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?

That’s exactly the point. People try to infantilise him like he wasn’t all there and didn’t really know what he was doing re: abusing children. He knew exactly what he was doing.

No, he didn't say that.

Whatever she says or doesn’t say in the documentary, OP’s claim that there’s no way she could have known before 2013 that Jackson might be an abuser is clearly nonsense.

If you'd read OP's post properly, you'd know that they aren't referring to Jackson being an abuser, they're referring to Jackson abusing James.

You don't think making your home enticing to children is a bit odd for a single. Adult male? Okay 👌

so youre telling me she let her child spend all that time with him and only after his death (after he went to trial and wasn’t found guilty) this was the part that made her feel her can’t hurt any more kids? She wouldn’t have danced at his death unless she knew about what ‘happened’ to her son, seriously - what you’re saying makes no sense! That she suddenly turned passionate about him being a paedo in this time? But still didn’t know James was molested at this point?

.

Whatever she does or doesn’t say in the documentary, OP’s claim that there’s no way she could have known before 2013 that Jackson might have abused James is clearly nonsense.

I was abused for years as a child.

I can remember in detail what happened to me but often can’t tell you in what order the events took place or the location, my age etc.

Does that mean I am lying about my abuse??

Because ignorant people love to believe he is/was guilty. Michael Jackson was innocent. There is no way that any amount of money would satisfy me if my child had been abused.

It's pretty ignorant to assume that all parents are like you.

My Mother essentially pimped me out to her husband for her own gain.

Not all parents are decent or have the wellbeing of their children at heart.

They specifically said built a theme park. That's obviously not a "trait" because most wouldn't be able to afford that. And there are plenty of things I think grown adults being interested in is weird, like Harry Potter or Marvel. Adults also enjoy theme parks. Society has never been more "childlike" than it is now and no one has a problem with it. He probably built one because he couldn't go to a regular one without being mobbed, ever think of that?

Besides, he hardly needed to build a theme park to entice kids, he was Michael bloody Jackson. That's literally what OP is trying to get across, that you can't compare him to Bob down the road because he doesn't need to use all these gimmicks to get kids interested. He was the biggest star in the world, who cares about a theme park at this point if you're a 10 year old kid getting to meet Michael Jackson? Ofc none of this means he was innocent, and I'm certainly not saying he was, but it's disingenuous to compare him to a regular man.

Really? I thought the parents were "groomed" by him as well, that's usually the excuse for the parents being so clueless. I'd love to know at what point she supposedly realised.

I was abused by a close male relative. I told my mother, (his sister), and my maternal grandmother (her son). I wasn't believed and was smacked for "lying about your dear uncle A." However, when my father died of a sudden heart attack (I was ten years old at the time) I was sent home from school by myself and found the abuser's wife there, comorting my mother. Mother was clutching my pet cat, who was desperate to get away. I picked up the cat, took her outside and went to find my pony. I have never really been able to get over it, despite years of counselling and psycotherapy.
Unsurprising, I prefer animals to people.

What has being single got to do with anything here? Married men abuse children.

A woman literally handed her young baby over to be abused by Ian Watkins for free. What you’d do and what other people might do for money or glory are not the fucking same.

Really? Personally I wouldn’t ‘love’ anything about a child being abused or a parent realising, given the huge pain for all involved.

@ThatNimblePeer It's hugely important info to know at what point she suspected something. We were always led to believe the boys and their parents supported him 100% and believed him innocent until Wade+James' allegations.

I used to wonder why a grown man chose small boys to hang out with. He went under the radar for so long because he was considered strange himself. People would give the excuse that he never grew up. It was a fantastic cover story.

I also find it astounding when people say how can the two accusers be so convincing…I genuinely don’t think Wade comes off as convincing at all!

I used to follow Wade in the 2000’s and watch his dance show every week - the way he acts in this documentary seems very fake to me. And then they throw in explicit parts to make us feel it could never be a lie - it makes it easily believable.

James admittedly does appear more convincing but I don’t understand why people say why would two grown men do this. People lie all the time! About all sorts of things - and convince people!!

Wade looks like a liar I don’t think his accounts feel believable at all

@leavingnever2 yeah I feel like they went for shock value so you would feel wrong to question any of it. And you can see it here where people will just shoot you down if you even have questions. But apparently talking about Lucy Letby being innocent is very popular here, odd 🤔

Sorry but James Safechuck's allegations against Michael Jackson present significant timeline inconsistencies that undermine his credibility.

In 1993, Safechuck testified under oath that Jackson never sexually abused him, a position he maintained for over two decades. His allegations only emerged in 2014, a year after Wade Robson filed his lawsuit and five years after Jackson's death.

The most problematic aspect of Safechuck's claims involves his supposed late "realisation" of abuse. In legal filings, he stated he did not recognise his experiences as abuse until beginning therapy in 2013 at age 35. However, this claim directly contradicts other statements in those same court documents.

While claiming no understanding of abuse until 2013, he simultaneously described experiencing panic during Jackson's 2005 trial, fearing his "relationship" with Jackson would be exposed. This clearly implies awareness of impropriety years before his claimed 2013 realisation. Make this make sense?!!!!

Your first mistake is thinking victims have to be “convincing”

They won’t always be. Doesn’t mean they weren’t abused.

I would have denied the abuse for years as well. Then I slowly came to realise that what had happened was wrong. That doesn't mean I lied. And i often use explicit language to describe what happened. It's a defence mechanism.

But it's ok. CSA survivors are used to being called liars.