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?

It's well documented and Katherine admitted it. There was no incentive to lie about it for money. Well we're both hypocrites aren't we if you think we should always believe abuse victims but then don't care what happened to Jackson.

Absolutely , but as it it is it right now makes it a hard case to prove imo. It doesn’t mean I personally think MJ is innocent mind

I'm just giving you the reasons, you can think they're wrong and everyone who disagrees with you is an apologist or you can just accept that other people believe the court ruling.

When you say "he's the most obvious paedo in the world because he had close friendships with children" and then people point you to the children he spent lots of time with who were not abused by him, it throws your whole theory into doubt. It doesn't mean no abuse happened obviously, but it does point towards some of the friendships being innocent. I think people should stick to the facts and allegations, having friendships with kids is weird as fuck but it's a red herring if half of them deny anything untoward happened.

Who said it's just his friendships with children that make him the most obvious paedophile in the world? Its the friendships combined with the accusations, the bed sharing, the inappropriate behaviour, the obvious grooming of entire families, possession of books made by child abusers featuring naked images of boys in the same age range as his 'special friends', possession of actual naked photos of a child, pornographic materials being left within reach of children, giving children alcohol, seperating them from parents etc etc. Its a lot more than just being friends with kids. If you can't see how all that makes him an obvious paedophile then you are being wilfully blind. Aside from that, even if it was just the friendships, the fact that he didn't abuse every single child he ever came across doesn't make it a 'red herring'.

I’m quoting the OP bc I was fed up of scrolling down to get to the message section - why is it so long now????

Ppl take things at face value bc they can’t be arsed not to. They can’t be bothered to do the research or not believe what is presented to them via the media. Look at The Crown tv series ffs. The makers deliberately omitted a message to say that it was a work of fiction with some historical facts bc they knew most viewers wouldn’t question what was put in front of them and would find it compelling viewing bc they assumed it was all true.

I remember when the trials happened the first time and they were kids on the stand defending him and saying it was all un-true. I was a kid myself and I remember thinking it was bollocks. The facts and circumstances speak for themselves. A child could describe what the underside of his erect penis looked like fgs! What?!!! If he hadn’t had that ‘skin disease’ which turned him white - plus all those facial operations to get rid of any trace of his ethnicity there is no way those parents would have agreed to their kids staying with him, nor the closeness of their ‘friendship’
with him. He presented himself as a rich, powerful, talented, caring, non-threatening white man and showered them all with money and other presents. Plus he presented himself as a big child - which should have raised alarm bells alone!

I went to school with a girl who had an improper relationship with a teacher there. Everyone knew she had a crush on him and teachers thought it was funny to allow her to skip lessons to be with him, despite all the red flags. Her parents allowed her to spend time alone with him and sit on his lap from the time she was 9 up, and it was probably a similar situation where they believed their child was special bc they had been favoured by someone in authority/power. Twats.

I believe those boys were abused but they were either in denial when they defended him initially or as I suspected at the time, were paid off and were encouraged to by their families who were thinking of future dollar signs. They may have been intimidated by his lawyers and the fact the world loved him. Who knows. The fact ppl still defend him and play his music is testament to how unpopular they would have been back then for being seen to crap on his golden (and lucrative) reputation.

Look at the likes of David Bowie and other singers of the 60s-80s who admitted to shagging 14 year olds - no one wants to dwell on it bc they were/are beloved and created great and still-played hits. People’s tolerance to child sexual abuse when it concerns popular celebrities seems totally and disappointingly selective.

Today ppl, including sporting celebrities, are put away for consensually touching girls just short of their 16th birthday. Can anyone explain why the previous singers aren’t vilified for arguably worse?!

@Firealarm1414 I'm aware they found some sort of art book that whilst legal, was questionable. I'm not about to go looking into it if it's as dodgy as you're saying. It's also the first I'm hearing that it was produced by child abusers. Again something I don't wish to look into, but thank you for the info. I agree that's very concerning. I'm not sure if they did fingerprints on that book? Because I know he had books sent to him by fans, and that was kinda the excuse for it, that a fan had maybe sent him it. In any case, it sounds like the sort of book that shouldn't be legal so not sure why it is. I don't know about the plying with alcohol evidence. As always, there is conflicting evidence for stuff like that and the porno magazines.

Also it's the first I'm hearing of a photo of a naked child? Why wasn't he arrested for that? Sounds like an immediate arrestable offence.

Here is an article about how the British library had to restrict access to those particular books, which are described as being compiled by child abusers, because perverts were tearing pages out to keep

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/10/04/exclusive-british-library-restricts-paedophilic-books-photos/

The photos were supposedly seized during the raid on Jackson's property and are mentioned in a court filing to admit them into evidence.

@Notsosure1also elvis Presley, no one seems to have an issue with his paedophilia - never questioned at all that one isn’t.

@ElizaDolittle4321so 14 year old girls is ok?

Are you actually being for real right now.

You've spent the whole thread defending a paedophile with multiple victims, when it's clear you don't know what on earth you're talking about, and now you're trying to twist the words of someone else who's simply trying to explain the words you clearly don't understand.

@curiositykilledthiscat There are so many levels to "realising he'd been abused".

Of course it’s not a hard case to prove. It’s a hard case to defend.

If people believe Jackson is innocent they’re either thick, or hate children, or both.

Hes the world’s most obvious pedo for more than just being friends with boys. I could name 50 other reasons. And pedophiles don’t molest every child they know. I imagine he knew there were some he wanted to leave alone in case it ever came out.

He is not innocent if he made fitness with and groomed little boys even if he didn’t sexually abuse them. It’s just a different crime of a different name. He did this in plain sight and people still defend him

An Ex friend of mine turned out to be a rapist. Thing is, one of his very best friends is a woman. He did everything for that woman. Took care of her when she was drunk, slept in the same bed, never crossed a single line. To this day she absolutely won’t believe the 6+ women (6 officially out, others who did not go public because of the backlash the original 6 received) who came forward with the same horrific evidence because he was always her “angel.” Not only did he not touch her, he took extra time to care for and nurture her and their loving platonic friendship.

Thing is. This woman is a solicitor. The other women he raped were either in some way sex workers, mentally unstable, or had something about them that could instil doubt (ie, had cheat on a previous partner) in their word. She thinks, as many did, that these women are not credible accusers. How could he be so kind to her and so heinous to them?

I think, along with anyone who has seen the true evil of men like this, he specifically chose victims he could intimidate while keeping highly “reputable” women in his extreme good favour. Any accusation, any large amount of accusations, would be overshadowed by the overwhelming support he received elsewhere. Most of the victims themselves did not pursue legal action - even with undoubtable medical evidence - because it would socially and mentally destroy them to go through it all. It’s far too much to fight.

So, I dunno, just something to think about.

All of this.

So, not only are James and Wade incredible actors, but so are their mums, wives and siblings?!

And why would their mums stand up and admit how neglectful they were and go through all the backlash for that?

Yes exactly. I’d implore anyone to read the testimony from Jordan Chandler’s mum in the criminal trial where she explains how Jackson emotionally manipulated her in a hotel corridor and began crying because he wanted Jordan in his bed.

He was sobbing and crying, shaking and trembling," she said. "He said, 'You don't trust me? We're a family... Jordy is having fun. Why can't he sleep in my bed? There's nothing wrong. There's nothing going on.'" She relented after some 40 minutes of begging, and the next day the singer gave her a gold Cartier watch, she said. From then on, she claimed Jackson shared her son's bed everywhere they went, including trips to New York, Monaco, Florida and during one period when he essentially moved into the Chandler's Santa Monica home and stayed for some 30 nights.

Shed been estranged from her son for 11 years at this point.

This is under oath.

A security guard also testified to say he saw Jackson molesting Jordan. Why would a security guard lie under oath? For what gain?

OP - if you think the abuser's testimony is questionable, but you think MJ sharing a bed with children is 'inappropriate;' what do you actually believe happened?
Do you just believe that he shared beds with kids, nothing happened, but you appreciate it looks 'dodgy?'

Imagine targeting Elvis Presley but saying Michael Jackson is innocent 🤣🤣

Exactly. For what gain? To be harassed and called liars?

I thought Wade’s brother’s account was very telling. He was angry that Wade had defended Jackson for so long and his account of him making the disclosure outside a food truck in LA was moving. So people are suggesting this man is going along with Wade’s lie or Wade concocted it all and led to his family and is still lying a decade later - OR is it more likely that Jackson was actually just a pedophile?

According to Pricilla, Elvis and her didn't have sex until after marriage. I don't think any people came forward to accuse him of pedophilia.