seen any proof. Just people jumping to the conclusion that they want, personalised by the likes of you who want it to be true so they can feel like they have some sort justice. If there was proof, he would have been found guilty. The jury wanted it, so did the police and FBI.

All I have ever seen is money hungry leeches, desperate to get their share of the pie, including the people who have spoken out about him. They are all desperate for a pay day and these two are no different.

Face it, you’ve been suckered in just as they wanted you to be. If you see me defending any actual paedophiles with actual evidence against them, feel free to use the names you have. Until then, I think you need a clue about what a paedophile supporter is as you clearly have none.

I haven’t seen any proof. Just people jumping to the conclusion that they want, personalised by the likes of you who want it to be true so they can feel like they have some sort justice. If there was proof, he would have been found guilty. The jury wanted it, so did the police and FBI.

You've seen plenty of proof you're choosing to ignore it. And how fucking dare you bring my own experience into it you nasty piece of work - I see your idol for what he really is, nothing more nothing less. As do plenty of people who haven't experienced CDA.

And convictions mean nothing - 97% of rapes don't end in conviction. Does that mean the victims weren't raped?

All I have ever seen is money hungry leeches, desperate to get their share of the pie

What six of them?! Only a couple of whom (rightfully) received compensation? Right-o. Tell me, how come other rich men don't have so many false accusations against them?

Face it, you’ve been suckered in just as they wanted you to be

Unlike you who sent been suckered in by the Jackson machine with such top notch analyses 🤣

If you see me defending any actual paedophiles with actual evidence against them, feel free to use the names you have. Until then, I think you need a clue about what a paedophile supporter is as you clearly have none.

You ARE defending a pedophile. Just own it! People like you are as bad as them as the likes of you use blame tactics and myths as old as time to defend bad men, you enable them to do it again and again and you pretty much hand out rape culture to society. Well done.

As you haven't answered I'm assuming if this was your neighbour who was a joiner and built an enormous playground in his garden (despite being childless) and had sleepovers with boys he didn't k ow you'd also call them boys money grabbing leeches? Because that would only be fair and logical of course.

If the answer is yes - you're a pedophile defender
If the answer is no - you're protecting Jackson because you're a fan and you think men good at their jobs can't be pedophiles.

Not sure what's worse TBH

Hello, we're just dropping by to say that although we understand why this is such a heated discussion, please do bear our Talk Guidelines in mind when posting. Personal attacks are against our Talk Guidelines, as is victim blaming.

Thanks all.

Ignore him gunpowder he has no shame. 'The likes of you'- disgusting. True colours showing with every post he writes.

If you want to believe them that is up to you. I see many many issues with their story, as do other posters. Most of them have been chased off by your nasty attacks on people who don’t agree with you. Pointing these issues out does not make me paedophile supporter. You seem happy enough to throw about terms you clearly have no idea about and have done so time and time again.

You’ve still to name the other two by the way. Any joy with that? The four who have taken legal action have all been after large sums of money, so yeah I’m basing a lot of my view on that also. If these people were after justice, they could have done themselves a favour and not put in multimillion dollar claims. Oh that and they could have told the truth in the first place when he was alive to answer them and face justice if found guilty.

The timing of this is all very deliberate which you are also failing to realise.

If you want to believe them that is up to you. I see many many issues with their story, as do other posters

It's not a case of wanting to believe something, it's about looking at the facts, testimonies, accounts etc to reach a logical conclusion.

Was Michael Jackson the victim of six false accusers who all had remarkably detailed and convincing stories, to the point where he paid one off and another was so convincing he did the near impossible and convinced the DA to take his case to court?

OR....was Michael Jackson - a serial liar obsessed with young boys, who slept in the same bed as them, kept naked pictures of young boys, who routinely befriended children and then swapped them like toys when they got too old, who built an amusement park in his garden specifically to lure children to him and described himself as Peter Pan- a pedophile?

What do you think logic dictates just from that summary?

You’ve still to name the other two by the way. Any joy with that?

People who have formally accused Michael Jackson of harassment or abuse:

Terry George
Jordan Chandler
Gavin Arvizo
James Safechuck
Jason Francia
Wade Robson
Michael Jacobshagen

Mark Ronson (as in the singer) also stated he watched porn with Jackson aged 10.

If these people were after justice, they could have done themselves a favour and not put in multimillion dollar claims.

If someone was in a car accident that was another person's fault and ended up in a wheelchair, would you call them a faker for wanting compensation? I doubt it - why is it different for abuse victims? Therapy in the US is expensive. Trauma can affect a person's ability to work, form relationships etc - why shouldn't they seek damages? Or are victims only true victims if they suffer in silence and don't seek justice?

Oh that and they could have told the truth in the first place when he was alive to answer them and face justice if found guilty.

Because it's sooooo easy to stand up and accuse the worlds most powerful man of abuse especially when you don't yet realise the impact. It's gone so well for boys before, especially with fruit cake superfans. Not to mention what MJ could afford to do to them if he wanted to make a threat, which if Neverland staff are led to believe, he's not afraid of buying scare tactics to silence people.

The timing of this is all very deliberate which you are also failing to realise
Ok pedophile defender when would be a good time for victims to talk about CSA??

Payoffs - Chandler and Francia
Failed prosecution - Arvizo
New complainants - Robson and Safechuck
no. 6 - do you mean Michael Jacobshagen? There are issues with his credibility too unfortunately (fraud/fake memorabilia iirc)

There have been no other payoffs that pp can actually name but Robson/Safechuck's lawyers claimed Jackson paid out nearly $200 million to as many as 20 victims - the problem with this claim is it was reported by tabloid (page six) and ''sources'' (2015)
With NDAs being deemed as dodgy as in the wake of Weinstein, I am surprised that no one else has come forward but again, who would want to put themselves through a media frenzy?
Allegedly details of payouts would have been deemed prejudicial in a criminal case but accepted in a civil case. Vince Finaldi as far as I know has never said anything officially.

Mark Ronson (as in the singer) also stated he watched porn with Jackson aged 10.

Hmmm that's a bit if a strange one to include as conclusive evidence when you read the whole quote

Mark Ronson alleges him and his friend, also 10, instigated the porn watching with Jackson - who "cringed" - well that makes it ok and not dodgy at all

Ah x-post

Terry George - these claims were unfounded (phone sex) the FBI did investigate that one
vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson

Michael Jacobshagen - sold a book about his time with Jackson and sold fake stuff from Germany (I think I put the German source on another thread as I live here. He sold his story again to Bild which is like a German Sun equivalent)

Mark Ronson (yes, that Mark Ronson) with Sean Lennon

“It’s a weird story, but I didn’t touch him. We (Lennon & Ronson) used to watch the porn channel because we were like, 10 and ‘Oh my god (boobs)!’ So Michael was in bed. And me and Sean said, ’Michael, do you want to see something cool?’ We turned the dial to the porn channel and there were strippers shaking their (boobs) around. We were like, ‘Michael, Michael, how cool is this?’ We turned around and he was cringing, saying ’Ooh stop it, stop it, ohh, it’s so silly.’ We were like, ’Michael, you have to look, maybe you're not seeing it right, it’s naked girls!’ He was not down with the program whatsoever! I think he had really strong feminist views on porn.” ~ Mark Ronson

That's from the mj and boys site I linked to two threads ago (It is persuasive in that the author seems to be presenting the facts/pics/sources reasonably objectively as opposed to it sounding like a vendetta). I used to watch the Sunday Night Project but did not see the episode with Ronson in question.
www.contactmusic.com/mark-ronson/news/ronson-jackson-hated-watching-porn_1072121

Mark Ronson did say to Howard Stern
''There was no weirdness. The thing I really remember is like… I just remember being like, “Sean, this guy is like a kid. Like, he really is.”
(2019)
Ronson has not seen Leaving Neverland though - he's a huge fan and talked about Jackson's music/legacy becoming tarred as 'kind of like in those movies where the space-time continuum has collapsed'. I'd be interested what he thinks now (he said he didn't want to say anything until he'd seen the documentary).

It's not a case of wanting to believe something, it's about looking at the facts, testimonies, accounts etc to reach a logical conclusion

You and the majority on this forum have made your mind up and did so years ago. This documentary has triggered response and brought it to the fore that's all. No amount of evidence to the contrary will make you believe MJ was innocent. That's just what Dan Reed and the accusers want.

Was Michael Jackson the victim of six false accusers who all had remarkably detailed and convincing stories

Not hard when you have the play book written for you in "Michael Jackson was my lover". Something the Arvizo's distanced themselves from and so did the author when he was successfully sued after which he ran back to his home country from the US. The film Dan Reed made is literally a copy/paste from that book.

MJ has issues and was more friends with a lot of kids you are right. What I think you are looking at is small number of people/families who chose to exploit that and the majority of which didn't. How come out of the six so far, there hasn't been a single decent, credible one among them? What are the odds they all had issues with their stories?

If someone was in a car accident that was another person's fault and ended up in a wheelchair, would you call them a faker for wanting compensation? I doubt it - why is it different for abuse victims? Therapy in the US is expensive. Trauma can affect a person's ability to work, form relationships etc - why shouldn't they seek damages? Or are victims only true victims if they suffer in silence and don't seek justice?

It's no different for abuse victims. As you have clearly ignored in my previous post on this, I have no issue with compensation. But I'd like to see a guilty verdict first. The judge decides when and how much the victim is entitled to, in terms of compensation. Not the victim before the case is even heard. So unless their financial losses have been hundreds of millions beforehand, then I don't know how you can decide to sue someone before guilt has even been ascertained.

Because it's sooooo easy to stand up and accuse the worlds most powerful man of abuse especially when you don't yet realise the impact

I didn't say it would have been easy, but at the end of the day it was in their hands to set the record straight at the time.

At the end of the day, there are many, many people who have defended MJ. People who know a lot better than you or I if these crimes could have happened, despite your definite claims he is guilty. People who have been abuse victims themselves, who wouldn't defend him if they thought he was capable of these claims. Many celebs who have a lot more to lose if they were accused of being "a paedophile defender or supporter". I see none of them have been mind.

At the end of the day, I don't think they are telling the truth and I have pointed out why. That's not victim blaming as I don't think they were victims for those reasons. They wouldn't be lying if they were telling the truth. That's not paedophile defending as I don't think he was a paedophile. At the end of the day, I don't know, no more that you can claim to be sure Gunpowder. Be as sure as you like, but you don't know these two aren't making it up. Only they know and MJ would have. That's it.

I guess the closest we might get to knowing is of anything happens in the courts. If their appeal is successful or if the estate decides to take these two to court, then we might get more information and a judgement.

Interesting Rage although a child not feeling weird about watching porn with a grown man does not mean it's illegal and inappropriate. The onus was on the adult (Jackson) to either ensure porn wasn't accessible when children were about or to take control and immediately stop it once it started.

But why would a pedophile do that if young boys are seemingly "up for it" with them?

Wholly inappropriate - I didn't say it wasn't - but that would be obvious to anyone acting as loco parentis. He clearly wasn't.