Has Leaving Neverland been pulled?

[Justonemorepancake]

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?

Yes it is, read HBO's statement. And their last statement which stands by the documentary, despite the conspiracy theories you've formed in your own head that HBO have "realises the truth" or whatever

Why do you keep posting random videos and articles which essentially are just people saying "I believe MJ" or "I don't believe Safechuck and Robson". What exactly are you trying to by spamming the thread?

It's nothing to do with confidentiality. It's a non-disparagement clause inserted an agreement for the them to have the rights to the Dangerous tour. They aren't allowed to slander MJ as part of that agreement, something this film has clearly done.

Why do you think HBO are so afraid to have this matter adjudicated publicly? Can't why they wouldn't do that if they had nothing to lose and were innocent?

I'm posting the videos for people coming to this thread who haven't already made up their mind to have access to more than just what the media is saying about this. Your post stinks of lazy, media driven, bore that people need to see that there is more to this than the obvious.

Any idea why the DVD has been pulled? No one can seem to get an answer from the source, too busy making up shit on twitter and dealing with probable fallout from this tripe.

Perhaps you should go and make your own documentary on why you think MJ is innocent ccmrob12.

If I did It would be an actual documentary which covers all aspects of the case, not just one side as here. Setting aside the Estate for a moment, just including the likes of Brett Barnes, against his will and not even including him for interview or asking him before hand not just smacks of ineptitude on Dan Reed's part, it's downright rude and he has really pissed him off. To the point where he thinking of taking action against Reed. They have used every angle they can to try and make their point, their way. That's not what a documentary maker is meant to do. Look at Michael Moores, compare any of his documentaries to this (they don't compare TBH) and you will see how agenda driven this film is, those that want to see who don't have the blinkers on.

It was a story about the abuse of two boys whereby believing victims of CSA is key to understanding what happened. Not a documentary asking the viewer to pick a side. Who would you have had as the other side then? MJ is dead and no one could possibly say that he definitely didn't abuse anyone ever.

You're drawing an odd comparison to Michael Moore's documentaries. No blindsided fruitcakes incapable of understanding basic things huffed after to say "those Columbine shooters are InNoceNt because one told a lie as a child, GotChA" 🤪

Seriously ccm what is your actual irrefutable evidence that Jackson never once abused any boys?

There isn’t any. I’m just going off the fav we haven’t had a single credible person out of those who have come forward with claims. It’s as simple as that really.

Why was Wade Robson caught emailing himself links to articles about other people who had made claims about MJ. That’s why he didn’t want the court to have access to his diary and emails, because it shows he was trying to form his own fake case against MJ. That’s why everything was so vivid in the film, everything described with perfect detail, yet many on here claim they suffered hazy memory as with other genuine victims.

The only side trying to hide things and cover their tracks are those claiming MJ did these things. I still don’t get HBO don’t want this to go to arbitration. They don’t because they know they will lose.

Face it, it’s a ruse and you’ve been sucked in.

OK, let me reframe the question: what would a "credible" victim look like you? One who stays silent? Or who remembers ever tiny detail, event and date from 3 decades ago? Or one who cries and shakes every time they speak like Little Mo? And how much do you know about how victims typically do speak about their trauma?

Why was Wade Robson caught emailing himself links to articles about other people who had made claims about MJ.

Well if I thought there were other CSA victims of the man who raped me as a child I would sure as hell be googling them too especially if they were speaking publicly about him. Not sure how this would be incriminating?

That’s why he didn’t want the court to have access to his diary and emails

Are you also one of these people who think rape victims should hand their phones over to the police? Why would anyone want access to victim's emails? Are they not worthy of privacy?

Face it, it’s a ruse and you’ve been sucked in

Oh, sweet irony. You horrible apologist, you are the reason CSA victims suffer, with your perpetuation of myths and ideas of how victims should look act and behave. Picking apart every innocent action to twist it into something it's not. Vile to the core, people like you. I hope you're proud and I hope to god you have no children with this attitude

And your manipulation of language is sloppy at best. "Caught" sending innocent emails? Pfft get a clue

Rob, the thread has been fairly inactive but it's you who keeps posting stuff to make sure it stays the top, for your own benefit. This isn't about helping others make their minds up at all. On that note I shall leave well alone moq.

Whoops, now not moq!

OK, let me reframe the question: what would a "credible" victim look like you? One who stays silent? Or who remembers ever tiny detail, event and date from 3 decades ago? Or one who cries and shakes every time they speak like Little Mo? And how much do you know about how victims typically do speak about their trauma?

A credible victim for start with a straight and consistent story, not one which swings and changes with the tide. TBH, they haven't helped themselves in this at all by defending him, as adults they had that choice to speak out which most people would do in that situation. You seem to be making excuses for reasons why they don't remember every detail, yet they seem to recall very minute details very well in film. Very specific details which if they were suffering from memory loss/block they wouldn't be able to do. Seems you ant your cake and eating it. Can't have it both ways.

Well if I thought there were other CSA victims of the man who raped me as a child I would sure as hell be googling them too especially if they were speaking publicly about him. Not sure how this would be incriminating?

More excuses for poor Wade. He wouldn't need to if he had his tale to tell, tell it how it was, you don't need to google other accounts and then try and hide it. He was doing it so he could make his account match up and people like you think "ah yeah that all matches up as the other guys said the same". You realise he refused to give the courts access to his emails for this reason. He wasn't after privacy, if he had nothing to hide and only wanted clarity and to open, he would have given them access. The courts don't just ask to see them for any old reason, it was for a specific purpose and Wade wanted to block that. But you go and make excuses.

Speaking about privacy, I see you ignored my points about Brett Barnes. What happened to his rights for privacy?

Oh, sweet irony. You horrible apologist, you are the reason CSA victims suffer, with your perpetuation of myths and ideas of how victims should look act and behave. Picking apart every innocent action to twist it into something it's not. Vile to the core, people like you. I hope you're proud and I hope to god you have no children with this attitude

Oh yes my views on this case are the reason every victim doesn't come forward. Get a grip of yourself. The facts are there for all to see, there is no twisting. They are what that they are. There is more than just me calling these men into question. You can't just go making serious allegations like this and expect inconsistencies (if there are any) in what you say to not be questioned. Of course in most cases there aren't but that is genuine cases.

How will you feel if it finally proven that these men can't be telling the truth? You realise that people lie to win court cases don't you? Not everyone with a claim is being honest. It's a sad fact, but it doesn't stop it being true.

This isn't about helping others make their minds up at all

Oh trust me, it stopped being about it that a long time ago. People who dared question these two are long chased off with attacks on here. The ones still posting have already made their mind up about MJ's guilt and nothing will change that. Even if they came out and admitted they were lying, there will be those who still think MJ was guilty.

Any, I am trying to post about points relevant to thread about why it appears this 'mockmentary' appears to have the plugs pulled on it. It might still be on HBO for now, but Oprah's tweets about it remain deleted. The DVD release is indefinitely on hold and I think the online streaming of it will go the same way. Maybe the impending court action on this will go some way to setting the record straight.

Gunpowder, are all these people paedophile sympathisers also? Many people in this video who KNEW him personally. I didn't. When you combine the words of these people with the statements of Robson and Safechuck, I sleep well on the side of the fence I sit on with this. Even Bashir said he didn't think he was a criminal FFS, and he was the one who started this all off in 2005.

Rob I don't think you are going to convert folk here on Mumsnet to your way of thinking. Though I imagine you will drive this thread up to 1000 posts again. Are you posting on other places on the internet?

I've come to same conclusion as you, I'm not trying to convince people. Doesn't mean we still can't discuss it still, does it? Especially the topic of this thread which has come about since...still can't find out why it has been pulled. All the official channels are throwing a deaf one.

Gunpowder, are all these people paedophile sympathisers also?

Yes. Apart from Corey Feldman who has recently retracted his defence and states how important it is to believe victims, even though he was never abused himself.

And LOL at Donald Trump being on the video, using a rapist as an example of a real trooper for victims

A credible victim for start with a straight and consistent story, not one which swings and changes with the tide

You haven't actually stated what these mystical inconsistencies are? You've only suggested something that Wade's mother changed her mind on.

Can't have it both ways.

Actually, you can - it's possible to have vivid memories of abuse and also huge holes in your memory. Before making ducking stupid comments please do research about the impact of abuse.

tell it how it was, you don't need to google other accounts and then try and hide it.

Actually if my rapist raped other children (highly likely) I'd be very interested to k ow what they say.

You realise he refused to give the courts access to his emails for this reason

Oh really he admitted that he made it all up and that's why he wouldn't hand over his emails or maybe there's no reason why victims should give anyone access to their personal messages? I'll ask you again - are you the kind of person who thinks rape victims should hand over their phones to police?

The courts don't just ask to see them for any old reason, it was for a specific purpose and Wade wanted to block that. But you go and make excuses.

If "the courts" actually saw a need for them they would have issued a subpoena. Why do you think they didn't do that?

Oh yes my views on this case are the reason every victim doesn't come forward. Get a grip of yourself

Your views in general that:
A. "Real" victims bahve and act a certain way and
B. Men who are good at their jobs can't be pedophiles

You really ought to be ashamed

How will you feel if it finally proven that these men can't be telling the truth?

In the nigh-on impossible chance of that happening I'd be disappointed. But they're not lying, the whole told can see it, apart from a low-IQ select few
How would YOU feel if 10 more men came forward to say they were abused? Would you spot signs that you believe make them a "real victim" before you believe their stories?

Not everyone with a claim is being honest. It's a sad fact, but it doesn't stop it being true.

False allegations are exceptionally rare. On the balance of probabilities of that alone - without taking any testimonies into account - he's highly likely to be guilty

You are so embarrassingly deluded, you insensitive freak, it's shocking. As I've said before look up:

1. How victims actually behave
2. What grooming means and it's long term effects
3. The legal aspects of taking this to civil court

After all the staunch defence and belief in these two, you'd be disappointed? That's it? Wow....also, can you find anywhere I have said it is okay for a paedophile to abuse kids as long as they are good at something? I'd like for you to highlight that for me, you won't find it. It's your own hysteria kicking in.

Wade Robson emailing himself abuse stories from other people wasn't him wanting to know, it was so he could build up his story so that people like you will buy it. How else do you explain the email he sent his Mum asking if a specific case he was named in was true, his mother replied no it wasn't true and then he went ahead and included the story anyway in his case. Even though he KNEW it wasn't true and a lie.

The courts made him hand over his emails after he denied any knowledge of the MJ estate yet had been in contact with John Branca over the Circ show and it was made known that these conversations had been in email format, that's how it came about. John Branca is one of the executors of the estate. These proved that Wade Robson was lying then and the judge even said as much in court documents, that he would have trouble convincing any jury of his testimony.

In terms of the inconsistencies, there are loads. I've stated some of them a few times over the threads, but you've clearly chosen to ignore them. The inconsistencies are laid out in this very well made counter to Leaving Neverland.

I know you won't watch it and you aren't interested in the truth. Someone wanting to make their own up and would watch it and guarantee it will leave you will a lot of doubt over this whole affair.

I'll summarise

1. In the film, Wade said he stayed with MJ while his family went off the Grand Canyon. His mother has twice stated in a sworn statement that he went with the family.

1. In the film Wade said that the abuse started when he was 7. In 2011, Wade's mum stated on a radio interview that MJ and Wade hardly spent any time together, and that they didn't come to this country until he was 9 years old. This interview was found and tweeted out by John Ziegler and in less than 24 hours it was deleted from youtube.

1. James Safechuck and the train station. Losing a few years is not possible, I'm sorry. I don't buy it. There are telling the whole story so full of detail, but then got the date so wrong. Dan Reed has messed up big time here for not checking it first. He has been saying to anyone who will listen that MJ replaced the boys at puberty, but this is a huge discrepancy.

1. The fact that James Safechuck said he was phoned and harassed by MJ, even though months before it was decided by the judge he would never be allowed to testify.

1. In the film Wade said there was a family meal which convinced him to testify on MJs behalf, even though this meal took place AFTER he had testified, so that can't be true. This was confirmed by Taj Jackson and Brett Barnes who were at the same meal.

1. In the film Wade Robson claims he was given a subpoena to testify in 2005, something which the very credible Scott Ross who was on the legal team at the time, said never happened.

1. Safechuck claims he told his mum in 2005 Michael was a bad man. HIs Mum didn't do anything about it or probe it more? Sorry but no. No parent would do that if you thought there was a chance the person who abused your child was about to be on trial for the same thing. He then said he didn't know until 2013 he had been abused.

1. Wade Robson had financial difficulty in 2012 and James Safechuck joined the claim in 2013 when he and his mum were being sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars. They also left it just long enough that the wouldn't be in trouble for perjury from the 2005 case (well Robson anyway), coincidence?

1. in the film, Wade said he wanted a platform for other abuse victims and wanted to bring to light to help others. If that's the case, why was his first claim with the estate done in secret. How will other abuse victims know about it? It doesn't match up.

10. In the film, Wade's wife said she had no knowledge of CSA. Yet when Wade set up his Robson Family Fund, on it he claimed his wife was a CSA abuse survivor herself. Probably to get more donations and support. After LN was released, her name was removed from the website altogether, to make the stories match up.

11. In the film Wade is shown to be burning MJ memorabilia, but he had already auctioned his bits in 2012 when he was broke. He was done for effect.

12. In the film James said he took the Thriller jacket, when offered it by MJ. This has been proven to be untrue as there was only two made. One was auctioned and one is on show in an MJ museum. Another lie.

They also edited parts of what MJ said, such as the bit about Hawaii when they made it sound like he had just loved spending time with James. The fact that they left large parts of the story out to fit their narrative. They also twisted the statement made by Mark Geragos to make it sound like he was acting the people making the claims against MJ when it was about something else completely. They have left out other large parts, such as Robson writing a book, and trying to sell it to the highest bidder. Only when no one would touch it did he decide to sue the estate.

Seems like there is only one side hiding things here and twisting things to suit their story. And you wonder why people are having issues with it? If you wanna be dumb enough to fall into the trap of believing them go ahead, but don't make me out to be a bad person for questioning these claims when there are such massive issues with the story.

Even HBO are starting to get a bit comfortable, they have amended the wording on this film 3 times now. You couldn't make this up.

They have gone from 'they were abused', to 'alleged abuse' to removing the abuse angle altogether. Bit too late now, the damage is done.

Well I was coming on to answer your tripe questions one by one but TBH you're too dense about sexual abuse issues to trust that you'll process what I say properly. But how do those straws feel you're clutching? Seriously, Jackson can't be a pedophile because of a HBO description 😂😂 Get. A. Life.

Have a nice weekend you pedophile supporter. And yes, you are one, not just of Jackson but of most peadophiles, because you don't believe people can be abusers unless their victims fit a certain profile. It's tragic people like you exist in the world, you are what makes it regressive for people like me and the other survivors of sexual abuse I meet and support (I run a local group for survivors so hear a lot of people stories that you'd no doubt call liars because some of them have sketchy memories mixed with vivid memories), perpetuating your dangerous attitude and myths. Congrats on that. Honestly as a CSA survivor I'm not even mad at people who do make stories up about abuse - not that Jackson's victims are any of those people - they don't anger me in the least. They don't hold me back from speaking up. Apologists like you anger me and hold me back.

I can't say what I really want to because MN will ban me, but I will leave you with this - see you next Tuesday you pedophile supporter 👍🏽

Clutching at straws there. Paedophile supporter, nah mate I hate them. I’m very much in support of the hunter groups that go round and keep children safe. That I support. Guess what they have to use, EVIDENCE.

Nice twisting of words there to make it fit what your argument. The lies are there for all to see. Some don’t want to see and just believe anything and in this day and age it’s even easier to believe.

Have I commented on the case of any other abuse claims or just this one? I am not holding anyone else back, but twist it how you want.

I see you didn’t answer any of points at all. You said you wanted more examples of the lies, I gave you them. My guess is you don’t have an answer to them.

You don’t have an issue with people make up lies about sexual abuse. You realise how fucked up that is? Claims like this destroy lives and to to ruin someone’s life over false claims, anyone caught doing that deserves to be banged up.

Out of interest, why do you think HBO keep altering the choice of words in the description? Why not stick with the original wording if they stand by what they are saying? Can you see they are changing their stance on this?