Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Telly addicts

Related: Film discussion forum.

Original poster

Has Leaving Neverland been pulled?

98 replies

Justonemorepancake · 07/04/2019 20:31

I watched part 1 on all4 Friday night, horrific but wanted to watch part 2 for completion/closure. It's not on all4 any more and not coming up on any searches on amazon prime etc. Wondering if some law suit has been brought?

OP posts:
ccmrob12 · 23/04/2019 19:28

Chill out, don't get so angry.

John Branca is the co-executor of the estate. Have you looked at this case in any detail or are you just basing your view on this mockumentary?

www.billboard.com/articles/news/8507510/michael-jackson-estate-hits-back-leaving-neverland?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

If there guy is so unreliable and biased, why did Dan Reed try to use his to back up his claims? He did it without checking his facts first and is putting this all over twitter.

I can't believe he actually admitted on twitter James got the dates of his abuse wrong, is he speaking on behalf of Safechuck now? He does realise James has filed two testimonies confirming his abuse ended in 1992, he said on Twitter that must be wrong. The idiot doesn't have a clue.

You know what book, it was mentioned several times on the previous thread.

www.goodreads.com/book/show/1766838.Michael_Jackson_Was_My_Lover

This is film matches that book word for word in parts. It's like the movie was based on it. But the author who was a member of the nambla and even gave it thanks in the forward. It's a sick, sick book, purely made of fiction (as proven in the courts) when he was sued and lost by MJ. He then fled back to his native country when he was found out.

My guess is that this film is going to be pulled if/when Branca sues, Barnes sues and how the courts rule in the Estate/HBO case. The signs aren't looking good for this movie based on a sick book.

ccmrob12 · 23/04/2019 19:33

Oh forgot to add one bit.

No she hasn't (and when has Oprah ever been out the spotlight)

Oprah Winfrey also seems to be distancing herself from the documentary. All of her public tweets regarding Leaving Neverland have been removed and the interviews she conducted have disappeared from her YouTube channel.

From the link

www.realstreetradio.com/hbo-appears-to-pull-leaving-neverland-doc-as-oprah-deletes-accusers-youtube-interviews/

She deleted them from Twitter? Why? Some say she only ever got involved in this in the first place to deflect attention from Harvey Weinstein.

GunpowderGelatine · 23/04/2019 19:38

I think you need to research how civil law works in the US. You can't sue someone because you don't like their truth telling. In order to sue it has to be proven that the Neverland directors or abused boys lied. Given the enormous amount of evidence against Jackson and for these men, that would not happen.

And as discussed in the previous thread, it's common to get dates of abuse wrong, by a year or 2 sometimes. Take it from someone who knows. Though now we know the train station did exist I don't think this happened in James Safechuck's case. But it would be entirely fair for Dan Reed to make this realistic assumption. I don't know MJ fruitcakes are clinging on to this like it means anything?

Once again, stop being blinded by a pedophile and misunderstanding information that's you think leads to Jackson being innocent. None exists, he's as guilty as sin. Unless you actually believe 6 unrelated children really made up elaborate stories for the fun of it. I could believe one may do this, but 6....I mean people who defend MJ are entirely deluded and probably need medical help

GunpowderGelatine · 23/04/2019 19:39

I think you need to research how civil law works in the US. You can't sue someone because you don't like their truth telling. In order to sue it has to be proven that the Neverland directors or abused boys lied. Given the enormous amount of evidence against Jackson and for these men, that would not happen.

And as discussed in the previous thread, it's common to get dates of abuse wrong, by a year or 2 sometimes. Take it from someone who knows. Though now we know the train station did exist I don't think this happened in James Safechuck's case. But it would be entirely fair for Dan Reed to make this realistic assumption. I don't know why MJ fruitcakes are clinging on to this like it means anything?

Once again, stop being blinded by a pedophile and misunderstanding information that's you think leads to Jackson being innocent. None exists, he's as guilty as sin. Unless you actually believe 6 unrelated children really made up elaborate stories for the fun of it. I could believe one may do this, but 6....I mean people who defend MJ are entirely deluded and probably need medical help

GunpowderGelatine · 23/04/2019 19:39

I think you need to research how civil law works in the US. You can't sue someone because you don't like their truth telling. In order to sue it has to be proven that the Neverland directors or abused boys lied. Given the enormous amount of evidence against Jackson and for these men, that would not happen.

And as discussed in the previous thread, it's common to get dates of abuse wrong, by a year or 2 sometimes. Take it from someone who knows. Though now we know the train station did exist I don't think this happened in James Safechuck's case. But it would be entirely fair for Dan Reed to make this realistic assumption. I don't know MJ fruitcakes are clinging on to this like it means anything?

Once again, stop being blinded by a pedophile and misunderstanding information that's you think leads to Jackson being innocent. None exists, he's as guilty as sin. Unless you actually believe 6 unrelated children really made up elaborate stories for the fun of it. I could believe one may do this, but 6....I mean people who defend MJ are entirely deluded and probably need medical help

DizzySue · 23/04/2019 19:41

I'm flabbergasted that there are still people defending the must prolific paedophile of all time. Speechless.

GunpowderGelatine · 23/04/2019 19:42

Oh FFS I have no idea why my posts keep posting twice!

Oprah received a tremendous amount of hate for her participation with Reed, Robson and Safechuck, but the link I posted which quotes her defending the accusers is only a week old. I have no idea why she deleted those tweets but it's bordering on funny that you think these little non-events equate to you king of pop being innocent. Wake up!! I've said this hundreds of times, if it was your neighbour you wouldn't defend him, and liking someone's music doesn't mean they can't be pedophiles

GunpowderGelatine · 23/04/2019 19:43

@DizzySue you should have seen the AIBU threads - all sorts of victim blaming and apologist malarkey going on. From maybe 2 posters though, with a clear agenda (MJ impersonators/tribute acts from what I can gather)

ccmrob12 · 23/04/2019 20:33

I think you need to research how civil law works in the US. You can't sue someone because you don't like their truth telling

The clue is in the title, maybe they aren't telling the truth. A year or two? If that was true, it would make James 16/17 at the time he claims the abuse ended. Goes completely against what this film was trying to say, but if you want to believe that, go ahead. Is there any lie that they tell that you won't make an excuse for?

Unless you actually believe 6 unrelated children really made up elaborate stories for the fun of it

Well two of them have been proven liars. So please stop including them in your narrative to make it look credible. One was found un-credible and unbelievable in court. One wants nothing to do with any of this, even now. Then you have these two left, who have $1.5 billion reasons to lie, so no not for fun.

I'm flabbergasted that there are still people defending the must prolific paedophile of all time. Speechless.

I am assuming you have evidence that the FBI and police don't have which could have proved any guilt. Or are you going off tabloid hysteria and speculation?

We are just going to go round and round again folks.

This is the beginning of the end for this sham. At least I notice HBO included the word alleged abuse now to the description for this film. Think the lawyers dropped that one in but I think it's too late now.

ccmrob12 · 23/04/2019 20:34

(MJ impersonators/tribute acts from what I can gather)

This line alone shows you how paranoid you are over this.

small2018 · 23/04/2019 22:34

I've just finished watching it - took me 4 days in total! I believe them although I do wish it wasn't true.

ccmrob12 · 23/04/2019 23:25

Don’t worry it wasn’t.

ccmrob12 · 23/04/2019 23:28

The look and reaction on James Safechuck as Victoria Derbyshire reads out the reply from his family. Says it all really.

ccmrob12 · 23/04/2019 23:36
PinkieTuscadero · 23/04/2019 23:38

Is defending Michael Jackson on Mumsnet your full time occupation?

ccmrob12 · 24/04/2019 07:49
ccmrob12 · 24/04/2019 12:52

Is defending Michael Jackson on Mumsnet your full time occupation?

Don't be silly my full time occupation is MJ impersonator...can't you read?

PinkieTuscadero · 24/04/2019 12:54

Ah, worried about business.

Such a shame for you.

ccmrob12 · 24/04/2019 15:27

No not at all, I’ve never been busier. Everyone’s trying to book me since this all kicked off!

SinkGirl · 25/04/2019 18:36

Oh I’m really hoping you’re not an MJ impersonator, because then the horrific apologist shite you’ve been posting for months now is actually about defending your own income rather than you being delusional, which is even worse.

ccmrob12 · 25/04/2019 18:54

IMHO the delusional ones are the ones who have been suckered in by this mockumentary. But there we go...

ccmrob12 · 25/04/2019 18:55

And do you know what an apologist even is? You are using the word wrong.

SinkGirl · 25/04/2019 19:21

Yes I do thanks, and I’m very familiar with the delusional (very accurate word usage) drivel you’ve been spewing here. Relentlessly.

You are an apologist because you make excuses for MJ’s publicly-acknowledged unacceptable behaviour and then call abused and groomed children liars.

And why do you do this? So that you benefit financially. Huh. Almost like the accusations you’ve been screeching against the victims.

SinkGirl · 25/04/2019 19:23

And do you know what a mockumentary even is? You are using the word wrong.

Even if you think it’s all lies (because you’re deluded and / or have a vested interest), it still wouldn’t be a mockumentary.

ccmrob12 · 25/04/2019 19:55

I have never once made excuses for his behaviour such as the sleepovers especially after 1993. I happen to think there is a country mile between what went down and a paedophile. Having unrelated kids sleep in the same room as you, whist incredibly stupid isn’t illegal. The parents consented at the time it was down to them to say no and Jackson also imho.

I’m not an apologist as I’m not making excuses for a pedophile. If I were and he had actually been convicted, then your use of the word would be correct, as it stands you are wrong.

The film has included fictional events, as already proven, so imho is a very fitting description. There was no train station and wade wasn’t at neverland when his family went to the canyon. For example.