Why is no one talking about Leaving Neverland 2 Or contradictions of the accusers?

[leavingnever2]

I noticed no one seems to care about Leaving Neverland 2 or be talking about it. Why aren't more people discussing the factual problems with "Leaving Neverland"?

I've noticed that many discussions about Michael Jackson focus on the allegations without examining the serious inconsistencies in the accusers' stories such as:

1. James Safechuck claimed abuse at Neverland's train station between 1988-1992, but construction records prove it wasn't built until 1994-1995 - this is a major lie!

1. Wade Robson claimed his first abuse happened in January 1990 when his family went to the Grand Canyon without him, but his mother Joy testified under oath that Wade went WITH the family on that trip

1. Robson testified IN DETAIL as an adult under oath in 2005 that nothing inappropriate ever happened

1. Wade Robson asked Michael Jackson for permission to get married at Neverland Ranch in 2005 - why would he want to celebrate his wedding at the place he later claimed he was abused?

1. Stephanie Safechuck (James Safechuck's mother) stated in the documentary that when she heard about Michael Jackson's death in 2009, she "danced" and was "so happy he died" because she thought "Oh thank God, he can't hurt any more children." However, according to her son James, he never told anyone about his alleged abuse until after seeing Wade Robson's interview in 2013, and only then told his family about it.

This creates a major contradiction: Stephanie Safechuck couldn't have known about the alleged abuse in 2009 when Michael Jackson died if James didn't tell her until 2013 - four years later.

This is another significant timeline inconsistency that calls into question the narrative presented in the documentary. It's difficult to reconcile how Stephanie could have had this specific reaction to Jackson's death if she was unaware of any alleged abuse at that time. This type of contradiction represents more than just hazy memory - it's a fundamental issue with the timeline of disclosure that the documentary doesn't address or explain.

These aren't minor discrepancies but fundamental contradictions in their stories.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take abuse allegations seriously, but shouldn't we also consider verifiable facts that directly contradict these specific accusations?

People seem to take the documentary at face value, without question - it’s strange to not want to consider all the facts especially when some of them are major.

Honestly, I wouldn’t bet my life of MJ innocence but I also thinks it’s entirely plausible he’s innocent when I heard the above.

Why is there so little interest in most people to examine the full picture/the pure financial greed of these two accusers constantly attempting to get millions after their case is thrown out so many times in Leaving Neverland 2?

MJ fits perfectly into the textbook example of a sex offender.
its Concerning that anyone thinks otherwise

No, what’s concerning is that you believe there is a ‘type’ of sex offender.

i agree there isn’t a ‘type’ that’s not what I am saying. There are a number of factors of concern that are risks for those who commit sexual offences, for example identification with children, interest in child like activities are obvious.
sorry, I wasn’t clear enough

@AleaEimi completely agree how the abuse may not have been realised until later but the point point is this contradicts that he ALSO said he didn’t testify in 2005 because of it and his mom also knew in 2005, if he hadn’t related yet why would and how would this happen!

She then said she danced when he died because she was happy he couldn’t hurt anyone else?

His music is still played because he wasn’t found guilty like R Kelly, Gary Glitter or Ian Watkins and I don’t think trial by media should be a ways to ruin someone’s art and legacy tbh.

It’s not just MJ with question marks in his private life and if we start going down a road of just because someone has a claim we tear someone down. That is a very very slippery slope IMO

I know of a situation where a ‘Bob from down the road’ was accused of being a paedophile. I watched all this play out on a local FB group, not knowing the people involved, and it was just like watching all these deluded people who defend MJ.

Bob down the road was apparently the neighbourhood babysitter who had sleepovers at weekends with the local kids! You couldn’t make it up. The amount of people posting about how lovely Bob was and that he never harmed any of the kids, even posts from people at the sleepovers, was unbelievable.

Then he was accused of behaving inappropriately at a swimming pool in the present day, and of course his defenders were out defending lovely old Bob who just is really friendly with kids.

He’s been locked up now finally and the extent of his abuse was way worse than the original allegations. The dumb people defending him are all strangely silent.

I’m posting this to show that there are people lacking brain cells out there who would even defend Bob down the road. I hope to God none of these people (or the OP and the like) work in child protection or in any role where they have to assess risk to children.

Nobody is defending paedophiles.

I don’t know what it is about this thread that attracts people lacking reading and listening comprehension.

If your child was separated from you by someone, and was sleeping in a bed with that someone for weeks at a time, and then they told you they were abused, would you believe them?

OP is a troll. No-one is going to get anywhere with rational argument.

@ThatNimblePeerim not a troll, promise 😁

@curiositykilledthiscatwhat do you mean?

You said:

Whatever she says or doesn’t say in the documentary, OP’s claim that there’s no way she could have known before 2013 that Jackson might be an abuser is clearly nonsense.

So in that post of yours, you've either deliberately misrepresented what OP (and therefore you're a hypocrite) said or you're one of the people who struggle to read properly. Either way, how can anyone use rational arguments with you?

I'm referring to some people on here - not you. The most laughable example is from someone posting that Wade Robson said in Leaving Neverland 2 that he isn't after money, when he said no such thing.

That's a victim's mother's statement, though. That hasn't come from the victim. It might indicate his mother wasn't being honest. She didn't come out of the first documentary terribly well, although not as badly as Wade's mother. She's almost certainly going to have a degree of guilt for allowing this to go on. Isn't it more likely, in saying this she's trying to make herself look a little less like an apologist for her son's abuser?

She might not be telling the truth about dancing when MJ died. Not sure why that counts as an inconsistency in James's statement, since his mother said it, not him.

So... you're totally comfortable with MJ having little boys in his bed overnight, and showing them pornography, and setting his room up so any time anyone else comes close he gets an alarm set off, and him owning books of photos of very young boys in various states of undress,and his own sister calling him a pedophile, and multiple small boys coming forward, so long as he gets off a court case or buys off an accuser here or there?

Another boy, Jason Francia, whose mother worked as a housekeeper for Jackson, testified under oath that he was molested by Jackson, bringing to five the number of young men who’ve sworn that Jackson showed them pornography, masturbated them, or introduced them to sex when they were between the ages of 7 and 12.

So many details of each case were the same: the targeting of boys from troubled families, the skillful grooming, the gifts, the seduction, the Jacuzzis, the way sex was performed, the fear and threats of what would befall them if they ever told anyone what Jackson had done. Their dismissals followed a similar pattern, too: as puberty approached, they were abruptly thrown to the curb and replaced with a new, younger kid.

10 Undeniable Facts About the Michael Jackson Sexual-Abuse Allegations | Vanity Fair

@curiositykilledthiscatI see, it’s obvious there after money they’ve sued the estate twice and had it thrown out both times and now are going after it a third time!

to sue for so much money makes no sense to me three times, blaming a production company from forty years ago for doing what your parents should have done - protect you.

its crazy that no one questions this.

@fieldofstars

To debunk, there is no evidence he showed them porn. Apparently Arvizo was the one running around Neverland with questionable material.

There was no porn found of young boys - it was classified as artwork (if there was actual child pornography, he would have been jailed).

Genuinely, if I was as famous as MJ, I might have bells to alert me if someone is coming to my room, especially with hundreds of staff roaming freely. I don't find this odd at all.

Having boys in his room I DO find odd - I'm not defending that part.

This whole thread annoys me. I literally said at the start he's done some things I can't defend - people are acting like I'm one-sided and denying everything he did and think he's perfect. I'm not. He made some bad decisions and acted inappropriately at times.

My point was, I'm not convinced either way (I literally said this in the original post), but if I had to lean toward one side, I'd say he's not guilty due to the questionable motives and contradictions from his accusers.

The point of my thread was that people who say he's guilty often don't acknowledge any information is sketchy. They want to dismiss any contradictions and holes in the narrative as completely normal and expected when people get abused, and I strongly disagree.

Both sides should be questioned when people make accusations - or else how would you feel if someone you love got wrongly accused and people just took someone's word and never questioned anything?

But it isn't 'just because someone has a claim', in this case, is it? If it was an isolated incident then yes, fair enough, but this isn't one boy crying rape with nothing else remotely suspicious, is it?

I know of no less than 5 individuals who claim to be abused by Jackson. Bearing in mind this is in another country. I doubt very much we know all the individuals the police have spoken to in connection with this. How many people haven't publicly come forward? Given the treatment Robson and Safechuck have had, I'm not surprised if others don't want their names out there.

People have already spoken on this thread about Jackson's bedroom alarm system, the pornography, etc. This isn't just about some lad crying wolf.

I am not a big fan of trial by media, but perhaps we should ask Saville's victims about the value of decades of people keeping their mouths shut and covering up. Money and influence buys a lot of silence. How much silence has Jackson bought over the years? How much do we really know?

Are the parents that failed their children for money and opportunities to be part of the shit show that was MJ personal life ever going to be held accountable.
Who seriously lets their young child sleep over at an adult man's house and go on tour with him. All the evidence indicates that MJ was an abuser but that was his choice and he owed nothing to anyone and got away with it. These parents owed everything to their children to protect them, but sold out for money and access to a circus around a famous person. They are a disgrace.

Why bother reading the thread then?
Ridiculous comment.

@ClareBlueagree. Whether or not you believe MJ was guilty, it’s severe neglect on their part.

disgusting, but all the hate is directed to MJ 😏

Given the treatment Robson and Safechuck have had, I'm not surprised if others don't want their names out there.

Why are you talking about? @ObelixtheGaul The documentaries were favourably received and the consensus was that Robson and Safechuck were abused by Jackson.

Oh, you're beyond help or reason.

They've had death threats from fans and quite a lot of abuse. The documentary wasn't favourably received by everyone and there have been some quite vitriolic slur campaigns.

Pots and kettles? It’s not like you’ve contributed anything worthwhile to this thread.