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.

I was saying it could have been put there by anyone. It's a fact, whether you like it or not.

Please look up the word "fact".

This is about as much of a fact as Bubbles the chimp possibly buying the porn and planting it. Hey it could have happened and that's a fact

If true, it makes you wonder why nothing was brought before the jury in 2005 as evidence? Just like it makes you wonder why they didn't submit the descriptions Jordy Chandler gave on his penis. If it was as accurate as claimed, surely they would have used it right?

This is about as much of a fact as Bubbles the chimp possibly buying the porn and planting it. Hey it could have happened and that's a fact

good one!

Firstly, he didn't join. Either way, where did I say it was okay? I just said you tried to use a little bit of the story to make it sound a lot worse than what actually happened. I never said it was okay however it played out.

I take it you have issue with the fact Mark Ronson, as an adult now, doesn't think too much of it?

A man paid by Jackson defends him? Yes that seems like an unbiased source

How about you watch it before passing judgement. I did that with Leaving Neverland, looks like all you are interested in is slating MJ and taking arms with these liars.

Ccmrob what are you talking about? Please read the link I posted where it clearly says the evidence was presented in court. Of the 12 porn magazines found in MJ's bedroom his fingerprints were found on 8

No it doesn't. It says that a witness statement was given, not that actual evidence was presented. My guess is it wasn't convincing enough that it was actually proof of his guilt.

They had expert witnesses who had analysed the fingerprints testify in court. Regarding the pictures drawn by Jordan Chandler please read this www-mjfacts-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.mjfacts.com/the_telltale_splotch/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mjfacts.com%2Fthe_telltale_splotch%2F

Yet the jury felt that what they were told wasn't compelling enough to convict him on any of the counts he was charged with. In fact 4 of the 12 said in 2017, even with the new information brought to light by Robson's and Safechuck's accusations, said they would acquit him again if the trail took place in 2017.

"Most importantly, the jurors say, if the trial took place in 2017, they would still find Jackson not guilty of all the charges. Since the trial’s conclusion and Jackson’s death, more information has come to light — including reports, now proven false, of a stockpile of pornography at Neverland Ranch and Jackson’s own daughter saying he was “murdered” — but the jurors contend that the singer was not guilty of the charges, and there simply wasn’t enough compelling, convincing evidence from the prosecution."

There are a lot more people out there who are convinced of MJs innocence than you seem to accept.

Having watched the documentary again for actual quotes, to make sure it was how I remembered it, I found it interesting.

The only genuine parts of the documentary I felt were the bits about Wade's family being broken up by them moving to the USA and the bit when Wade told his family about the abuse. Unfortunately the same reaction when Wade was crying would have been caused by him feeling guilty about lying to him family, which is why it could have been genuine.

@FoxFoxSierra The fact is, as your link admits, only a very few people saw the drawing compared to Michael's actual penis. "Nobody else can say with any certainty that they matched or not". Many on here claimed it match exactly, several times over both threads.

If it was as accurate as some would have you believe, it would have been used in the criminal trial in 1994 and he would have been jailed for sure. I can only draw from the fact it wasn't and he wasn't, that it wasn't as accurate as some claim.

The prosecution tried to use it in the trial but the defence had it disallowed on the grounds that it was against Californian law. "That the Prosecution were determined to bring this evidence out into the open for the court’s and public scrutiny speaks volumes about their confidence in Jordan’s description and the photographs matching.

That the defence fought the presentation of this material that supposedly “didn’t match” also speaks volumes. If the defense had allowed it, and they weren’t a match, what a wonderful opportunity to exonorate Jackson from the 1993 allegations and bolster his case in the trial at hand."

I am perfectly aware that there are a lot of fans who are still in denial.

I'm talking about the 1994 case not the 2005 one where I know it wasn't allowed. Rest assured if it was accurate it would have been enough to convict him the first time around.

Also what about the theory that the evidence was actually passed to Gavin Arvizo before the trial for pre-trial interviews? I've never heard of evidence being taken out of the bag before and being handled. Also court staff admitting that they and another member of staff had handled the magazines without gloves. I'm guessing the jury thought it was more BS or just dismissed it completely as false.

This article from Vanity Fair in 2004 appears to be very well researched. And utterly damning. Explains why Wade and Safechuck are only talking now.
www.vanityfair.com/culture/2004/03/orth200403

There was a 25million payout in that one so that it didn't go to court, that's why it wasn't used.

I have read about the magazines being handled in the pre trial but that theory was discounted because not all of the magazines were there so while they could argue that that is how some of the fingerprints got on them that didn't explain how they got on all of them.

That article explains how he worked very well ThisCoolBean

Rob will still find a way to say all that truly damning information from 15 years ago! is just people trying to extort money from poor misunderstood MJ (when hes online later, hes clearly in a different timezone). Whilst there was clearly some of that going on,as youd expect around such a massive star, he clearly was also a drug addict with very, very questionable behaviour around young boys, and was very probably sexually abusing many of them. Rob will say no though. because Rob has an agenda.

I have no doubt about that at all calpop! A few years ago I would have been the same, Michael Jackson was the soundtrack of my youth and I couldn't bear the thought that he was anything less than a god. Now that my eyes are open and I'm actually looking at the facts and taking the information in instead of dismissing anyone who speaks negatively of him it is clear as day that he was a child abuser

Sorry for posting so late, had a show last night and didn't get out until early hours. These MJ bookings have picked up since all this kicked off. Going to be a busy bank holiday weekend!

That article is full of sensationlist crap and nothing I haven't already read before. I have never claimed that MJ was without his issues. But it's very, very one sided again, missing out very key details about the kind of family the Arvizo's were. The fact that Chris Tucker and George Lopez wanted nothing to do with the family after bit as they were getting more and more demanding with the actors.

@Fox, the payment didn't stop them giving evidence in the 1994 case, so that's irrelevant. You realise that payment wasn't a payment to avoid the civil trial going to court. The judge wouldn't let it be heard after the criminal one (which was absurd) as a criminal one should always go first. The payment was made to settle a deal Arvizo's father had with Jackson over a Sony deal they had together. He was a money grabbing scrote of the highest order.

calpop, the weather is nice over here though, flying to paris soon for some shows. is it nice in the UK?

Gonad, not even worthy of reply I'm afraid bud! Apt name.

ccmrob12, can you really not see what kind of a person Jackson was? Using heavy handed intimidation tactics to silence critics or whistle blowers?

ccmrob12

Your posts are disgusting and offensive. If you are the best that Jackson has defending him then....oh dear. Because, frankly, you are not doing half as good a job as you seem to think you are.

Do you have any ability at all to understand the devastating emotional impact sexual abuse has on children? Do you understand “grooming” and why it is so effective?

No you don’t...so let me clue you in.

Jackson was already halfway there with the children he abused. They already idolised him. He then set about getting them to “fall in love” with him. Whatever age you are, loyalty and protection forms part of love - and that is especially true when you are too young to understand the implications of what is happening to you.

This is why children who have been brutalised by their parents will lie to the police and social services. Happens every fucking day.

So, how dare you hold up as your principle “objection” to the probable guilt of Jackson that Wade & Safechuck initially lied. So what if they did? They loved him and thought he loved them. They were protecting a person they loved. Jackson used their love for him as a shield to hide what he was doing.

You don’t have to believe them...who gives a shit what you think? But you insult and shit all over the very real, complicated emotions that sexual abuse survivors have to deal with every day of their lives with your whole “They lied therefore it’s all bollocks”.

If you do not understand...or don’t care enough to try...how it might be that sexual abuse victims could lie then you have no fucking business even engaging in this conversation.

You’re a creep just like your weird, plastic-faced idol and I think people should stop engaging with you. You’re a typical zealot, only interested in pushing your narrative and not caring whether it fits with reality or not.

So do MN a favour and get lost.

You are wrong. I just happen to thing these guys are lying and have pointed out why. I think the documentary is a sham and have said so. Why is that such a problem for you?

Guess what, I'm not the only one who doesn't believe them. You make out like I'm the only one who has these views. I'm not even the only one on mumsnet, but people like you shouting them down has meant they have stopped posting.

I was terrified of Michael Jackson as a child. That creepy breathy falsetto, the Halloween mask plastic surgery. I'm sorry for his victims, but I do feel better about my Jacksonphobia knowing that there is now a rational reason for hating him, plus less chance of accidentally coming across his "music" or gruesome photographs. The victims were very brave to finally speak out.

Strangely enough, I thought his Simpsons episode was very good. I quite understand why it got pulled though.

You are sickening.

Because I disagree with you? Get a grip.

@ccmrob12

A lot of your defenses could also be said of Jimmy Saville. Do you think he's innocent too?