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?

They are, they behave different yes.

nowhere did my post say they should be allowed to abuse people which is what Eliza is implying

You yourself don't seem to read very well when your points are rebutted and debunked and you ignore it and don't respond and ignore the posts.

Also, saying Sorry but it’s ridiculous when people say and compare any celebrity to bob down the road.
shows you are being ridiculous. No other celebrity has ever built a theme park on his property and slept with boys. You are suggesting that is normal for celebrities. His behaviour wasn't even normal for a celebrity, even.

The OP never responds to questions that are tricky.

The thing to remember as well is that the whole 'childlike innocent' thing was a carefully crafted image, even down to the whispery, high pitched speaking voice, which he apparently dropped when engaging with adults in a business capacity, such as rehearsing and designing his shows.

He wasn't a child in a man's body. He was a man who adopted a child like persona deliberately for professional and personal reasons. He had hang-ups shared by a lot of former child stars having to repackage themselves as adult performers to an audience who expected to see 'little Michael'. He made the transition by creating an eccentric, childlike adult. It's well known that much of the 'whacko Jacko' stuff from the 80s and early 90s (sleeping in an oxygen tent, etc) was a stunt to keep the newspapers talking about him.

That image of him as the man who never grew up, who was an eccentric, germ-phobic recluse whose best friend was a chimp was a great cover for him to get away with having children in his home with a lot fewer questions than would have been aimed at others.

He groomed the world, just as Saville groomed a nation. By pretending to be other than he was. Saville's cover was his apparently selfless charity work. MJs was the assertion that he suffered some sort of arrested development, that he was still 'little Michael' inside, a little boy struggling to navigate an adult world he was forced into too young.

There's an element of truth to that, but I think it became a 'convenient truth' as he got older.

He has a lot of elements of a groomer.

He surrounded himself with kids.

He told them they were special.

He brought them on tour with him

100% this. Don’t recall him ever being put under a conservatorship or similar. I mean, surely if he had reduced capacity and was completely childlike and unaware of adult situations etc. this would have been for his own good?

But I guess these things are just for women anyway.

I can't either.

@ObelixtheGaul Bubbles was abused as well

So when you posted:

WR being a defence witness for MJ at 22 has always made me suspicious about his later claims.

As for the ‘why would they put themselves through that?’ question, when it comes to large, life changing sums of money, some people will do practically anything.

You absolutely were not insinuating he was lying about being sexually abused by MJ.

And when OP wrote:

I've noticed that many discussions about Michael Jackson focus on the allegations without examining the serious inconsistencies in the accusers' stories

She certainly was not suggesting they were lying about being sexually abused by MJ.

Got it.

You're implying it yourself.

Celebrities don't behave like 'normal' people because they are eccentric and weird.

Would you say that about someone with loads of money because they won the lotto? Should he be able to act however he likes with kids because "eccentric"? What about someone who had a few hit singles in the 80s? Someone on a soap? Someone dating an A list actress?

What level of fame/money do we excuse paedophillic behaviour as "eccentric"?

I can't believe you're basically excusing child abuse because someone sang a few catchy songs once upon a time.

Even if MJ came back from the dead and admitted being the massive beast that he was there are people who still wouldn't believe it. So many pedophile apologists, it's absolutely disgusting.

Don't forget the moonwalk and the wee spins.

Exactly.

Odd that he wasn't remotely interested in forming intense friendships with young girls?

Odd that he only formed intense friendships with very 'pretty' young boys?

Odd that as soon as these pretty young boys got old enough to look like very young men he ditched them?

Why is that OP?

You're right of course, that's probably where op draws the line.

Gary Glitter never danced backwards- guilty

MJ did dance backwards - clearly innocent.

And Gary Glitter wasn't a child in a man's body either. Levels.

What's disgusting is all the adults that knew about it and never said anything. Same with jimny Saville.

Power and fame buys silence

Celebrities don't behave differently because they are some weird sort of alien species. They behave differently because people like you expect them to be different.

In fact, it's something a lot of celebrities grow to dislike. That people can't distinguish the public persona from the individual. It was reported that Freddie Mercury once said to a group of journalists was that the difference between him and them was that they could go out in public and be themselves. When he went out in public, he had to be the stage persona 'Freddie', because it was expected. The public aren't terribly good at understanding where the act ends and the person begins.

It's true that you can't compare the lifestyle of Bob from down the road to a billionaire celebrity, but when it comes right down to it, the only difference is money and the inability of the public to separate the performance from the person.

That's just such a weird argument to me.

You see those paedophile groups online catching men with LD who clearly are very, very childlike, and diagnosed as such, and, quite rightly, there's nobody excusing them.

But MJ.... an actor..... well clearly the poor little lamb couldn't help himself.

Actually, Jackson was known for being very astute. He might have been a spendthrift who couldn't keep hold of his money, but in terms of getting it in the first place, he was nobody's fool.

He said in the second documentary he doesn't want money.

I think jackson was a paedophile

But confusion couldn’t explain some of the discrepancies such as a place not being built until years later meaning the ‘victim’ would be a completely different age and that throws the entire accusation
Also confusion isn’t enough to explain things like the mum dancing in joy before she could have known anything.
or timelines that are so out that other factors make it impossible for the abuse have happened.

and I dispute your assertion that no one would make stuff like this up. Because people HAVE made stuff like this up

Even if MJ was innocent and didn't abuse any of the boys.
He still had very young boys sleeping over,upsetting the boys boundaries for what's acceptable.

I don't believe that for a second,he abused them boys ( allegedly)and he hid in plain sight.

The assertion that James Safechuck’s mother couldn’t have known Jackson was an abuser before 2013 is completely bizarre. Widely reported allegations about him had been out there for long before that. Has it occurred to you she may not have needed to hear it directly from her son to guess what happened?

You'd think that she may have said in the documentary that she'd had a hunch Jackson had abused James? After all, she goes on to say she failed her son.