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 have no understanding of abuse
2. you have no idea what abuse does to the human psyche
3. Abusers know exactly what it does to the human psyche. This enables them to abuse and ensures there are people who will defend them to the ends of the earth while watching and facilitatng the destruction of their victims
4. Abusers abuse but it's all those on the sidelines who condemn victims to a lifetime of silence

You're not "proven innocent" in criminal court in the US (not sure how it works in the UK). You're found guilty or not guilty. Casey Anthony was found not guilty. OJ Simpson was found not guilty. Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

We're talking about parents who allowed their children to stay alone with a grown man who was not related to them. Allowed him to sleep in the bed with the children. Are those things that you would do? If not, then perhaps you and those parents are not the same.

I just re-watched the 4 hour Leaving Neverland first documentary last night, and regarding Safechuck's mother, Safechuck said, when he refused to testify, he told his mum he didn't want her to either, and he told her that Jackson was a bad man who had done evil things.

So she knew, basically.

He IS guilty, @SophiaRose91 , read the evidence. Ignorant people love to believe that someone wronged doesn't deserve COMPENSATION. You'd want compensation if you were hurt at work, or fell over and left disabled, WHY do you think a victim of the most heinous abuse ever, doesn't deserve compensation! Why? And a guilty verdict would have seen him in jail, which is what it's mostly about.

Lastly, I turn your statement right back around; an INNOCENT man would NOT PAY MONEY TO KEEP THEM QUIET. Only a guilty man would do that.

Read my answers. The station WAS built, it DID exist. It was even in a fucking tv commercial in 1989, for goodness sake!

Safechuck said, when he refused to testify, he told his mum he didn't want her to either, and he told her that Jackson was a bad man who had done evil things.
So she knew, basically.

And, no, men don't make this stuff up. Things Safechuck said like the wedding rings were proven to be true. @carrotsandtomatoes

Grown men do not lie about these things, they'd rather cut off their arms than admit to something like this. Both Wade and James were very believable and very truthful. You could not act those emotions.

Jackson however always came across as a liar, and always made statements that never denied outright sexual abuse, he said he would never "harm" a child. These pedophiles think they are making their victims feel good, they don't believe therefore that it's 'harm'. Jackson was such a liar and as phony as a 3 pound note.

This has ALREADY been dealt with in the thread! You are repeating desperate attempts at arguments that have been debunked.

It is COMMON for victims to defend their abuser in court and later admit it happened.

It is COMMON to not want to admit to yourself what happened.

We've been through this already, @leavingnever2 .

on except the other case in 2005 which proves easily the accuser was lying!!!

The accuser wasn't proven a liar. You are just lying yourself now.

There are absolutely no 'wild inconsistencies' in this.

You mean like yourself?

@ElizaDolittle4321celebrities regularly settle lawsuits for things they didn’t do - piers Morgan always talks about this.

would parents like Jordy chandler take the money and then not bother pursue a criminal case?! That sounds more odd to me.

So much so the law changed thereafter to make criminal cases have to go first!

@ElizaDolittle4321There are many inconsistencies which you choose to ignore

So she knew but he said he didn’t told anyone?

he also didn’t realise the abuse until 2014. Really?

@ElizaDolittle4321ee also need to disagree Wade is convincing / I don’t think his performance is all convincing he looks and sounds like a liar to me.

No, there aren't. Otherwise you'd list them. And the ones you've listed are easily explained and have been explained to you.

the GAVIN ARVIZO case was debunked so much so Jackson was found not guilty,

his mom was a proven extortionist and the whole family uncovered as lying grifters. Please do your research on it

i thought this too op when I watched the first one, nobody seems to care and many haven’t even watched it, I believe them, the grooming and abuse was just horrendous and done in plain sight. I didn’t know there was a neverland 2, where can I watch it?

And also, I don’t understand how his music is still allowed to be aired.

OP, I can’t quote but regards someone not realising they were abused until 2014..

Yes, a lot of victims become so brain washed that they don’t realise it was abuse and it can take a long time to acknowledge there was something even remotely wrong about what happened to them. I work in mental health and believe me there are many people who never process their trauma and take the guilt and self blame to their death bed. It can take a lot of self reflection to realise you were groomed and most victims will find such self reflection extremely painful and confusing. Also, most believe they were in a real relationship with their abuser so it feels to them that they are going behind their ‘friend’s’ back.

No, it wasn't. Do some research, and not lies from the Jackson cult. Sexually abused children often come from broken and dysfunctional families, abusers prey on them the most. That his mother was untrustworthy doesn't mean he wasn't abused.

Read my answers. The station WAS built, it DID exist. It was even in a fucking tv commercial in 1989, for goodness sake!

Sure it existed, but years after Wade said he was abused there.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/leaving-neverland-director-dan-reed-070148243.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK5y0CTnRmHDrRT2KKoGCB4bIymoaUCd1EGa3QnQWuFqlmJ-ImX420s_kACK880wTlGVBE9AZgv2oBCebef9mrJt2Vz6kUKUSWWT8aAVUlzCR0RIc-QfuuEZjpFn4MWX5MDDRW7KF3mpIA-stZ2pK3e3guUOwjI03Zsm4NsPUSAq

Evidence shows the actual station existed in 1989, like Safechuck said it did. It was in a tv commercial.

Can you cough up a source for that or is it one of your many opinions?

I've searched and searched for the commercial which was on YouTube around 2019 and I can't find it. I'm still looking. But there is this: https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/michael-jackson-biographers-claim-neverland-14253571