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?

Yeah well one of the problems for survivors of sexual abuse is that in order to be believed they are expected to perform victimhood in ways that fit some criteria arbitrarily defined by people on the internet who have no special expertise in psychology and may never have knowingly met an abuse survivor or have any knowledge of what surviving sexual abuse actually looks like. But who are quite happy to put themselves forward as experts on someone else’s credibility nevertheless.

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.

But she would have known about multiple allegations against MJ by OTHER boys by 2009? So one can be glad an (alleged) child sex offender won't be (allegedly) able to harm any other children even without yet knowing of one's own child's possible victimisation, surely?

Anyway the moral is, don't share your bed with unrelated little children if you don't want people to draw conclusions.

@MissDoubleUagree in the same way being convincing doesn’t mean you were abused / many people claim this is the main reason they believe them.

it works both ways

@HaddyAbramsues but this thread wasn’t about your situation.

im sorry to hear you were abused but i don’t know the detail of your case however I do know the details of this one which is what the thread is about

What doesn’t make sense? Jackson obviously stressed to him and convinced him as a child that their ‘relationship’ was secret and nobody must know about it. That would be enough to make him feel panic about possible exposure in 2005 whether or not he had yet recognised it as abuse.

But you've decided that the victim is victiming wrong. I'm telling you he isn't. It's actually fucking insulting.

@Butchyrestingfaceyes the same ones she knew about when she let her son share the bed!!

on except the other case in 2005 which proves easily the accuser was lying!!! So which case is it that made her dance?!! Since she know about the most believable ones at the time of dancing he was dead?!

It's not about comparing Jackson to a regular man. It's about comparing how attitudes would differ if a regular man was accused of abusing children under circumstances which included the regular man inviting children over for sleepovers.

Nobody here would be defending Joe Bloggs if adults claimed he abused them and it was known children stayed over in his room. Nobody would be talking about him being an overgrown child unless there was medical evidence of a developmental delay.

It's nothing to do with why children would want to spend time with Jackson. The point is, him being fucking Michael Jackson doesn't make the evidence any less compelling than it would if similar allegations were made about Joe Bloggs from up the road. The big difference is, Joe Bloggs wouldn't have legions of fans making excuses for him and saying, 'oh, it's different because it's Joe Bloggs, and everyone knows Joe Bloggs is eccentric'.

What difference does it make if Jackson doesn't need gimmicks? When it comes to who and what we believe, there shouldn't be a difference between Joe and Jackson, but we all know perfectly well there is, and if we read the same evidence about Joe Bloggs, not one of us wouldn't believe it.

The main reason people believe them is that all the signs of Jackson being a sexual molester of little boys had been there in plain sight for over a decade, including previous accusations and Jackson himself saying to camera he thought it was normal and ‘very right’ for grown men to sleep with young boys they weren’t related to.

Jackson obviously stressed to him and convinced him as a child that their ‘relationship’ was secret and nobody must know about it.

Why is that opinion 'obvious'?

It's on record that Safechuck was a "non-entity" so there was no point him testifying (as I posted earlier today).

It’s obvious because that is how sexual abusers of children operate, and because Safechuck has said that he felt panic at the idea of the ‘relationship’ being exposed.

yes the same ones she knew about when she let her son share the bed!!

Yes, so? Don't think anyone is claiming she was a good or wise person? May have been either ridiculously naive or someone who was prepared to sacrifice her kid for a massive payoff.

Do you not think that, if they were lying, they would have done their research and there wouldn't be any timeline inconsistencies?

Surely if they are just after a big payout they would have made sure everything was absolutely spot on before making statements?

It's so infuriating that victims have to act absolutely perfectly to be believed. Especially when the abuser doesn't have to behave well on any level and they are believed automatically.

So you know the case from watching a couple of documentaries?

@PaintYourAssLikeRembrandtany other Crime, inconsistencies are most certainly indicators of liars - of course it depends what the discrepancy is but some of the ones in this case are wild!!

I’m more interested in the motives a grown man has for having 1000s of children stay over at his home without their parents around.

But people are comparing him to a regular man. My point was he was always going to have access to kids by virtue of who he was. He didn't need to build a park and zoo for that purpose.

I completely agree a regular bloke wouldn't have gotten away with what Jackson did for so long. However Jackson has always denied inviting kids over, he said they asked to stay with him and he said if your parents say it's ok then you can.
We can still think he's guilty whilst getting the facts straight.

Joe Bloggs wouldn't have been famous and performing whilst having to act like an adult from the age of 5. But yes he should've gotten therapy for his issues not tried to live his childhood through the kids. Even if there was no abuse what he was doing was wholly inappropriate.

There actually aren’t wild discrepancies though, you’re just conveniently ignoring all the posts pointing that out.

The fact he wanted to hang around kids and seemed to drop them when they “aged out” is creepy.
However, Candace Owens has an interesting take on the situation.

@MakkaPakkasCaveshe indeed does - because she isn’t brainwashed like most people

I recently saw an Instagram post about Bubbles the chimp, from his sanctuary. If only he could talk...

'I wasn't the only beast in Neverland'?

Ahahahahahaha

So apart from being an eccentric/weird/creative/damaged child in a man's body who just loved to hang out with children, he quite coincidentally:
-only invited little boys to sleep over
-dumped them when they aged out of his preferred age range
-showed them pornography
-had his bedroom set up so bells rang etc when housekeepers approached
-quite a number of said children have said he molested them

and there is nothing to see here?

Not to mention having books with photos of naked boys, which were literally made by paedophiles and highly coveted in those circles. It's absolutely insane the mental gymnastics people do when it comes to believing Michael Jackson wasn't guilty of the crimes he's been accused of.