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?

How am I embarrassing myself by offering up an explanation?

Clutching at straws much?

You don’t get “proven innocent” in court. You get a verdict of “not guilty” - not the same thing.

Because your explanation is based on your speculation, so pretty much worthless in this instance.

The thing is you can get into the weeds of picking away at inconsistencies in testimonies etc. But when you step back the facts remain - he consistently sought out friendships with young boys and had sleepovers with them. If it was Bob down the road making friends with local boys and inviting them to sleep over, would you think it innocent and give him the benefit of the doubt?

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

Because everyone knows Michael Jackson was a paedophile and that the people who defend him are clearly over-invested in... who knows what?

I did, and understood it, but clearly you didn’t.

I think he was a paedophile, and that he abused & raped children.

BUT, even if he was completely innocent, how can we say that a grown adult man having very close friendships with young boys, then ditching them a couple years later to replace them with a younger one is at all acceptable?

Absolutely correct.

I was abused as a child/teen. I couldn't tell you when/ where a lot of things happened because my memory has shut a lot of it out to protect me. Including how old i was when I had a termination as a result of it.

I think michael jackson was an abuser. I've listened to a lot of what wade robson and
James safechuck have said.

One thing they said was that he would make one of them his favourite boy, until they got older and then he would toss them aside.

That rings true to me.

Also, other adults have said that they noticed that michael jackson and james safechuck's relationship was weird.

I remember a man said that he was working on tour with michael jackson and he saw that michael jackson was keeping james safechuck (then a child) alone in a hotel room.

He said that he was so worried that he put a note under the door asking james safechuck If he needed help.

This, I completely agree with.

irrespective of sexual abuse and whether or not you believe this did or didn’t happen, his relationships with the boys was definately inappropriate even on a face value ‘friendship’ level

The man that put a note under the door asking james If he needed help, should have done more really and actually rang the police.

If a man went into a hotel room with a ten year old child that is not his, normally hotel staff would call the police.

But that man, like a lot of people around michael jackson, seemed to have been blinded by michael jacksons power and success.

A lot of people turned a blind eye. And they never said anything at all to jacko

Staying in a hotel room with a child that is not yours, is hugely inappropriate.

Mj did that.

Sorry but it’s ridiculous when people say and compare any celebrity to bob down the road.

celebrities since the start of Hollywood have never been conventional - so to expect them to be like bob down the road is ridiculous.

Thay doesn’t mean we should make exceptions for child abuser but it does mean the behaviour of celebs is just not the same.

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

No your post is ridiculous.

Child abuse is against the law no matter if you are famous or bob down the road.

As p diddy has found out

I believe them both. Any minor inconsistencies in their stories are because they were small children. Their accounts are compelling. James Safechuck looks utterly broken.

I think mj was totally disgusting. Treating 10 year olds like they were his boyfriend, then tossing them away, with no care for the damage he did

That doesn't make it right. Celebrities shouldn't be above the law.

Oh, right. I must be misunderstanding the intent of your posts on this thread also.

I also know that there are huge amount of paedophiles out there.

I work with children at the moment. I work in a kind of a year round camp where different children come and learn a language in an Immersion Week every week.

There are a lot of male staff here. Security men, caretakers, camp monitors. The staff changes alot as people come and go

I've seen a lot of men behave creepily with the young boys and girls.

Not outright physical sexual abuse. But saying inappropriate comments. And being weird.

I've reported every instance.

Working in this job has made me realise that a lot of adult men abuse children.

It's power. It's easy to abuse a child verbally and emotionally.

So I know that there are a huge amount of creepy men out there.

And a massive sign is when the man tries to surround himself with children. Which mj did.

Strip away the celebrity trappings (wtf do chefs and plastic surgery have to do with this), and there’s literally no difference between Bob down the road inviting young boys for sleepovers and Michael Jackson doing it. The intent is the same.

@ElizaDolittle4321you don’t seem to read very well - my post states doesn’t mean we overlook abuse but we are suggesting celebs behave the same as normal folk and that is ridiculous - celebs have always and will always often be eccentric and weird and not like your neighbour is my point

No we were specifically talking about child abuse. And that mj was weird to hang out with young children and bring children to hotels.

And you said "well celebs are different to normal folk"

Yes, I think there’s a lack of something regarding your reading comprehension.

OP what do you think about mj bringing james safechuck (then a minor) to stay in his hotel room?

Other adults witnesses this, which they spoke about.

If a man brought a ten year old girl or boy to a hotel room now, the police would be called