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?

The two main victims did address why they 180’d on their original testimony? I rewatched the original NL doc before watching the new one and they did discuss the reasons behind changing their statements.

The Jordan chandler case is so laughable - this is my point, it doesn’t feel like people seek to consider ALL the evidence. You only need to listen to Jordan’s dad on this phone call to know that was about money. He talks about wanting to ‘get what he wants and won’t stop until he does’ - really the father of a SA abused kid wants his pay check before justice?

The call is here;

T

People are so desperate to defend this man. There isn’t a syndrome or condition in aware of that leaves adults in a child like state of cognition due to missing out on a normal childhood. Specific difficulties sure, maybe a lack of understanding of certain concepts. But without capacity? I’m sure someone would have noticed as he entered into very adult contracts such as marriage.

Indeed. I judge anyone hard who defends him.

What has being childless got to do with it? Men with children abuse children.

Also, Michael Jackson had three children.

My own Mother called my abuse an affair, she 'forgave' me for it so that she could continue living in a nice house.

Parents cashing in on their kids isn't as uncommon as you would hope.

And?

It's laughable you are so desperate that you use that laughable clip as evidence. All it's 'evidence' of is a dad thinking he can make bank out of his son's abuse. Not that the abuse didn't happen.

Jordan Chandler described the markings on Jackson's erect penis 100% accurately, even Jackson's lawyer Messareau (sp?) admitted matched and they were in trouble with that.

How the fuck would a child be able to ONE HUNDRED PERCENT get the description and drawing of an ERECT PENIS to match the ACTUAL PHOTOS the FBI took? You answer that one!

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.

Yes, how could anyone conceivably have guessed before 2013 that Michael Jackson might be a child molester 🙄

Yes, he had a deeper voice in real life than the fake high voice he put on, and he was seen in business meetings, organising antiques etc, he was very crafty, very shrewd in business dealings by all accounts. To suggest he was 'child like' is ridiculous.

I think the thread proves what I’m saying. Why are people so convinced either way?

honestly, even as a groomer - as someone is an adult I think you’d rather find others to help you to stay out of jail for the rest of your life.

Especially someone as high profile as MJ.

It’s just serves as another significant inconsistency IMO

I can’t even listen to his music now to be honest.

I was a huge MJ fan as a child/teenager/young adult. I didn't believe the Jordy Chandler stuff when it came out. I defended Michael fiercely.

Now, as an intelligent, educated, sane and rational adult who has watched both Neverland documentaries, I believe unequivocally that he was a child abuser on a huge scale. I believe both Wade and James completely. Any right thinking person with a modicum of sense can see that those men are horrifically traumatized by what Jackson did to them.

Shame on you OP for trying to pick holes in their testimony. Shame on any adult who refuses to believe a child who was abused.

You have zero understanding of how grooming works.

The thread proves that you are so convinced that all his accusers are lying. Even ignoring hard evidence, and embarrassingly resorting to suggest that because one of the accuser's dad was heard being after money, that that means Chandler was not abused?

Your analysis is very immature and shows a profound lack of knowledge of how grooming operates. Many of your 'arguments' have been easily debunked hundreds of times over the years. They are the same old lame arguments that don't hold water.

Why are you so convinced of his innocence?

And Jackson most definitely would not have risked putting him on trial if he wasn't 10000% sure he would keep quiet. We all saw the abuse his previous claimants got from the public. That would have kept Robson toeing the line.

How on earth could he be that sure? Gavin Arviso was a prosecution witness, which Jackson and his team would have known about before the trial began. He didn’t ‘toe the line’.

The allegations of abuse from Jordie Chandler don't seem laughable at all to me.

From a Vanity fair article

There is no dispute that, at age 34, Michael Jackson slept more than 30 nights in a row in the same bed with 13-year-old Jordie Chandler at the boy’s house with Chandler’s mother present. He also slept in the same bed with Jordie Chandler at Chandler’s father’s house. The parents were divorced.

Again that was before Gavin himself admitted what happened to him.

Lemme guess, you think Letby is innocent too. Bore off defending a prolific child abuser.

@TeaRoseTallulahI judge hard on those that don’t take the time to look at both arguments - if also recommend Square One documentary - basically debunks a lot of people that say he’s guilty too but I suppose you wouldn’t bother seeking time to look at the other side of the argument as you’d rather die on the hill of everything mainstream media tells you and not do your own research

Wade, in particular, has built his life around his association with Jackson. His own mother dragged him away from his family to another country to shove him under Jackson's nose.

That poor bloke has been conditioned from his early childhood to believe Jackson was his golden ticket by his mother, and conditioned by Jackson to believe this was a 'special' relationship.

Who wants to believe their life is a lie, that the people they thought loved them and wanted the best for them were abusers?

Wade and Safechuck wanted the lie of the 'special' relationship to be true. In the first documentary, the pain expressed by both of them when they realised they'd been 'dumped' was heartbreaking. Jackson was one of those abusers who showered his victims with attention, made them feel special, important. It's hard enough for adult victims of that level of emotional manipulation to realise the truth, nevermind those who were victims in childhood.

The effect of prolonged SA on children isn't something we can measure using a fixed set of criteria and say, 'they didn't do this' or 'they messed up these details'. It's an incredibly complex tangle of emotional attachment, pain, and guilt.

It’s just all so odd, especially to be suing the people from 40 years ago that you felt were there to protect you (MJJ productions) and then to continue to sue over and over again strikes me as overly money motivated. Funny they’re not suing their parents - the actual people (other than MJ if it is true) that are part to blame!

I read up about the trial after I saw a thread on here defending him.
I deliberately looked for what actual evidence there was.
The police found pornography and poppers in a locker in the room where the kids slept when he held these “sleep-overs”.
I didn’t need to (and couldn’t) read any more after that.

I really really really hope you never find yourself in a position where you need a babysitter for your children. And I really really really hope you’re never on a jury for a child sexual abuse case.

The fact that your username is named after the documentary suggests you have set the account up specifically to defend Jackson. Clearly not listening to others and won’t change your mind. I’m not entirely convinced you’re not at the wind up. Defend sex offenders all you want. Not worth debating with you.

No, he testified in the trial that Jackson abused him, as did his brother.