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?

1. You yourself clearly don't look at both arguments.
2. Square One is made by the Jackson estate; it holds no water and debunks absolutely nothing!

But it's clear you want to die on the hill of believing Jackson is innocent even though the overwhelming evidence shows he is guilty, and you used the same pitiful attempts to poke holes in the mens testimony which proves you've done absolutely no research. At all, whatsoever.

The persistence of rape myths, including those relating to CSA, is one of the biggest reasons our convictions stats are so low. I really wish there was some sort of jury training on this stuff.

No it's not odd at all to sue the estate of the man who abused you. What is odd is the flimsy and desperate and very clumsy attempts you are making to convince yourself he is innocent.

But re-read the thread @ElizaDolittle4321 and you’ll see that many of your own posts are wrong, yet you complain that others lack analysis.

Out of interest, how do you feel about Saville's victims?

Name the 'many'? I've rebutted your points.

The point the poster is making isn't "all people who have theme parks in their gardens are peodophiles" 🙄

It's "even amongst people who have the money, spending a fortune on something designed specifically to appeal to children in particular is unusual"

Most adults who become very rich and famous spend their money on expensive cars, yachts, planes, drugs, parties, etc (not going into the morality of those) - not building theme parks in their garden

The two cases are not remotely similar. Though they both illustrate how legal systems can get things very wrong.

Lets just look at the very broad outlines:

Case 1: Middle aged man develops very close relationships with young boys. He frequently spends multiple nights alone with them sleeping in the same bed. Some of these boys subsequently accuse him of sexual abuse. What is more likely a) he was a child abuser, b) he was a misunderstood big kid who just wanted to have fun sleepovers with his friends.

Case 2: Nurse works in NHS hospital on ward caring for premature infants. It is badly equipped and understaffed with consultant doctors only visiting twice a week. The ward changes to admit sicker babies which the medical staff lack the time and expertise to deal with. The numbers of babies dying increases. What is the more likely cause? a) a serial killer nurse b) a badly run and underesourced nhs unit

@ObelixtheGauldifferently, there’s hundred of them for a start, but also none are repeatedly seeking financial compensation (going back to accusers a when michael was alive, the civil suits always came first), also there is no evidence to show the lies of his accusers,

saville also never went to court and got proven innocent - that case with Fabio Arvizo for MJ was CLEARLY a money grab proven innocent court but that doesn’t really get mentioned people conveniently forget about it!

so yeh, based on the above I have no reason to believe on savilles innocence…unless someone presents me with some evidence that makes sense

I also wish to add, as I stated in my OP but people overlook that part - I don’t understand why people are so certain either way. I’m more certain of his innocence but many posters appear convinced of his guilt and use wish wsshy ways to debunk the points raised on my OP.

Yes the abused memory would be hazy but his mothers wouldn’t be?!!

Wow, you're losing it.

Firstly, there is no evidence that shows any of Jackson's accusers are liars.

Secondly, Gavin Arvizo's case was not only about money, nor was Jackson "proven innocent" in court.

Your lies are embarrassing and you seem to get more and more clumsy out of desperation.

He didn’t have the children when this abuse was said to have taken place and when he first built Neverland. So yes, it is relevant to say childless.

Of course I know men with children abuse. He didn’t have children when Neverland was first built which is why I said childless man building a playground in the his garden. If the man had children it would make more sense. I’m not saying only childless men abuse.

You are certain of his innocence (based on nothing) but are surprised people are certain on his guilt (based on proven facts and evidence)? You are the one that is using wishy washy ways to debunk evidence that people have given, and noticeably, you never respond when your points are debunked.

You are way out of your depth here, and you must know it. You are embarrassing yourself. You refuse to even discuss where your flimsy arguments in your OP have been soundly debunked and answered.

The first documentary was so graphic in detail and I found them both to be completely credible. How the fuck would you put on an act and lie so convincingly?

Yes Wade testified in Jackson’s defence but he was deeply traumatised AND trying to make his own way in the entertainment industry at the time. Can you imagine what would have happened if he’d told the truth, what it would have done to his life? He clearly explains his reasons for doing it in the first documentary but MJ supporters just go ‘la la la’ with their fingers in their ears.

As for Safechuck, he’s a broken man. How can any sane person not see this?

I have seen all over FB in the last week just how much support there still is for MJ and I just find it absolutely baffling.

There have been several other lawsuits over the years. They were all paid off by MJ to keep them quiet.

other kids were able to describe MJs penis in detail FFS!

MJ seems to have this god like complex that people just cannot see through. I have no doubt there are many more people that have yet to speak out. Hopefully they will eventually.

I was abused as a child.
I have watched the various documentaries about Michael Jackson and I have no doubt whatsoever that he sexually abused children.
My reasons are that we all saw with our own eyes that he had an unnatural fascination with young boys. The ONLY reason men do this is for sexual purposes.
Also, I find that as someone who has been through it I recognise the same trauma in others. It isn’t the big statements, it is little insights about stuff which on the face of it might seem the least of the horror to others.
Michael Jackson, R Kelly, Saville, and many others with money = power and devoted fans who don’t want to believe the unpalatable truth.
You need to reflect OP, on why it is so important for you to put your need to believe in your idol more than these children.

Yes I remember when Safechuck was describing him Jackson going to look at wedding rings, and he pulled out the rings Jackson gave him. What I remember most is that Safechuck's hands were shaking as he was showing the rings.

That is not acting. That was real. The emotion and trauma there, in his shaking hands, was real!

Also, after the episode aired, one anchor looked back in their archives. He found a tv news item - it showed Jackson and Safechuck....... looking at rings in a jewellery store.

More evidence backing up the man's testimony.

@ElizaDolittle4321 I think you have misread my post? I 100% believe MJ to be a paedophile abuser.

Wrong;

James Safechuck alleges that "towards the end of the trial", there was an attempt to force him to testify in Jackson's favor. He says that Jackson and his personal assistant Evvy Tavasci called and begged him to testify and that once he refused to do it, Jackson got angry and "threatened him". Factually, however, James Safechuck was irrelevant to the 2005 trial and his testimony was never needed. On March 28, 2005, Judge Rodney Melville had already ruled that "evidence as to Jimmy Safechuck will not be permitted". From the early stages of the trial, the court decided James Safechuck was a "non-entity" since there were no allegations in his regards, no witnesses, and because Safechuck himself stated under oath that he had never been molested. Scott Ross, the defense investigator in Jackson's 2005 trial, attested that the defense had no actual reason to call Safechuck to the stand. Factually, Safechuck wasn't on the witnesses list - not even as a character witness.

Have you got the wrong person, @BringMeTea ? I haven't responded to you at all.

Exactly, how do you ‘fake’ trauma like that? You can’t. My heart just broke for them both, but especially Safechuck. His whole life ruined because of that fucking man.

and still millions just won’t believe it. All for some twat mincing around on a stage grabbing his crotch and going ‘hee hee’

That doesn't say that the Prosecutors weren't hoping they could get the judge to change his mind and weren't pre-emptively putting pressure on Safechuck.

Do you think it's possible that Saville's victims aren't repeatedly seeking financial compensation because once his abuse was exposed, victims have been able to claim compensation from his estate, the BBC and the NHS. It's not much because there were so many victims, but in the wake of the scandal breaking, victims are not having to go through what Safechuck and Wade are to be believed.

There aren't hordes of Saville fans protesting his innocence. Why might that be? Well, he's not quite the well loved entertainer he thought he was, he hadn't a prodigious talent, but there's another reason we believe his victims more readily.

Saville's victims were in no doubt they were abused because Saville made no pretence of love. They didn't come forward because of fear. Saville was the typical monster abuser, silencing his victims by telling them nobody would believe them, and intimidation. None of Saville's victims reported any feelings of love for him, or experience of any show of affection from Saville.

Jackson silenced his victims by making them believe they weren't victims at all. They didn't fear him. Jackson wanted his victims to keep coming back, he needed them to want to see him. He used their innocence.

The problem is that we still have this idea of what monsters look like, how they behave. Saville fits a type we understand more. A type less open to interpretation because nobody could say Saville was childlike, and just wanted kids as pals. His pattern of behaviour with his victims wasn't about building any sort of relationship with them.

The hurdle I think people struggle to get over with Safechuck and Wade is that they openly admit their love for Jackson. That does not mean he wasn't abusing them, he just used a different method than Saville to do it. And the method Jackson used muddies the water, both for the victims trying to make sense of what happened, and the public.

No, but can you cough up any facts that says they did? Thought not.

Now who’s embarrassing themselves?

@ElizaDolittle4321 oh! MNHQ emailed me to say you did! A glitch on their part I guess. Apologies.