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?

Here it is, it's only one minute and 37 seconds long.

I fucking rejoiced when he died. I always believed his accusers and think it’s shocking he never paid for his crimes.

Well that was a whole lot of nothing.

Then you don’t understand how grooming works

When erect the penis can look circumcised, as the foreskin retracts along the length. Even the officials in the case said that.

No he bought children from women, not the same as having them

You are disgusting calling a child victim of sexual abuse “laughable”

And I completely understand why the Chandlers took the money. Imagine your child having been sexually abused and the thought of them going on a stand and being grilled by clever defences lawyers. All for it to either end in a guilty verdict, where fans will abuse you for it, and Jackson will come out of prison (if he even goes) and resume his career. Or a not guilty verdict where you get no justice, where fans will abuse you for it and Jackson will resume his career. The Chandlers were in hiding by this point - that money will have bought them a new life and the best therapy going. I don’t blame them at all.

How does it feel to be a pedophile apologist? How does it feel to defend someone who rapes little boys? I sincerely hope you’re not a parent yourself. You can’t safeguard. And children deserve to be safeguarded

Wait - I thought Jackson was innocent?? Why would they sue their parents if nothing bad happened 🤔

Perfectly acceptable to sue 40 years later. They were let down by a whole network m of people working for Jackson and they deserve justice. There’s a huge price tag that comes with being abused. You wouldn’t begrudge someone suing for breaking their leg due to a business being negligent so how is this different?

Jackson was not “proven innocent”. At all. Blimey you’re not the sharpest tool in the box are you.

What’s the magic number of abusers before you believe someone is a pedophile please?

You know you can discuss a case online and be perfectly vigilant in real life don't you? None of us know the people involved, none of us were those boys' parents, you know the very people supposed to be looking our for their welfare? You can have questions about the case and still think what MJ did was insane, what the parents did was insane etc.

You know this is a site full of mothers and yet 80% probably think Lucy Letby is innocent, I could say the same thing about people defending her.

Right so because Jackson is famous he gets to behave inappropriately and that’s ok because “celebrities”?

Bon down the road often doesn’t fly private class get lots of surgery have private chefs and staff and all the other common traits associated with celebrity

99% of celebrities who do this don’t have a harem of little boys who sit on their crotches at concerts and aren’t accused by dozens of boys of child sex abuse.

But it’s just as inappropriate. Unless you’re a compete half wit who thinks it’s acceptable or different because someone is famous.

Also name me another celebrity - who HASN’T been accused of CSA - who makes countless little boys his friends, sleeps in a bed with them, walks around holding their hand then dunks them a few months later for another pretty little boy. I’ll wait.

Spot on!! He was a wealthy and shrewd businessman, not a child in a man’s body.

Funny how other child stars don’t claim they’re “Peter Pan”.

Jackson was also a profiled liar. Remember when he outright denied having any plastic surgery! And people think this is an honest man. Pathetic. I’d like to know why it means so much to Jackson fans to see him as innocent?

James did tell her round about the criminal trial - in his own way. He said “Michael was a bad man” (in relation to him choosing not to testify). She didn’t press him because he asked her not to, but it was enough.

You didn’t watch the documentary properly, clearly. He did tell her in 2005, but he wasn’t explicit with details. Which is why she danced when he died. As did I. Good riddance.

He then went into further details when Wade Robson went public

The problem is that MJ was an abuse victim himself. He had no idea what was normal, what was ok, what was acceptable.
ETA I think that he had arrested development and that emotionally he never moved on from being a teenager.

His father was a monster, he was in the public eye from the age of 5 and never had a childhood as we understand it. When he grew he was surrounded by sycophants who would agree to anything as long as he kept paying them. He had no moral compass whatsoever, all he had to learn from was his abusive father.

Do I think he was a paedophile? No because they have a sexual interest in pre pubescent children. Do I think it likely that he abused teenage boys? Yes.

As a PP said, you can’t compare the lifestyles of the 2, but you absolutely can compare values. No matter how rich or famous you are, everyone should have the value to not sexually abuse children.

Watch the documentary. 2005. You’re welcome

Aw is he not “victimy” enough for your liking?

It’s called grooming.

Youre welcome.

The MJ sycophants feeding you info aren’t doing a very good job

Her son’s HTH

so there’s no proof at all poor Gavin was lying.

@PyongyangKipperbang When he masturbated both of these boys they were pre-pubescent. James himself said nothing came out of him, he never ejaculated then, he hadn't even started going through puberty. Wade wasn't even 10 years old, I think he was 7 or 8 when Jackson taught him to masturbate per the documentaries. All of his accusers were pre-pubescent.

That is a PAEDOPHILE.

Your pal Jackson is the biggest liar of all.

I’d bet you believe his claims of abuse by his dad without stamping your foot for evidence, right?

Then I concede the point. But do you concede that MJ had absolutely no knowledge of "normal" or "OK" as we understand it?

I dont actually like MJ and will turn off his music if it comes on the radio because I do believe him to be a rapist, but I do strongly feel that he followed urges and feelings because no one taught him differently.

It wasn’t debunked at all. Gukty leople are found “not girly” all the time. Doesn’t make them automatically innocent.

Even if his mum was an extortionist (she wasn’t) how does this mean he didn’t sexually abuse her son?

JFC the stupidity is terrifying
.