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.

You and the majority on this forum have made your mind up and did so years ago

Yes. And?

No amount of evidence to the contrary will make you believe MJ was innocent. That's just what Dan Reed and the accusers want.

Well there is no evidence. And I'm happy to give Dan and the accusers "want they want" if what they want is belief in their story

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

I don't know what you're talking about but explain please how this Male Jackson so very unlucky to have no less than six false accusations made against him?

MJ has issues and was more friends with a lot of kids you are right

And why do you think he took such an exclusive interest in very young boys?

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

They probably did. They probably loved the holidays to Neverland and the freebies and the fame. I think Joy Robson in particular was a fame hungry lunatic who destroyed her family in pursuit of some silly delusion that she was famous by association, and pushed her son to his limits the second she knew he had talent. Doesn't mean Jackson didn't abuse young boys though

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?

How are they not credible? I only know extensively of the four most famous and think they are extremely credible. No stories of CSA retold as adults are I fallow lie - like I say personally I knew a particular instance of abuse happened as a child when we have visitors but I'm only 60% sure who the visitors to our house that weekend (or could have been during the week) were. And if I stood up in court and said "He raped me the weekend Auntie Anne came" there'd be apologists and peadophile defenders in the wings saying "Ha! LIAR! Auntie Anne visited in 1989 not 1990.". But I'm telling the truth, and only people who don't understand the fundamentals of CSA trauma would think memory must be perfect.

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.

Actually that isn't how civil law always works but there you go. And in the absence of a living defendant, the next best step to justice is civil action.

A PP put it eloquently as to why they understand a family getting compensation rather than a guilty verdict. Firstly, they're much harder, it means a nasty cross examination by the most scathing and ruthless lawyers, with a statistically low chance of conviction, and harrasment from MJ lunatics. I completely understand why people seek justice whilst ensuring their children will be financially comfortable.

I am 100% sure Michael Jackson is a pedophile. The evidence is not on an even keel, not even close, no matter how many celebrities defend him. You clearly have an agenda and I am continually embarrassed for you and your complete lack of critical thinking an refusal to answer questions which expose how deluded you are

ccmrob12 there he goes again using the word Triggered, what a wind up merchant. Blinded by MJ, what a fool!

How are they not credible? I only know extensively of the four most famous and think they are extremely credible. No stories of CSA retold as adults are I fallow lie - like I say personally I knew a particular instance of abuse happened as a child when we have visitors but I'm only 60% sure who the visitors to our house that weekend (or could have been during the week) were. And if I stood up in court and said "He raped me the weekend Auntie Anne came" there'd be apologists and peadophile defenders in the wings saying "Ha! LIAR! Auntie Anne visited in 1989 not 1990.". But I'm telling the truth, and only people who don't understand the fundamentals of CSA trauma would think memory must be perfect

Funny how everything in the film was described in a lot of detail and now that things are being examined the excuses is 'how could they they remember everything?'

It’s really not about time.. whether it happened on Wednesday or Thursday, in April or July. Scenarios were described, in meticulous detail, happening at a unique place that didn’t exist.

You really should see the video interview with Scott Ross and tell me on here that you think he is a paedophile defender. I'd be surprised if you watched it and still had the same faith in the two men as you did before watching it.

Well seeing as your previous "watch this and tell me if you still believe them" revelation videos have been little more than a pile of wank I'll pass thanks. I don't listen to weirdos with an agenda who are blinded by pedophiles because they like their music. What is your agenda anyway? Why are you so invested in his innocence? Because like I say if this was a normal bloke you wouldn't be so keen I'm guessing. Unless you would believe the neighbour scenario I posted earlier? Funny how you keep avoiding that question.

Let me also ask you - James and Wade's family, their others, siblings, wives etc all took part in Leaving Neverland, related the exact same recollections of what happened at the time, how they were told about the abuse, etc. Assuming you're right and they're lying - they all delivered Oscar worthy performances, remembered the exact details of the lies Wade and James had asked them to spin, stayed on track throughout with those lies and faked emotion. Why? Why would they do that? What for? Because they're risking their reputations, safety, integrity, and would be leaving themselves open to being sued for slander. They aren't making money off the documentary. Do you think they just loved Wade and James that much they all happened to agree to play that risky role?

The book ccmrob is referring to is by Victor Gutierrez. He wrote a book with salacious details of Jackson's relationship with Jordan Chandler. He owed Jackson 2.7 million dollars as he claimed that he had a tape showing Jackson molesting his nephew Jeremy. There was no tape, he had never met Jeremy's mother as he had claimed, it was all made up hence the damages. Even the National Enquirer passed on that story but Diane Dimond from Hard Copy went with it.
She also paid Francia's mother $20 000 for her story.

As to there being six accusations, the first one (Terry George) is demonstrably false, unless you believe the FBI cannot do their job properly or have covered for him.

Sadly no one is open to being sued for slander as you cannot slander a dead person. The only people who could sue them all personally would be Brett Barnes/Jonathan Spence and Mac Culkin, if they feel they have been portrayed as victims of abuse who have not come forward and they think that maligns them in some way. I would have to return to the documentary to see if they were mentioned in that way - iirc Brett was spoken of at having 'replaced' James. HBO could not be sued for defamation as Jackson is dead hence the suing for disparaging his public image instead in violation of a previous contract.

Lawyers are paid to look for the slightest discrepancy and vulnerability. Journalists tend to dig because they want to uncover as much as they can.
I think it's totally normal for a victim of abuse to forget details and as part of self-preservation/denial even more likely that things will be hazy. The problem with the timeline is that there is a two year discrepancy - that gives jurors reasonable doubt as few people are going to say they were abused until they were 14 and forget the abuse continued until they were 16. When abuse begins and stops is key testimony even if you blank out many of the details.

Dan Reed should have done due diligence between February and November.

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.

We might. The Kevin Spacey and Harvey Weinstein trials will be interesting.
Or it will remain like Bryan Singer and Gary Goddard in the court of public opinion only.

Ccmrob as I said in my first post I was convinced he was innocent and I so wanted to still believe that but there is no way that can be true. You are refusing to accept anything as evidence of his guilt, every single thing anyone says to you you have already decided is false. The man had children's wet pants under his bed ffs and you still won't see it.

There was a man local to me who was convicted of child abuse, the jury were shown a film he had made of him actually carrying out the act he denied doing, it was so upsetting the jury were in tears and there are still petitions from people claiming there was some terrible miscarriage of justice! People can be so deluded when they want to be.

@FoxFoxSierra wet pants?? What?

All the inconsistencies and proven lies in their stories, whether you like to admit or not, are the reason they aren't credible and I think are lying. I have said this many times. If they are telling the truth and MJ did this, then they wouldn't need to have lies in their stories. Most of the things I have posted have had excuses made for them, but people on here wanting to believe MJ was guilty.

I have been accused of making excuses for MJ, no I haven't. I haven't made any excuses for MJ being a paedo. That would make me an apologist. But I haven't, all I have done is look at what they said and point out where it is wrong.

In regards your local man doing that, how can anyone refute video evidence? That's absurd and the guy deserves banging up and sorting out for good. But surely you can see the two things aren't the same only for the reason of the tape. Also, I am going to guess here, but the victim or victims had consistent stories? I am also guessing they didn't say 'hey I want hundreds of millions of dollars' before the court case.

Of course this case is never going to be like any normal case of abuse, there is too much hype and hysteria surrounding it. The statements are all public knowledge so we can see the issues with their timelines. Like Rage said above, it's a massive issue with a two year gap? Yet you don't believe they James is lying. Completely blows the narrative of the film and that Barnes replaced him because MJ did that when they got to puberty age. James was taller than MJ at 16, I know because there are pics of him working for him holding an umbrella and he is much larger in frame and height.

As I said above, watch the Scott Ross video and come back on here and let me know if you still feel the same way. He's a man of the law, and very, very credible as Rage says.

www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/06/21/items-discovered-police-michael-jackson/ ok this has no mention of them being wet but they were in a bag with bloodied bedlinen.

I have not at any point called you a paedophile apologist! I have said that you refuse to accept any of the evidence you have been presented with or any of the explanations for inconsistencies which many of us have given you. The story about the local man I told you was purely to illustrate how people can refuse to accept facts, if there had been video footage of Michael Jackson doing the same thing there would still be fans protesting his innocence because they don't want to believe he was a paedophile. You are claiming that these 2 men are conniving liars who have been working on their stories for years and yet you believe they would make a silly mistake like that?!

Perhaps you could read this - which doesn't actually draw conclusions on the accuracy of Wade and James's stories - but explains well questions about how this kind of thing can happen and dispels harmful myths many have perpetuated in this very thread theconversation.com/michael-jackson-as-an-expert-in-child-sexual-abuse-heres-what-i-thought-when-i-watched-leaving-neverland-113160

Also, there are no "proven lies". The odd trivial inaccuracy in an otherwise credible tale does not a liar make. HTH

edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/24/jackson.trial/index.html when we are repeatedly hearing about inconsistencies in his accusers stories it is interesting to read about porn magazines with his fingerprints on as well as those of a child who accused him of abuse. This doesn't fit with the story of him not liking porn as Mark Ronson said or the childlike image he liked to portray does it?

You think Mark Ronson is lying?

Mark Ronson is speaking the words of a man groomed as a child, with the only perspective he's ever known. That's not the same as lying.

Who can know if he's lying or not? You used what he said as evidence of your assertion that Michael Jackson didn't like porn and yet here we have actual verified evidence that that was not true. Whether he groomed Mark Ronson and he is now lying or it actually did happen as he said is irrelevant and either could be true, so either MR was a victim too or MJ put on the same act with him as he did in public

He he he... Creepy voice, creepier personality.

I didn’t use anything in relation to Mark Ronson? I haven’t even mentioned it before now?

Maybe it wasn't you, I can't find it now but Mark Ronson was mentioned upthread somewhere. Apologies if it wasn't you

Rage was the one who elaborated on it including all the extra context conveniently left out by Gunpowder.

No one is disputing the hetro porn found etc. There could be some debate as to who bought it and left it lying around. Don't forget there was more than just Michael Jackson staying there with more than one person having access to where the items were found. When he stayed away, who knows what was brought into his house and by whom? That's my guess as to why it wasn't able to be used in a prosecution against him.

Are you referring to the context where Michael Jackson saw no issue with allowing 10 year old boys to watch porn on his TV? That context? Happy to point it out now.

God you're a piece of work - all the porn was soneone else's. Of course it was 🤣🤣 how embarrassing to be blinded by anyone you've never met let alone a notorious child sex offender.

No you took a tiny little bit of info trying to making it looking Ronson had been shown porn by MJ. You decided to leave out large chunks. You are trying to twist things.

I didn't say it was someone else's porn, I was saying it could have been put there by anyone. It's a fact, whether you like it or not.

I thought you were done talking to me. If what I type offends you, why don't you ignore it or scroll past.

The video for anyone wanting to hear from someone there, who seems very credible and knowledgeable on to legal side of things. He worked as a PI during the 2005 case. He doesn't strike me as someone, who if they saw evidence or had an idea Michael was guilty, wouldn't have been on his side during the trial. He know's a lot more than you or I about the case, the people involved and the facts. Have a watch.

If it was someone else's porn why were Michael Jackson's fingerprints on it?

It's his house....maybe? Do you know which or how much contained his fingerprints?

Here you go edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/25/jackson.trial/

A man paid by Jackson defends him? Yes that seems like an unbiased source 🤦🏼‍♀️
So showing 2 10 year old boys porn is not OK but joining in when they watch prom themselves is fine and dandy? Jesus the desperation in your posts is palpable. Hoping here you aren't a parent you have absolutely no concept of safeguarding