Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

[myosotis]

A 5 year old might say hes a bad man but what someone in their late 20's!

It's a quote from 'The Twilight zone' - ''It's a wonderful life'', which was MJ's favourite and is quoted in 'Threatened'. Safechuck would know that.

 

[Lightbringer]

Sending my prayers from the USA to you guys there in the UK and overseas. I'm very proud of you guys for spreading the message.

Here in the US, we moved on quickly back to R. Kelly. That interview he did was insane!

Interview? I have not heard a mumbling word about anything R Kelly in sweden. Did Kelly speak to media?

 

[CB100]

Hi, I was these boards a few years ago. Always a fan though and have come back to do what I can regarding this red alert.

I'm in UK and the media is almost wall to wall brexit chaos with a dash of teen knife crime epidemic. Today there is also letter bomb threats at various banks and airports and sanctions against a political group so I'm not sure this will make an enormous impact.
For those not on Instagram, Prince has posted some stories. Its just him talking about how unprepared he is getting caught in rain because it's LA. Looks like hes been out on his bike.He seemed completely fine and as if this wasn't happening. So perhaps he knows things we don't about estate fight back, but he really doesn't appear to be stressing. That a my 2 cents from a 10 sec clip anyway.

 

[myosotis]

Thanks TSCM

Really good article by someone who actually looks beyond the purely emotion-driven, "always believe every accuser" mantra...

https://www.wsws.org...6/mich-m06.html

Why is there so little media skepticism about Leaving Neverland and its allegations against Michael Jackson?

I agree its a great article and the comments are interesting too.

I'll copy the whole thing here so it's easier to read. (Skip the 'drug overdose' remark.)

Why is there so little media skepticism about Leaving Neverland and its allegations against Michael Jackson?
By David Walsh
6 March 2019
On March 3 and 4, US cable and satellite television network HBO aired Leaving Neverland, a 236-minute documentary directed by British filmmaker Dan Reed, in two parts. The film is a co-production between HBO and UK broadcaster Channel 4. It premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in late January.

Leaving Neverland consists principally of two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, detailing their claims that pop singer Michael Jackson sexually abused them as children over the course of many years, in the 1980s and 1990s. Other members of their respective immediate families are the only other interviewees in the documentary.


Michael Jackson in 1988 (Photo-Zoran Veselinovic)
Jackson, the third most successful musical artist of all time and a tragic victim of the American entertainment industry, died of a drug overdose in June 2009. Both Robson and Safechuck, who spent considerable time with Jackson when they were young, were strong defenders of the singer while he was alive.

Robson, a dancer and choreographer, twice testified under oath that Jackson had done nothing wrong. He was a defense witness in May 2005 during Jackson’s trial on child sexual abuse charges (at the end of which the pop star was found not guilty on all 14 counts). Under sustained grilling by the prosecutor in the case, Robson was adamant that Jackson’s conduct had never been inappropriate. He also spoke strongly about Jackson following the pop star’s death.

Robson made a sudden volte-face in 2013, when he filed a lawsuit against the Jackson estate alleging that he had been systematically molested. That case was thrown out on the grounds that he had waited too long to take legal action. A subsequent suit against two corporate entities owned by Jackson when he was alive was also dismissed. Safechuck added his name to Robson’s lawsuit in 2014. He too had always previously insisted on the innocence of his friendship with Jackson. Robson and Safechuck, who are appealing the dismissal of their suits, are represented by the same law firm. An attorney for the Jackson estate in 2013 termed the Robson lawsuit a money-grab, “transparent … outrageous and sad.”

Reed’s Leaving Neverland, over the course of four hours, does not provide the opportunity for anyone to rebut the Robson-Safechuck charges. There are only two brief acknowledgements that “another side of the story” exists: an intertitle revealing that Brett Barnes and actor Macaulay Culkin, who are referenced in the film as other boys whom Jackson befriended, continue to deny any impropriety, and a brief video clip of Jackson’s attorney in the 2005 case, Thomas Mesereau, commenting in 2013 on Robson’s “very, very suspicious” change of heart.

The vast bulk of the interminable, claustrophobic Leaving Neverland, aside from the many irrelevant aerial shots of the various cities and locales mentioned in the interviews, intended presumably to help relieve the tedium, consists of Robson and Safechuck setting out their claims. They do so in lurid and semi-pornographic detail. Things have come to such a pass that this exercise in voyeurism and prurience is described as “hard-hitting” and “riveting.” On offer here is a purported view of what went on in Michael Jackson’s bed, as though that could be illuminating or valuable in any possible fashion.

Even if Jackson were a pedophile, and the film’s “first-hand account” provides no substantiation whatsoever of that claim, those who made Leaving Neverland and those promoting it are morally deplorable and shameless. They are seeking to profit from the film and exploit the events to advance their careers and make money.

Director Dan Reed is a dubious figure. His filmmaking career embodies the unattractive confluence of tabloid journalism, the “global war on terror” and #MeToo campaigning.

The Pacific Standard magazine in 2016 headlined an article about Reed, “Meet the filmmaker who recreates terrorist attacks for HBO.” The piece explained breathlessly that Reed specialized “in helming non-fiction films about modern terrorist events. These documentaries air in the United States on HBO and are all preceded by a fittingly intimidating disclaimer—they are called (in order by year) Terror in Moscow, Terror in Mumbai, and Terror at the Mall.” His next effort, which also aired on HBO, was Three Days of Terror: The Charlie Hebdo Attacks. (Other films include From Russia with Cash, Frontline Fighting: Battling ISIS and The Paedophile Hunter.) None of his works strays from the official government line on any issue and none indicates the slightest interest in the geopolitical and social concerns driving US and UK interventions in the Middle East, Central Asia and elsewhere.

Everything about Leaving Neverland produces a bad odor.

Reed, Oprah Winfrey and others insist that the film is not meant as an indictment of Jackson, but intended to “open a discussion” on child sexual abuse and related questions. If that is so, why does the film not include a single appearance by a psychiatrist, an expert on pedophilia or anyone else genuinely qualified to address such issues? The sordid, sensationalized motives are expressed in the structure and overall feel of the film itself. Leaving Neverland is not designed to educate, but to numb, intimidate and pollute.

In a February 7, 2019, letter addressed to HBO Chief Executive Officer Richard Pepler, attorney Howard Weitzman, representing the Jackson estate, asserted that his client had “spent years litigating with Robson and Safechuck, and had four different lawsuits by these two men dismissed with prejudice. (Today, Robson owes the Estate almost seventy thousand dollars in court costs, and Safechuck owes the Estate several thousand dollars as well.) In those litigations, the Estate discovered troves of information about Robson and Safechuck that made it unequivocally clear that they had no credibility whatsoever.”

Weitzman went on, “Robson and Safechuck are now appealing the dismissal of their multi-million dollar lawsuits. Not coincidentally, their appeals are likely to be heard later this year. HBO’s ‘documentary’ is simply just another tool in their litigation playbook, which they are obviously using in a (very misguided) effort to somehow affect their appeals.”

Referring to the trial in 2005, he argued forcefully, “Michael Jackson was subjected to a decade-long investigation by an overly-zealous, ethically-challenged, and ultimately disgraced prosecutor in Santa Barbara County, Tom Sneddon, who looked anywhere and everywhere for supposed ‘victims’ of Jackson’s. Yet, he never found those ‘victims.’ Indeed, the 2005 criminal trial of Jackson was a complete farce, and Michael Jackson was completely exonerated.

“As anyone who has studied that trial knows, the jury utterly repudiated the prosecution’s case. In both his opening and closing statements, Jackson’s attorney, Tom Mesereau, took the unusual step of telling the jury that they should acquit Jackson because Mesereau and his team had proven Jackson innocent. In other words, he did not try the case as a ‘reasonable doubt’ case. Mr. Mesereau tried the case with the purpose and goal of proving Jackson innocent. And he did exactly that. As recently as 2017, several jurors were re-interviewed about the case in light of Robson’s about-face, and they all agreed that they would still acquit Jackson today. The jurors have been interviewed many times; they are articulate bright people, not the gullible idiots that Dan Reed tries to paint them as in his ‘documentary.’ Yet HBO is relying on the uncorroborated stories of two admitted perjurers over the weight of the American justice system.”

Weitzman concluded, “We know that HBO [now owned by AT&T] is facing serious competitive pressures from Netflix, Amazon and other more modern content providers, but to stoop to this level to regain an audience is disgraceful. We know HBO and its partners on this documentary will not be successful. We know that this will go down as the most shameful episode in HBO’s history.”

It remains the case that “sex sells,” and HBO officials were more than willing to degrade themselves with this travesty of a documentary in the interest of audience numbers and profits.

The WSWS wrote a number of times on “Michael Jackson’s tragedy,” beginning in December 2003 and continuing through his death and memorial in June 2009.

At the time of his arrest on charges of child molestation in 2003, we noted that “a life spent in a show business cocoon” had seriously damaged him (the “Peter Pan” complex, the immaturity, the questionable marriages, etc.): “What are other people to make of Michael Jackson when he obviously has so little idea of who he is himself?”

We insisted that Jackson was entitled to the presumption of innocence and argued that even if he “were proven guilty of such crimes as to justify his being separated from the community, a humane society would view him with sadness and even sympathy, rather than scorn and hatred.” We argued that “having helped create Jackson, manipulated his appeal and nurtured his personal eccentricities,” the establishment would now make use of him as a scapegoat or sacrificial lamb.

Another observation on the WSWS in 2003 proved all too prophetic, “However Michael Jackson’s court case turns out, one has the feeling that a sad, perhaps even tragic fate lies in store for the performer. Everything about American society and its entertainment industry in particular, of which he is both a celebrated figure and a victim, would seem to point in that direction.”

Even in death, it turns out, the sharks and scavengers will not let him rest.

A striking feature of the present situation is the almost universal acceptance of the Robson-Safechuck claims by the American media. The word of two individuals, who have been seeking monetary compensation from the Jackson estate for years, is taken as gospel. Why is there so little skepticism, why are so few questions being asked? This is not a reflection of “popular opinion,” as it were. It is not difficult to find on various “non-authoritative” websites and blogs serious and sometimes insightful criticism of Leaving Neverland.

Even in the 2003–2005 period, during Jackson’s trial, which was a debacle for the prosecution, and in its aftermath, there was a general sympathy for the singer in liberal and left circles. We remarked in 2003 that the “campaign by Santa Barbara authorities against Jackson has reactionary political and social overtones. County district attorney Tom Sneddon is a conservative Republican with an ax to grind.” Sneddon was associated with the Bush forces and evidently saw himself as “a crusader in a cultural and moral war.” This writer was invited to discuss the Jackson case on a Wisconsin Public Radio program in December 2003, which included calls from listeners.

Things have changed. Upper middle class layers in and around the Democratic Party, immensely enriched by the stock market boom and other ill-gotten windfalls, have moved farther to the right. The #MeToo movement is one reflection of a social shift. Hostility to elementary democratic norms has “blossomed” among these layers. They have further differentiated themselves from the general population. Intense egotism and arrogance predominate among the affluent petty bourgeois, along with contempt for the masses. They calculate that with money comes wisdom, and their word should be law. The accuser “must be believed” is now the watchword, and presumption of innocence and due process be damned.

The allegations of Robson and Safechuck cannot be doubted or even scrutinized, because that would throw the entire #MeToo witch-hunt into question.

Billionaire Oprah Winfrey, who utters another banality every time she opens her mouth, is the spiritual-financial leader of this movement and the New York Times is its intellectual “backbone.”

The Times’ Maureen Dowd, one of the moral pillars of our time, penned a disgusting column denouncing Michael Jackson on February 16, “The King of Pop—and Perversion.” This is from the newspaper that speaks for New York City’s super-rich and has promoted every bloody crime of American imperialism for the past two decades.

Dowd writes, “As Leaving Neverland shows, Michael Jackson spent his life shape-shifting from best pal, father figure and beneficent idol into cruel, manipulative rapist.” The film, in reality, does not show anything. It passes on the unsubstantiated, unproven assertions of two individuals. The columnist continues, “It was apparent for decades that Jackson’s cotton-candy lair was sulfurous. But as with other monsters—Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, Woody Allen, Jeffrey Epstein and Bryan Singer—many turned a blind eye.”

Dowd’s reactionary, McCarthyite smear—merely one of dozens in the mainstream media along similar lines—is the product of an unhinged, increasingly right-wing layer.

To present Jackson as a “monster” is dishonest and reprehensible. His difficulties and peculiarities did not come out of the blue. What was his life? As we noted 16 years ago, “An almost preternaturally talented boy from a dysfunctional, working class family, Jackson was swept up by the American entertainment industry’s bone-crushing machinery.” One way or another, his quasi-infantilism was linked to the lack of a genuine childhood.

Now, more than ever, such social and psychological considerations are simply wiped away, dismissed with contempt. There isn’t a trace of sympathy or elemental humanity in the media coverage. The creation of “monsters,” sexual predators and the like, has become essential to the operations and agenda of the Democratic Party in particular, utterly incapable of addressing the underlying social rot and misery in America.

Michael Jackson has been dead for nearly a decade. Now he is being excoriated, trampled upon once more—for what? The whole business has degenerated into a squalid pursuit of money and career advancement. We condemn it.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/03/06/mich-m06.html

 

[CrazyVegasMJ]

I don’t feel very good after just finishing both parts of LN... like I want to believe it couldn’t be true for even a split second... but I’m very torn right now and somewhat devastated you guys and I’m sorry I hope I don’t offend anyone.. is there anyone here who’s feeling similar?

 

[myosotis]

I've been back on this forum ever since the LN news began and I wasn't aware of that at all. I was under the impression that Safechuck made it clear he wasn't going to testify on Michael's behalf but did confirm nothing ever happened.

Why would you tell your mom this, ask her to keep it quiet when you can also actually join Sneddon and Arvizo I wonder?

Safechuck is not a reliable reporter of his own conversations.

That is the section of his claim where he says that MJ 'had the best lawyers and would get him for perjury in 1993.'

Great MJ lawyers they'd be, if they charged Safechuck with perjury for saying MJ was INNOCENT in 1993.

(So that 'threat' makes no sense, and nor does anything else Safechuck writes in his complaints). It's not worth trying to make his claims 'add up'.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

I don’t feel very good after just finishing both parts of LN... like I want to believe it couldn’t be true for even a split second... but I’m very torn right now and somewhat devastated you guys and I’m sorry I hope I don’t offend anyone.. is there anyone here who’s feeling similar?

You should read up on the case or watch the youtube videos mj and wade the true story. The evidence against them is over whelming

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Safechuck is not a reliable reporter of his own conversations.

That is the section of his claim where he says that MJ 'had the best lawyers and would get him for perjury in 1993.'

Great MJ lawyers they'd be, if they charged Safechuck with perjury for saying MJ was INNOCENT in 1993.

(So that 'threat makes no sense, and nor does anything else Safechuck writes in his complaints)

Lol and lawyers cant do you for anything.the D.A would charge

 

[strangerinncl]

I don’t feel very good after just finishing both parts of LN... like I want to believe it couldn’t be true for even a split second... but I’m very torn right now and somewhat devastated you guys and I’m sorry I hope I don’t offend anyone.. is there anyone here who’s feeling similar?

Unfortunately I feel the same. I never had doubts before but now I do - lots of them. Less so with Robson, but Safechuck in particular I find believable. I keep scrolling through the boards and news sites to find some concrete revelation that will prove these guys are lying but I can’t. The last 24 hours have been very tough for me.

 

[Lightbringer]

I don’t feel very good after just finishing both parts of LN... like I want to believe it couldn’t be true for even a split second... but I’m very torn right now and somewhat devastated you guys and I’m sorry I hope I don’t offend anyone.. is there anyone here who’s feeling similar?

There is a special thread for people doubting: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/142617-Asking-ourselves-tough-questions

Just got to ask though. How well informed are you? Have you read all the court documents from 2013 to 2017 on Robson & Safechuck? You just witnessed 4 hours propaganda with detailed child pornography, so its not strange you feel sick. Just imagine how anyone not a fan reacts to that!

 

[CrazyVegasMJ]

Unfortunately I feel the same. I never had doubts before but now I do - lots of them. Less so with Robson, but Safechuck in particular I find believable. I keep scrolling through the boards and news sites to find some concrete revelation that will prove these guys are lying but I can’t. The last 24 hours have been very tough for me.

I feel lost.. yes they’ve made a ton of contradicting statements I suppose but I believe them when they said they wanted to help save Michael all this time until recently... and I agree that Wade is less convincing than James but oh my god James’ story is heartbreaking and I will always be a fan of the music and videos but I just don’t know like if I’ll be able to push his art onto anymore friends of family, or especially my own children....I am devastated!

Literally crying as I’m typing this on my phone at work

 

[Lightbringer]

Unfortunately I feel the same. I never had doubts before but now I do - lots of them. Less so with Robson, but Safechuck in particular I find believable. I keep scrolling through the boards and news sites to find some concrete revelation that will prove these guys are lying but I can’t. The last 24 hours have been very tough for me.

How about you reply to the arguments and messages people have written to you? Its impossible for anyone to communicate with you, if you are not responding to arguments the other way. We are trying to lay out the facts for you, and instead of following up, you ignore us and comes back with another message saying you have doubts about Safechuck. If you can respond to our arguments and factually back up your doubts, and debunk our theories, then its fine! But dont just throw doubt around without making a detailed argument, its not helpful!
---

I will quote myself below, and then also the latest bogus argument from Safechuck that MJ threatened him they could get him for perjury, for LYING that MJ was innocent in 1993. It would mean MJ would go to court and say: "HEY JUDGE, Safechuck needs to go to jail, because he said I did not molest Jordan Chandler, and that not true, so he perjured himself" (meaning MJ would admit to molesting Jordan Chandler)

Someone saying it doesn’t really count as proof. I really hope someone can find a photo or video as proof - I’m a fan in need of a reason to not believe Safechuck because right now I think I do believe him

Alright, so you are now convinced Michael molested Safechuck:

OK. So you believe MJ called and begged Safechuck to testify in the trial even though he WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to testify in the trial. So first you believe that. And then you believe MJ phoned the mother to beg for her to convince Safechuck to testify in the trial he WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to testify in.

And then you believe Safechuck told his mother he had been abused, and also told her to not reveal it. So when Michael called she pretended all was fine.

And then Safechuck and his mother let the child molester get away with molesting Gavin Arvizo - and left Michael Jackson the SERIAL MOLESTER on the lose so could go on abusing other children and possible his own children!

And then you believe Safechuck telling his mother he had been ABUSED in 2005, but AT THE SAME TIME, not realizing IT WAS ABUSE until he received his first child (1st version) or when he saw Robson on TV (2nd version).

And then he hired a lawyer that was an expert on child abuse, focused mainly on child abuse in school. And had him file a civil lawsuit claiming "MJJ Productions were a school and should be held responsible for all children within it." And the lawyer used his "regular" school abuse cases as the platform for Safechucks civil suit.

Further note: Safechuck also claims he was concerned about pedophiliac urges in 2010, I am not sure how that fits in with everything else or not being aware he was abused.

Sounds extremely credible all of it, does it?

---

Safechuck is not a reliable reporter of his own conversations.

That is the section of his claim where he says that MJ 'had the best lawyers and would get him for perjury in 1993.'

Great MJ lawyers they'd be, if they charged Safechuck with perjury for saying MJ was INNOCENT in 1993.

(So that 'threat makes no sense, and nor does anything else Safechuck writes in his complaints)

 

[CrazyVegasMJ]

There is a special thread for people doubting: http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/142617-Asking-ourselves-tough-questions

Just got to ask though. How well informed are you? Have you read all the court documents from 2013 to 2017 on Robson & Safechuck? You just witnessed 4 hours propaganda with detailed child pornography, so its not strange you feel sick. Just imagine how anyone not a fan reacts to that!

I watched the 30 min YouTube video on wade and MJ a few days ago but I still don’t think that means he must be lying now.. what about Safechuck? The act of having them alone without their parents for so many days is a form of manipulation already—an abuse of power I feel.. I’ve always felt him sharing his room was inappropriate on its own, let alone anything sexual happening ...even if 10% of these sexual claims are true then that’s already too much for me... like I have always been a damn die-hard fan and I still haven’t spoken to anyone in real life about this except my wife for about 30 seconds but now I don’t thjnk I can go on defending him any longer... enjoy his work forever of course, it’s too baked in to my own DNA for me to ignore the music, but I can’t defend him..

My wife and I were at the fricking Trial in 2005...one of the fans along the fence chanting for him and screaming when he’d arrive and leave.... a DIE HARD! Idk what to do now

 

[L.T.D]

Mekejejejejej

 

[myosotis]

I watched the 30 min YouTube video on wade and MJ a few days ago but I still don’t think that means he must be lying now.. what about Safechuck? The act of having them alone without their parents for so many days is a form of manipulation already—an abuse of power I feel.. I’ve always felt him sharing his room was inappropriate on its own, let alone anything sexual happening ...even if 10% of these sexual claims are true then that’s already too much for me... like I have always been a damn die-hard fan and I still haven’t spoken to anyone in real life about this except my wife for about 30 seconds but now I don’t thjnk I can go on defending him any longer... enjoy his work forever of course, it’s too baked in to my own DNA for me to ignore the music, but I can’t defend him..

My wife and I were at the fricking Trial in 2005...one of the fans along the fence chanting for him and screaming when he’d arrive and leave.... a DIE HARD! Idk what to do now

Go back and read the Estate letters and fan rebuttals.

You have been sucked into Reed's disgusting world, and the stories R and S have made up are designed to get a reaction. Distance yourself and start thinking rationally. No one on here can 'convince' you if you are not in a 'rational' state of mind ie if you are under the influence of emotional manipulation.

 

[Lightbringer]

I watched the 30 min YouTube video on wade and MJ a few days ago but I still don’t think that means he must be lying now.. what about Safechuck? The act of having them alone without their parents for so many days is a form of manipulation already—an abuse of power I feel.. I’ve always felt him sharing his room was inappropriate on its own, let alone anything sexual happening ...even if 10% of these sexual claims are true then that’s already too much for me... like I have always been a damn die-hard fan and I still haven’t spoken to anyone in real life about this except my wife for about 30 seconds but now I don’t thjnk I can go on defending him any longer... enjoy his work forever of course, it’s too baked in to my own DNA for me to ignore the music, but I can’t defend him..

My wife and I were at the fricking Trial in 2005...one of the fans along the fence chanting for him and screaming when he’d arrive and leave.... a DIE HARD! Idk what to do now

Pleease see the post #6096 I made in response to strangerinncl just minutes ago. If you have doubts you need to get into an argument of facts. That the only thing that will help you feel better or finally convince you that MJ was a monster once and for all. I am looking forward to you response to my and myostosis posts above about Safechuck. Lets have a constructive factual debate instead of rushing to conclusions based on emotion after watching 4 hours of propaganda.

Also, the abuse of power you talk about IS ONLY ABUSE POWER if MJ molested the kids. Remember, Corey Feldman had the EXACT SAME EXPERIENCE with MJ as them, but nothing sexual happened to him. Brett Barnes must be the same.

 

[lom kit]

German TV Channel PRO7 is going to show it.
Its also avaible on Amazon

 

[L.T.D]

I watched the 30 min YouTube video on wade and MJ a few days ago but I still don’t think that means he must be lying now.. what about Safechuck? The act of having them alone without their parents for so many days is a form of manipulation already—an abuse of power I feel.. I’ve always felt him sharing his room was inappropriate on its own, let alone anything sexual happening ...even if 10% of these sexual claims are true then that’s already too much for me... like I have always been a damn die-hard fan and I still haven’t spoken to anyone in real life about this except my wife for about 30 seconds but now I don’t thjnk I can go on defending him any longer... enjoy his work forever of course, it’s too baked in to my own DNA for me to ignore the music, but I can’t defend him..

My wife and I were at the fricking Trial in 2005...one of the fans along the fence chanting for him and screaming when he’d arrive and leave.... a DIE HARD! Idk what to do now

Your mind wasnt changed during his trial but it was changed by a 4 hour documentary? Living with Michael Jackson and the trial itself being the 2nd time he was accused I would of thought would be more convincing than this.

 

[DDam]

I've not watched it. Seems people are swayed when they watch it even fans here, and asking to prove theyre lying.
It's up to the accusers to prove it happened. They are just telling their story, the only other thing they're doing is showing old notes sent to their mum, and happy birthday video message, that are totally innocent and not unusual for MJ, but they're twisting it to appear sinister.

You might think it's possible it could be true, but you can't know/think it happened. Consider if you think it's right that anyone can say anything about a dead person (including yourself when you die) who can't defend themself. Whose family and estate can't sue for defamation. With no evidence. Who was found Not guilty in life. And if people should just believe them. I think that's a dangerous road to go down.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

The act of having them alone without their parents for so many days is a form of manipulation already—an abuse of power I feel.. I
-----------------

And thats true? Staff members were at the ranch for example have already said safechuck was hardly there and when they were mj actually prefered to be away from them. Same as with the arvizos. Same with robson.hardy spent anytime there. I suggest you take a break come back and then read the lawsuit thread with all the depositions and info. Knowledge is power. Without that of course you are going to be brainwashed by a four hour hatchet job. This case has even less credibility than 03-05. Yet you are prepared to throw that all away.heck even the judge called robson a liar

 

[1nn5]

I have a question, do some members knows better than the Estate lawyers ? I mean they won a lawsuit against WR and JS, do this member knows better than them in the case ?

 

[myosotis]

I've not watched it. Seems people are swayed when they watch it even fans here, and asking to prove theyre lying.
It's up to the accusers to prove it happened. They are just telling their story, the only other thing they're doing is showing old notes sent to their mum, and happy birthday video message, that are totally innocent and not unusual for MJ, but they're twisting it to appear sinister.

You might think it's possible it could be true, but you can't know/think it happened. Consider if you think it's right that anyone can say anything about a dead person (including yourself when you die) who can't defend themself. Whose family and estate can't sue for defamation. With no evidence. Who was found Not guilty in life. And if people should just believe them. I think that's a dangerous road to go down.

There's a good reason that Reed included no alternative points of view, no J family, No lawyers setting out the analysis of the financial claims. As someone has said elsewhere, if you go to watch a trial and see the Prosecution evidence first, you will always think that the defence has no case ...until you hear the defence.

 

[Cinnamon234]

I watched the 30 min YouTube video on wade and MJ a few days ago but I still don’t think that means he must be lying now.. what about Safechuck? The act of having them alone without their parents for so many days is a form of manipulation already—an abuse of power I feel.. I’ve always felt him sharing his room was inappropriate on its own, let alone anything sexual happening ...even if 10% of these sexual claims are true then that’s already too much for me... like I have always been a damn die-hard fan and I still haven’t spoken to anyone in real life about this except my wife for about 30 seconds but now I don’t thjnk I can go on defending him any longer... enjoy his work forever of course, it’s too baked in to my own DNA for me to ignore the music, but I can’t defend him..

My wife and I were at the fricking Trial in 2005...one of the fans along the fence chanting for him and screaming when he’d arrive and leave.... a DIE HARD! Idk what to do now

Well it's sad but if you really believe that Michael was capable of any of these heinous accusations then no you should not defend him any longer.

I don't find Wade or Safechuck credible at all personally. It seems too coincidental to me that both of their multi million lawsuits against the estate were dismissed and since then, they've appealed of course and now they are doing this documentary to help their appeal and get money which is their ultimate goal imo.

If they had won their lawsuit against the estate, I doubt they would have even done this documentary.

Fine if one wants to question Michael but certainly it can be argued that these accusers seem to be motivated by greed.

Still, if you believe Michael is guilty then again don't support him. Why feel forced or so conflicted about it?

If I thought Mike was guilty I would just step away from my fandom.

 

[CrazyVegasMJ]

I’m sorry everyone....so sorry

 

[mthalen]

I don't believe Wade. And sometimes even Safechuck seems to look at Wade like "dude, really!?!".

But can't find anything really wrong with Safechucks story.
Edit, found the post in the other thread. OK, he's a bit of a fibber.


Does anyone have any proof he did promotion for this is it?
I know someone said he did, but what did he do?

 

[1nn5]

I’m sorry everyone....so sorry

For me an MJ fan should search in the case between 2013-2017 before watching LN, at least read the documents that the Estate published.
I'm convinced you are not a MJ fan.

 

[Staffordshire Bullterrier]

Anyone here that uses Twitter that is willing to help me out with something? For a hour or so I'm talking to a person, she keeps harping on about grooming and how I must understand that. Because apparently it seems that would explain why Wade did his complete turnaround on MJ in 2013,when the money was low and estate said no to him.

She says she's a victim herself and clearly chooses to believe the boys but her reasons... Wow. She keeps going on about grooming and the effects of that. Apparently that causes a person to fabricate several different stories and also a very questionable timing with starting the allegations.


Anyone willing to help out a little? I can post my conversations so far that I've had with her.

In advance I'm sorry for all the links, I've no idea how to just get one link for the full conversation. I'm hoping someone can find the time to read what she said to me (I'm Yoshi there) and help out maybe?

Her name is JEN, pansexual proud liberal resister

https://mobile.twitter.com/JennaForTruth/status/1103254045832237056


https://mobile.twitter.com/rhiananaH/status/1103368744145993728

https://mobile.twitter.com/JennaForTruth/status/1103376450793734145

https://mobile.twitter.com/JennaForTruth/status/1103377415890448386

https://mobile.twitter.com/JennaForTruth/status/1103379336856514566

https://mobile.twitter.com/JennaForTruth/status/1103379642977796099

https://mobile.twitter.com/JennaForTruth/status/1103380418244608001

https://mobile.twitter.com/JennaForTruth/status/1103382952086511616

https://mobile.twitter.com/JennaForTruth/status/1103383272044797954

https://mobile.twitter.com/JennaForTruth/status/1103384070501879811

https://mobile.twitter.com/JennaForTruth/status/1103387248630870016

 

[serendipity]

I watched the 30 min YouTube video on wade and MJ a few days ago but I still don’t think that means he must be lying now.. what about Safechuck? The act of having them alone without their parents for so many days is a form of manipulation already—an abuse of power I feel.. I’ve always felt him sharing his room was inappropriate on its own, let alone anything sexual happening ...even if 10% of these sexual claims are true then that’s already too much for me... like I have always been a damn die-hard fan and I still haven’t spoken to anyone in real life about this except my wife for about 30 seconds but now I don’t thjnk I can go on defending him any longer... enjoy his work forever of course, it’s too baked in to my own DNA for me to ignore the music, but I can’t defend him..

My wife and I were at the fricking Trial in 2005...one of the fans along the fence chanting for him and screaming when he’d arrive and leave.... a DIE HARD! Idk what to do now

Just ask yourself one single question - do you honestly think if the Estate gave Wade the very profitable job at Cirque, he would have ever made any claims? Or would he still be happily working there?

This is where and why this whole thing started. Wade was broke, unemployed and desperate.

 

[Lightbringer]

Well it's sad but if you really believe that Michael was capable of any of these heinous accusations then no you should not defend him any longer.

I don't find Wade or Safechuck credible at all personally. It seems too coincidental to me that both of their multi million lawsuits against the estate were dismissed and since then, they've appealed of course and now they are doing this documentary to help their appeal and get money which is their ultimate goal imo.

If they had won their lawsuit against the estate, I doubt they would have even done this documentary.

Fine if one wants to question Michael but certainly it can be argued that these accusers seem to be motivated by greed.

Still, if you believe Michael is guilty then again don't support him. Why feel forced or so conflicted about it?

If I thought Mike was guilty I would just step away from my fandom.

Thats a little simplistic and harsh. Abandoning MJ after being a fan for maybe 20-30 years is not something done lightly or without sorrow and pain. I think must of us will recognize that! You can sense the anxiety in the post from people doubting.

 

[mthalen]

I'm convinced you are not a MJ fan.

Please stop with these comments.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and being a fan of someone does not mean you can't think for yourself anymore.