Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
5,463
Points
63
Smooth72;4241821 said:
How can they legally use video and pictures of MJ and Neverland?

I wonder about that as well. Can they just do that?

elusive moonwalker;4241823 said:
Good. Mind you it said it all when they stood there at the press conference laughing. And it says alot when dozens of of invited brainwashers left the viewing. If haters thought it was fake... massive P.R campaign cause they know when its aired just like with robson on U.S t.v shows the public will be like yeah right😕

Robson tried to get chandler involved in his case. They wanted nothing to do with it. Reed is full of S!@#$

Yeah, but what I want to know if did they leave because it was just a bad, bad "documentary" and just wasting their time or were they disgusted because of the details (lies) being told? Hoping it's the former because then I can see people at home thinking the same and tuning off.

marc_vivien;4241827 said:
[h=1]'He Was a Sexual Predator' Says Director of New Michael Jackson Doc[/h]
[h=2]https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43znmj/he-was-a-sexual-predator-says-director-of-new-michael-jackson-doc-leaving-neverland-hbo

“Porn and candy,” James Safechuck says with a sigh in the upcoming HBO documentary Leaving Neverland, recounting one of the countless sexual encounters he claims to have shared with Michael Jackson as a child. The four-hour film recounts his story as well as that of Wade Robson, another boy who says he was groomed to be Jackson’s secret child lover over a period of many years.[/h]

In each case, the film alleges, Jackson sought out children who mythologized him, slowly seducing their parents with vacations, houses, and money, while psychologically manipulating the boys into thinking they were liable accomplices in his sex crimes. The boys’ stage performances and sycophancy toward Jackson are endearing (what 80s child wouldn’t fall to pieces when gifted a “Thriller” jacket or “Smooth Criminal” hat?) which makes the graphic and detailed account of their sexual allegations against Jackson all the more horrifying to endure.
James Safechuck first met Jackson when they co-starred together in a 1988 Pepsi commercial. The two became inseparable, with Jackson often staying over at Safechuck’s home, bringing him along as a Mini Me performer on the Bad Tour, and, according to Safechuck, lavishing him with jewelry (including a diamond ring used in a mock wedding ceremony between the two). Safechuck alleges that Jackson supplied him with wine and the two would perform sexual acts on each other on a daily basis, both at Neverland Ranch and in hotel rooms on tour (where his mother was often booked in a separate room).





Around the same time, Jackson met five-year-old Australian Wade Robson after he won a lookalike dance contest. Similar to Safechuck, the Robson family claims that Jackson seduced them with a life of luxury while routinely engaging in sex with their son. When they were apart, Jackson called and faxed Robson every day, often staying on the phone for “six to seven hours at a time,” according to his mother.



The descriptive interviews with both Safechuck and Robson (now in their thirties) about the sex they claim to have had with Jackson leave little to the imagination. Phrases like “bloody underwear,” “squeezing his nipples while he ejaculates,” and “a grown man’s penis in my seven-year-old mouth” are difficult to sit through, but perhaps necessary when considering what these guys are up against in coming forward with these allegations.
The Jackson estate has been working hard to discredit HBO and the director and subjects of Leaving Neverland, releasing a ten page letter to the company citing numerous grievances (including calling Robson unreliable because his father suffered from mental health issues and took his own life).
Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed doesn’t feel that the Jackson estate has any legs to stand on in criticizing his film, and is optimistic that all of this will lead to greater conversation about sexual abusers in positions of power. I recently caught up with Reed to discuss the emotional, legal and cultural turmoil his film has wrought on society, and whether or not we should all stop listening to Jackson’s music.
VICE: There have been so many books, documentaries, and TV specialsfocusing on the psychology of Michael Jackson and the abuse he endured as a child impacting his behavior as an adult. Was it a conscious choice for you to not explore Jackson’s internal world at all in this film?
Dan Reed: Well it’s not a film about Michael Jackson. It’s about the Robsons and Safechucks and their encounters with Jackson. I never met Michael Jackson, I never interviewed him, I don’t know what it was in his history or his psychological makeup that led him to molest little boys, and I don’t want to speculate on that.




I don’t think that having a tragic childhood determines your behavior later in life. Not everyone who has a bad childhood or was sexually abused becomes a sex abuser. What I was fascinated about with this story is the picture [Robson and Safechuck] draw of the grooming sexual predator. And because that story involves Michael Jackson it will have an incredible reach. And that will bring to light some really important facts about how child sexual abuse does happen. It’s not how people imagine.
That’s why so many people on Twitter are asking: “Why did Robson stand up for Jackson in court? Why didn’t he just run to his mummy and say ‘Michael Jackson did these things to me’”? Well, because that’s not how sexual abuse works. And I think this film shows that in poignant detail. Abusers can make their victims fall in love with them. Like Wade says how he lived his entire life with this fantasy that Jackson’s relationship with him was a positive thing. But that was bullshit, and it was very difficult for him to admit that.
It seems like this is not so much a story about Jackson’s [alleged] abuse revelations, but more of a story about these two men contending with the abuse they endured as children.
Exactly. That’s where the film lands, when Wade and James reveal to their families the abuse they endured. To me, that’s where the emotional peak of the film is, even more than the horrible detail of the sexual transactions. It’s in the release of Wade finally telling his family and his wife the truth, which he’d lied about for so long.




Michael Jackson fandom breeds a particular kind of intensity. What has the backlash to the film been like from them?
So let me be clear about one thing: There are tens of millions of Michael Jackson fans out there in the world. People who love Michael’s music and have great memories of dancing to his music at their weddings or bar mitzvah or the last time they saw their mom. His music is interwoven into the fabric of people’s lives around the world. And a majority of MJ fans are just people who just really like his music.

But there is also this league of fans who are almost like a cult, and they say very nasty things [about the film] on social media. And their words echo the two-decade long rhetoric of the Jackson family and legal team, which is shaming the victims. It happens often in these cases. It’s what they do very aggressively and relentlessly, and I don’t think you can get away with that in 2019 like you could in the past.
The majority of Jackson fans are people who will be really shocked to hear this very compelling case of abuse by Jackson, as I was. When I first came into this I had no prejudice against Jackson, I had no fixed opinion about whether he was or wasn’t a pedophile, he could’ve been innocent. I believed he was a good guy, made good music, seemed nice to children, and I think most people were in that grey area. Sadly, it turns out he was a sexual predator, and I think a lot of people are going to rethink their view of him.



And I’m sure your next question is going to be: Should people stop listening to his music?
That is on my list of questions.
[Laughs] I wouldn’t say that there should be any hashtag to ban Michael Jackson like there is with R. Kelly. I think Jackson’s music is too woven into the fabric of American and British life, and others around the world, to just rip it out like that. Do you want your children’s party soundtrack to be MJ songs? I don’t know. I wouldn’t. But should it be banned? I don’t think so. It’s great music, he was a great artist and entertainer. He was also a pedophile.

Were those the real sequin glove and "Thriller" jacket that Robson was burning in the final credits of the film?
I wasn’t there when Wade burned those items, but the photographic evidence suggests those were the real deal, yeah.

Seems like those would be profoundly valuable items, which is particularly interesting since the Jackson estate is claiming Robson is telling his story for the money.
Sure, but I don’t think [the burning of memorabilia], in itself, validates his position. I think you have to look at the wider picture, which is that he and James weren’t paid and have no financial interest in the documentary, for a start.

They also criticize your film for not reaching out to anyone for a counterpoint to Robson and Safechuck’s story.
We included plenty of critics of Wade from Jackson’s fans, statements from Jackson while he was alive where he denied all child sexual abuse allegations, and statements from the lawyers during both investigations. I think we comprehensively represented the positions of Michael Jackson and his lawyers.




Right. There just weren’t any contemporary interviews done for the film.
Yeah, but the Jackson estate’s position, to my knowledge, hasn’t changed. They maintain that Jackson is innocent.

It seemed like it was important to you that the film include a lot of explicit detail about the [alleged] sexual acts between Jackson and these boys, and not just rely on the generic statements like “he sexually abused me.”
We had to establish that actual sexual activity was taking place. For so many years Jackson claimed that he shared a bed with children for completely innocent reasons. If we hadn’t had these very graphic, shocking descriptions of the sexual activity that took place people might just think that it was only hugs that were a bit intimate, or slightly inappropriate brushing of cheeks. We thought it was important to make clear that this was sex, not just affectionate touching.

Did you get the sense that any of Jackson’s handlers knew about or even helped facilitate aspects of this?
Well, just to be clear, I didn’t come across anything to suggest that anyone else participated in the sexual activity. If you’re asking: Were people who worked with Jackson complicit in this? That’s a question that must be asked, but it’s one I don’t have an answer to. Jackson’s life was closely managed almost 24 hours a day by his staff. Were they all completely oblivious to the sexual abuse taking place at Neverland and on tour? What did they think Jackson was doing with a boy in his bed every night?




Did you get the sense that Robson and Safechuck’s experiences were just a drop in the bucket?
I believe there were many other victims. We wanted to focus on James and Wade, and their families, who had very long relationships with Jackson. I’m sure there are others out there who will come out when the time is right for them. We’ll see.

How did Jackson’s death impact the viability of this film?
It may have been more difficult to make if he were alive today. People are still very much afraid of Jackson and his lawyers. As I went around speaking to people who were associated with the investigations, they were afraid of Jackson’s people’s ability to shutdown a lot of the victims. They employ unscrupulous PIs, and are very litigious. The power of his machine is very terrifying.

Beyond Jackson’s death, society’s handling of sexual abuse survivors is wildly different than in 1993 when the first accusations surfaced. Do you think the #MeToo movement had an impact on the reception of this film?
Oh yes, it’s incredible. And there’s a British angle to all this as well: There was a very famous, and very creepy children’s entertainer in the UK called Jimmy Savile who was knighted by the Queen, but it turned out that he was a violent, prolific child rapist with hundreds of victims. And it took a long time for that to be accepted. So by the time I made this film that case was already well known.




And then just before Sundance the R. Kelly documentary was broadcast. So we’ve been kind of blessed that there’s been this wave of believing victims of sexual abuse, instead of smearing them. I don’t think today Jackson would’ve gotten away with what he did in the 90s.
How are Robson and Safechuck doing? Are they getting away from everything while this film premieres?
Oh no. They’re stoked. The premiere at Sundance was a turning point in their lives. There was a standing ovation for them after the film, with people shouting “We believe you!” They had tears in their eyes. I think they were shocked because it was the first time they had that validation. They were so used to not being believed and being denigrated. This is a real moment for them.

Interview has been condensed for length and clarity.
Leaving Neverland part one premieres on HBO March 3, with the following installment released the next day.




He believes there are many more victims and what he says about the positive reaction about it, sigh. I really really hope his shit is gonna fall flat on its face. Please let this shit fail hard and please let this man just be without a job asap.

I really, really don't want to read anything said about/by this man anymore.

Lightbringer;4241836 said:
I left the following message on youtube and facebook:

This shambolic piece on Michael Jackson is NOT a documentary. A documentary is journalistic and investigative. You don’t just point your camera at two proven liars/perjurers and hit record! Its a "fantasy" film without any evidence, just two men with a long history of lies and contradicting stories on their record. They say its not about the money, after shopping book deal (which failed), suing the Michael Jackson estate for millions (which also failed).

Why is this not mentioned in the film? Why did the director leave out the mountains of evidence showing that these men are lying?

Unless you researched the evidence, being NEUTRAL should be the norm. Not publicly lynching a man that was exonerated in court and by FBI, POLICE, CPS etc. The ONLY thing proved in court is that MJ was the victim of greedy vultures making false claims for financial gain, thats the reality.

The deceased can not legally be defamed. The deceased also can not defend themselves. Therefore anything can be said about them and not be challenged. Open field day for false accusation from greedy already proven liars. Anything for $$$ - Facts don’t lie, people do!

Very good. To the point and informative and most importantly you stay calm. There's nothing you can argue against this.
 

dmehta

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
670
Points
0
Location
London, UK
Here is the Channel 4 version of the trailer. Shows a clip of Safechuck with the rings and talking about the wedding ceremony. Sounds so fake. Also, the rings look in great condition, and in a nice little box. Because that’s what you’d do if the person who gave you those rings abused you!

[video]https://youtu.be/VnUBWzptIdI[/video]
 

Bink

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
50
Points
6
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I won't be watching this so called documentary. I will be busy playing the History album at full blast!!!
 

FD1998

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
343
Points
18
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Is it me or does he seem like he's acting? I know a bit of body language, and it seems like he's getting revenge on someone, look at his face when he says he wanted to speak the truth longer than he spoke the lie. He's getting revenge because he gets rejected from everything. I'm glad the general public aren't listening to this, keep it up
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
5,463
Points
63
dmehta;4241843 said:
Here is the Channel 4 version of the trailer. Shows a clip of Safechuck with the rings and talking about the wedding ceremony. Sounds so fake. Also, the rings look in great condition, and in a nice little box. Because that’s what you’d do if the person who gave you those rings abused you!

[video]https://youtu.be/VnUBWzptIdI[/video]

I didn't watch the trailer myself, refuse to give it my click/hit, but based on what I'm reading here they don't appear convincing at all, more like laughable. Yet we see tweets by people that saw it calling it "powerful, very convincing, just look into their eyes." LMFAO!

Judging by the comments here I really doubt these journalists truly believe it's convincing and all that bla bla.

However, depending on how they have edited it and how they bring it with the alarm system bullshit for example, I can definitely see people believing it, especially when they have no idea what the true story is. I don't find it hard to believe that someone who is not in the know about anything that they will start to believe it.

That's just the reality.
 

tabloidjunkie95

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
28
Points
0
Location
Sweden
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I won't be watching this so called documentary. I will be busy playing the History album at full blast!!!

Same here!
Will not even be watching the trailer for a sec.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
5,463
Points
63
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I remember Wade during that Jimmy Kimmel show and he was positive about MJ, fully supportive and he looked sincere and honest there. Maybe some people who are in this profession should analyze that and compare it with how he talks in LN? I know he's this self proclaimed master of deception, but maybe that can be done. I see a video on YouTube from Ben Shapiro about Jussie Smollett, would he be a good person for this?
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
5,463
Points
63
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Is it me or does he seem like he's acting? I know a bit of body language, and it seems like he's getting revenge on someone, look at his face when he says he wanted to speak the truth longer than he spoke the lie. He's getting revenge because he gets rejected from everything. I'm glad the general public aren't listening to this, keep it up

What do you mean with the general public aren't listening to this? Because this has yet to air on TV. They will definitely hear about it quite soon now, very unfortunately.
 

Electro

Proud Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,308
Points
0
Location
East Germany
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I remember Wade during that Jimmy Kimmel show and he was positive about MJ, fully supportive and he looked sincere and honest there. Maybe some people who are in this profession should analyze that and compare it with how he talks in LN? I know he's this self proclaimed master of deception, but maybe that can be done. I see a video on YouTube from Ben Shapiro about Jussie Smollett, would he be a good person for this?


Here's a body language analysis of Robson on TV:


And one with Michael:

 

Bink

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
50
Points
6
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

And this is the thing - he says in that trailer something about now wanting to make up for the years of lying. But no one was putting a gun to his head forcing him to do those glowing interviews. If you were really being abused all those years, why on earth would you volunteer to be interviewed on TV about how wonderful your abuser was?
 

KOPV

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,907
Points
63
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

It's from this video. In 2017 a group of real esate people were allowed in because Neverland was listed for sale.


excuse my ignorance with the law when it comes to this, can the real estate company sue them for using their footage? I mean, publicly distributed footage usually has laws around using it for other purposes. Unless they OK'd it!! which would give us more to point the finger at with this project.
 

FD1998

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
343
Points
18
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

What do you mean with the general public aren't listening to this? Because this has yet to air on TV. They will definitely hear about it quite soon now, very unfortunately.

I think you've misinterpreted something here. I'm talking about the Facebook/Twitter comments, which are supportive of MJ despite not being MJ fans.
 

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,225
Points
48
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I'm feeling a bit dense here.

I read about the film trailer, went to YT, looked for 'Leaving Neverland' and found this documentary (48 mins) by Globalmovietrailers on 29 Jan 2019. It has over 175K views, and comments indicate that commenters think its the Reed doc trailer. But it's got no mention of Reed in the credits and no mention of R and S in the contents (yep, I watched it all to find out what this was - all 48 mins). LOL. There is mention of the Reed doc, Sundance and R&S in the 'About' details, but that's all.

Some of the contents are a bit 'off' (and plenty of mention of the 'Blanket' incident at the hotel window), but no more than that.

A sheep in wolf's clothing?

Leaving Neverland full documentary 2019 - Michael Jackson (Michael Jackson documentary biography)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLpzM3kj29Q


Someone taking advantage of the publicity? or planning to do a switcheroo later.....??

Dated 27 Jan 19. It predates Sundance, so just a coincidence?? (It's a useful diversion, anyway :) )
 
Last edited:

KOPV

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
12,907
Points
63
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Rotten Tomato also posted the the trailer, it's going to go mainstream.. many film buffs frequent there for movie news.



PS. I noticed the last couple days on my phone a strange issue when visiting mjjc, when I try opening threads that have multiple pages it doesn't show the page # option nor does it open the thread.. anyone notice this on there phone?
 

summer

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6,003
Points
0
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

excuse my ignorance with the law when it comes to this, can the real estate company sue them for using their footage? I mean, publicly distributed footage usually has laws around using it for other purposes. Unless they OK'd it!! which would give us more to point the finger at with this project.

I don't know where the person who posted got it from because the title about "MJ being alive" doesn't sound like someone from real estate. So I have no idea if they own it or if they got it from somewhere else. i do know however that in 2017 about 70 real estate agents were invited to Neverland because a guy on YouTube posted a video about it and then also posted a video answering questions on how he got invited. That guy also mentioned that someone had stolen the video he posted and then edted it to include things that were not there and a whole twisted story that was untrue. He said he tried YouTube to get it removed but didn't know if they in fact did that.

This was that guy's video of Neverland:


And this was him telling how he got invited to Neverland and how it was and him discrediting the stolen video that was edited to make Neverland look sinister and bad:





But to answer your question...if Dan didn't get permission from the OWNER of that video to use the footage then the owner can sue him for violating copyrights and stealing the footage. (Note just for clarity....this guy didn't post the video that was used in the film. Someone else did and it's unclear where they got it from.)
 
Last edited:

Lightbringer

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
804
Points
18
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I just spent the last 4 hours defending MJ on facebooks Channel 4 and HBO posts about the trailer. I just threw up, because of the headache I got from focusing on scrolling pages and posting videos and texts....unreal.....I am going to need to take a sleeping pill to be able to get some sleep at all :-(

Its like back in 2005 when I fought tooth and claw daily to defend MJ on various forums etc.
 
Last edited:

Carmour260

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
512
Points
18
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I just spent the last 4 hours defending MJ on facebooks Channel 4 and HBO posts about the trailer. I just threw up, because of the headache I got from focusing on scrolling pages and posting videos and texts....unreal.....I am going to need to take a sleeping pill to be able to get some sleep at all :-(

Its like back in 2005 when I fought tooth and claw daily to defend MJ on various forums etc.

Don't stress yourself out like that. That's too much. They'll find out soon enough
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
5,463
Points
63
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I think you've misinterpreted something here. I'm talking about the Facebook/Twitter comments, which are supportive of MJ despite not being MJ fans.

Aaaah I see, gotcha, my bad on that :)

With some people you just can't reason. This dude on Facebook that for some reason posts messages on the MJ FB page while clearly being a hater....he said that MJ was glorified despite having raped all those boys and that he was immune. Me and a few other people provided him with factual information.

This dude's response was "cool story bro. You do you in supporting pedophilia, I won't."

See? Some people just want to believe he did it, even when confronted with factual information. They just choose to remain a dumb **** really and I've decided I'm not gonna bother with those any longer.
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2019
Messages
1,676
Points
0
dmehta;4241850 said:
Here’s a newly uploaded video to YouTube. Wade Robson doing a Thriller cast podcast in 2008, talking glowingly about MJ and how they met:

https://youtu.be/GABDZBTUpK8

Ok sadly this video distroyed one of my good arguments of the last days I used on youtube cause the robsons obviously didn't live in australia when wade was 7-14.

But there is an evidence at the end of the video which shows that wade is lying today about his abuse claims.
He always said that MJ abused him from 7 til 14.
But in the video he said he met MJ very shortly with his family at the age of 7 and then not til he was 9 and moved to usa. So the molestations with the horrible storys he told in the movie couldn't have really took place from the age of 7 til 9.
Right?
From which age til which age claimed James that MJ did abused him?
 
Last edited:

Lightbringer

Proud Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
804
Points
18
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

O
But there is an evidence at the end of the video which shows that wade is lying today about his abuse claims.
He always said that MJ abused him from 7 til 14.
But in the video he said he met MJ very shortly with his family at the age of 7 and then not til he was 9 and moved to usa. So the molestations with the horrible storys he told in the movie couldn't have really took place from the age of 7 til 9.
Right?

You are correct. I just read the entire Michael Jackson allegations site, and its very clear that there COULD NOT HAVE BEEN any alleged abuse before Robson was 9, at earliest. Thats crystal clear if one bothers to check some facts, just do some reading.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
5,463
Points
63
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Right now I just hope that after this has aired on TV in many countries that it won't be negativity across the board. Let there please at least be one program on TV be objective, act professional, put these two guys into question, analyze their behavior, analyze everything that is out there about them.

It can't be that everyone on TV is out to shit on MJ, I refuse to believe that. What really should happen eventually is that Dan Reed is exposed along with W&S for their lies. In a few months, a year tops this mockumentary should be seen for what it is. Hopefully we can make it that far, but I doubt it. I guess it all depends on what the estate is still gonna do or not at all. And of course Taj.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 24, 2019
Messages
1,676
Points
0
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

You are correct. I just read the entire Michael Jackson allegations site, and its very clear that there COULD NOT HAVE BEEN any alleged abuse before Robson was 9, at earliest. Thats crystal clear if one bothers to check some facts, just do some reading.

Thank you.
As far as I remener from the LN Reviews Wade claimed there that the first abbuse took place in neverland when he was 7.
But this not possible when he visit him only at the bad tour when he was 7 and in his hotel.
It whould be interesting to know which concert it was where he met MJ.
It must have been in australia far away from neverland when he appeared in a dancing school the next day.
 
Last edited:

wonderouzmj

Proud Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
1,413
Points
48
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

THE 1ST 55seconds says EVERYTHING!
??*??I thought id be mad at this but after watching the trailer...I got to see new footage of MJ which was very cool! BUT these same 2 BROKE ASS little BITCHES that u cant even take seriously on here.....????*??
Idk where to start but I ??????? my ass off watching this oh & The most wonderful comments ive read in a while! According to some people who have had the chance to see this. There is no footage in it to prove that Michael Jackson did the things that they are claiming. & Bitch wade got into the States with Michael's help & got his dream career with Michael's help. Defended him for over 20 years without the slightest hint of something strange going on. People can lie!! Hard evidence does NOT!! & there has been alot of people speaking out in Michael's defence everywhere etc saying he's not this guy that they are trying to portray to the public!! Yet hbo or sundance has no knowledge. Please research before you watch this. We all know how powerful and seductive media is.No way someone can sit & watch this bullshit for 4hrs & not laugh or just know its TRASH??*??10YEARS OF RESEARCH ,2 TRIALS,NOT A LICK OF EVIDENCE PROVING ANYTHING, 1GUY KILLED HIMSELF FOR LIVING WITH THE GUILT & HE'S ON TAPE SAYIN HOW HE LIED. BUT THESE 2 MFS NEED GOD. HOW & WTF ARE YOU GAINING BY DESTROYING A DEAD MAN'S HEAVY LEGACY....BECAUSE THE ESTATE DOESNT WANNA PAY YALL UNTALENTED ASSES? MF DIDNT KNOW WADE UNTIL U GOT SERVED ANYWAY. DIDNT NOTICE HIS UNTALENTED ASS IN JAM OR BLACK OR WHITE UNTIL 2005 DURING THE TRIAL N WHICH HE DENIED UNDER ****IN OATH THAT MJ NEVER DID ANYTHING YET U WANNA WAIT TIL THE MAN DIES.....Smh goes to show how much of a BITCH he is to wait til a man dies to wanna fight but denied everything in the mans face. I wish Mj was here to slap Fire from his ass!
 

summer

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6,003
Points
0
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Ok sadly this video distroyed one of my good arguments of the last days I used on youtube cause the robsons obviously didn't live in australia when wade was 7-14.

But there is an evidence at the end of the video which shows that wade is lying today about his abuse claims.
He always said that MJ abused him from 7 til 14.
But in the video he said he met MJ very shortly with his family at the age of 7 and then not til he was 9 and moved to usa. So the molestations with the horrible storys he told in the movie couldn't have really took place from the age of 7 til 9.
Right?
From which age til which age claimed James that MJ did abused him?

Wade said it happened EVERY SINGLE TIME when he was 7-14 years old. If I remember correctly James claimed it was from when he was about 10 years old untl Brett entered the picture so ithink until he was about 14 years old but would have to check how old exactly he claimed to be.


I just read Safechuck's civil complaint again and all I could do was literally crack up laughing while reading because that whole document is one contradiction following another. It's like they already forgot what they had said only a few sentences ago because they were already contradicting themselves in the following sentences. It makes absolutely NO SENSE. Like them saying how Michael would tell James to study hard and how he would get NYU professors to teach him privately and also all these other professionals to teach him sreen writing and directing and all kinds of things about filming. But then they also claim that MJ didn't want him to get any education or that it was because MJ that he failed and had to go to community college or whatever to get good enough grades to get to USC, which he wasn't able to achieve. Oh and how hs parents pulled him from his AP classes because MJ had "groomed" them to believe he didn't need education (I'm paraphrasing here) or whatever the eff he was claiming. II don't know about you guys but my parents had no say in what classes I was gonna take and they certainly weren't going to pull me from any classes I had chosen to attend. How would that even work? "Yes hello Mr. Principal...I would like to ask you to please throw out my son from his AP classes because Michael Jackson said so. Thank you very much." Seriously? And what does anything MJ said have to do with James obviously not getting good enough grades to get in college? Dude, have some back bone and take at least a LITTLE BIT of responsibility for your own actions. But it just showes how both of them are trying to blame Michael for their own failures. Didn't get good enough grades because you didn't study hard enough or werent smart enough? Blame it on MJ. Couldn't do the directing job you got and failed? Blame it on MJ. Couldn't even GET the directing job you wanted? Blame it on MJ. Having pedophlic thoughts about your OWN children? Blame it on MJ.

Also...what I found EXTREMELY interesting in James' complaint was everything he said about how the whole thing in 2005 supposedly went down when MJ and his people supposedly "kept harrassing him" about testifying and him refusing. Because he is clearly saying that he knew then...in 2005(!!!)....that he had supposedly been abused and that his mom knew because he is saying that he told his mom to not tell Michael that she knew. So his whole "I only realized it when I started having pedophilic thoughts about my son myself after he was born" saga and him saying he wasn't able to sue before is another bullshit story where he keeps contradicting himself. Like I said....THE WHOLE COMPLAINT makes absolutely NO SENSE because anyone with ANY LOGICAL THINKING SKILLS will be like "Uhm...wait...didn't you just say the complete opposite right before this paragraph? So which story is it? This makes no sense?!"
 
Last edited:
Top