Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

Leaving Neverland 'LIES' blasted by man who REPLACED Wade Robson in Michael Jackson's life

LEAVING NEVERLAND "liar" Wade Robson has been blasted by Brett Barnes, who replaced him in Michael's affections when they were boys and who says the allegations in the HBO film are "lies."

Supporters of Michael Jackson are fighting back at the accusations made in the controversial HBO documentary. Whatever anyone's belief on the veracity of the terrible claims made by Robson and James Safechuck, it is undeniable that there was no opportunity given for any kind of defence. Furthermore, family members and industry figures have also pointed out that the documentary omitted facts about the two men which might cast doubt or undermine their testimonies. Barnes was another of Michael's long-term companions and has angrily denounced the film, which also implied he had been a victim of the alleged abuse, too.

Barnes posted a message online: "Not only do we have to deal with these lies, but we’ve also got to deal with people perpetuating these lies. The fact that they fail to do the small amount of research it takes to prove these are lies, by choice or not, makes it even worse."

His testimonies are part of a study by UK journalist and author of a biography on Michael Jackson, Making Michael, Mike Smallcombe. He told Express Online: "Whether you believe Michael Jackson’s two accusers or not, there’s no denying the Leaving Neverland film is incredibly one-sided.

"Not a single person other than Wade Robson, James Safechuck and their families is interviewed, while the Michael Jackson Estate was not even given a right of reply to the claims. This violates all norms and ethics in filmmaking and journalism.

"More crucially, director Dan Reed decided not to include a whole host of other important information about the accusers’ past and their behaviour. Why? Because it might have discredited Robson and Safechuck."

"During one scene of the documentary, Wade Robson’s mother explains that she got very upset with Jackson when he told her that he would not be taking Robson on the Dangerous World Tour. Mrs Robson added that she was especially upset because Jackson had taken another boy and his family on the tour.

"Footage of the boy, Brett Barnes, and Jackson on the Dangerous World Tour was then shown. Robson then said that was when he realised he had been 'replaced'. Any reasonable viewer would interpret that to mean that Jackson was also sexually abusing Barnes on the tour.

"After Robson first went on television in May 2013 to talk about his alleged abuse, Barnes said, 'I wish people would realise, in your last moments on this earth, all the money in the world will be of no comfort. My clear conscience will.'"

"In the documentary, a brief written denial from Barnes features on the screen. Barnes is said to be considering suing HBO, alleging that Leaving Neverland insinuates he was abused by Jackson. He was also not consulted about his inclusion in the film.

"Journalism is about seeking the truth. But Reed made no attempts to scrutinise and investigate whether the pair’s allegations are indeed true, he just took them at face value and recorded them.

"Jackson estate attorney Howard Weitzman said that Reed 'refused to devote even one minute of a 240-minute film to any of the mountainous evidence showing that Robson and Safechuck are lying.'

"If these accusations had come to court while Jackson was alive, he would have been able to offer a defence. But as he’s dead, he can’t present any sort of mitigating evidence. So that’s where the documentary maker comes in, to provide balance.

"Of course, people who allege abuse deserve to be heard. But as Jackson is dead, the defence his Estate might have put forward deserves to be heard too."

Mike Smallcombe is a UK journalist and author of a biography on Michael Jackson, Making Michael.

https://www.express.co.uk/entertain...Michael-Jackson-child-abuse-film-Brett-Barnes
 
Please LaToya get off Jackson surname... a tabloid sister.
 
* In the doc Wades wife states she did not know how to deal with Wades abuse because she's had no experience with it, but their website stated she was also an abuse survivor


You have to be more percific in this.
They mentioned that Amanda Robson is a sexual abuse survivor in the victimfund til a few days. Perl Jr. and others have reported on this and then they have removed this info.
In this video peple can see how the victimfund looked before they have remove this info about Amanda R:
https://youtu.be/x97a83QvVUw
So they could have lied in LN or they could have lied on their vicimfund page til a few days ago. But they lied definitly in one version!

* James claims Michael called asking him to testify and threatened him... James legally was considered a 'non factor' by the courts. The judge ruled that his testimony would not be heard in the court room long before the trial began.

The man from MJs defense team says he was a "non entity" .

* That edited/sliced 'Happy Birthday' message was recorded before Wade and Michael ever spent any time together (aside from the time they met in Australia) and was filmed 7 months before his Bday

I must sadly admit that this not right. The Robsons visit MJ the first time in January 1990. The message was recorded in Febuary 1990.
But it can be stil something wrong with this masssage.

* James claimed to have owned the Thriller Jacket, it was actually it was given to Dennis Thompson (his clothing designers) and they had it until 2011 when it was auctioned

Was the man with the thriller Jacket not Wade?

* James claims Michael and him 'honeymooned' in Euro Disney in 1988.. It did not open until 1992.

We should not share something we don't know if it is true cause then the whole movement lost its credibilty and power.

* James mother states she danced when Michael Jackson died... because?? According to James, he did not speak to anyone about his molestation until 2013

This is difficult. In his lawsuit he said that he told his mother that he was abused and that MJ was a bad man.
But in the oprah interview he said something simular to what you have quoted.

* Wade Robson was sending links from an anti MJ website that paints Jackson as a pedophile to build his case (why would he need to do that if it's a personal event)

Hm... do we have a proof for this?

* James claims that he should address his abuse after seeing an interview with Wade on TV, however it was Wades attorneys that reached out to James before James made any move about the abuse.

Do we have a proof form this?

[/FONT][/COLOR]


* James legal briefing states Michael spent thanksgiving with the Safechucks in 1987, Michael was in Australia on the Bad tour.

Add "at his home Havenhurst"

Give some links with prooves when it is possible to your points.
Thank you very much for your effort.​
 
Last edited:
Seeing some comments on forums has me shaking my head. "I think it's well known Jackson been a creep. Not surprised about this at all." which is a opinion I guess.....

But also...

"there's more than enough proof now that he did these things. There's no doubt."

It's so crystal clear that they didn't even bother with looking up some actual information. They did spend 4 hours of their time on that filth... but taking a few minutes to look at some actual factual information.... nahhh too much to ask.

It's for people like these that a rebuttal is very much needed. They are so 100% certain of their "opinion", it's a bit sad really.
 
I guess some people are just generally dumb. I've read some comments on the Johnny Depp case that some believed in his guilt because of his "weirdness" and look at the time. :rolleyes: Probably this will be their excuse ("he brought it on himself") if Depp's innocence becomes evident - rather then acknowledging they were wrong.

Why do people seem to think James will crack though? Don't forget that he is making plenty of money with this. He needs it very much for what he's being sued for after all. I wish he would, but he won't crack.
I think he could if on his own (it's not easy to live a lie). However, for the same reason I'm quite sure he won't be allowed to be on his own anymore by Reed & Robson.
 
Seeing some comments on forums has me shaking my head. "I think it's well known Jackson been a creep. Not surprised about this at all." which is a opinion I guess.....

But also...

"there's more than enough proof now that he did these things. There's no doubt."

It's so crystal clear that they didn't even bother with looking up some actual information. They did spend 4 hours of their time on that filth... but taking a few minutes to look at some actual factual information.... nahhh too much to ask.

It's for people like these that a rebuttal is very much needed. They are so 100% certain of their "opinion", it's a bit sad really.

Man, the documentary was produced in a very distinctive way.
For them it seems convincing.
 
I guess some people are just generally dumb. I've read some comments on the Johnny Depp case that some believed in his guilt because of his "weirdness" and look at the time. :rolleyes: Probably this will be their excuse ("he brought it on himself") if Depp's innocence becomes evident - rather then acknowledging they were wrong.


I think he could if on his own (it's not easy to live a lie). However, for the same reason I'm quite sure he won't be allowed to be on his own anymore by Reed & Robson.

Yeah very good point there.

Man I just want all of this to be over with. So ****ing tired that these two chumps are being seen as victims, unbelievable. Wake the **** up already people. I truly can't wait until that moment arrives because I will go to those said forums and just say "see? What did I tell you. Bet you're feeling like a huge fool now.".

It's like that guy yesterday in that YouTube video. He seemed convinced after seeing LN but still decided to do research and look at how things changed for him, he's convinced of his innocence now.
 
Man, the documentary was produced in a very distinctive way.
For them it seems convincing.

Than I am willing to bet that these people were already quite far into their doubts about his innocence. Because anyone that had been following the 2005 trial and maybe some knowledge in general just can't be swayed so easily.
 
the 2 lawsuits from Wade got kicked out because he waited too much time and not because his case wasnt credible? is that true?
 
Than I am willing to bet that these people were already quite far into their doubts about his innocence. Because anyone that had been following the 2005 trial and maybe some knowledge in general just can't be swayed so easily.

You didn't saw fans asking question about Michael behaviour 14 years after the trial !
I think they (fans) was quite and shy to ask their questions until Dan Reed encourage them to show that they don't believe in 2005 trial !
 
Glanni;4249579 said:
the 2 lawsuits from Wade got kicked out because he waited too much time and not because his case wasnt credible? is that true?
<menu type="context" id="fcltHTML5Menu"><menuitem command="context" label="Copy Link Text"></menuitem></menu>

he waited too much time ?
"Jackson estate attorney Howard Weitzman said Robson was &#8220;caught lying repeatedly&#8221; in the dismissed litigations. Weitzman added: 'The trial judge found one of Robson&#8217;s lies so incredible that the trial judge disregarded Robson&#8217;s sworn declaration and found that no rational trier of fact could possibly believe Robson&#8217;s sworn statements.'"
What does it mean for you ?
 
the 2 lawsuits from Wade got kicked out because he waitehd too much time and not because his case wasnt credible? is that true?

The judge did not believe his excuses for why he did not file earlier. The judge found him to have lied about that. The same goes for safe chuck. Yes, it was because they waited too long but the judge did find them not credible with regard to their execuses not to have come forward earlier. The judge did not believe the whole narrative of not realising they were abused until recently which is essential for their lawsuits to be legally acceptable and the public is now accepting it as a perfectly believable explanation.
 
From kop board

BTW the Estate will go to court tomorrow to try and move the date for the HBO hearing to April 4 instead of June 26.

**Forgot to add that they have also added Brett Barnes' letter to HBO to their lawsuit.
 
You didn't saw fans asking question about Michael behaviour 14 years after the trial !
I think they (fans) was quite and shy to ask their questions until Dan Reed encourage them to show that they don't believe in 2005 trial !

Nah never mind, I'm talking about total ridiculous idiots here. This same guy goes

"just look at that blanket kid. He's seen some shit. Who's to say nothing happened when he slept in MJ bed or any of the other kids."

I'm drawing a line from here on out when it comes to actually trying to bother with some people. Next time these type of folks I will ignore instantly.
 
From kop board

BTW the Estate will go to court tomorrow to try and move the date for the HBO hearing to April 4 instead of June 26.

**Forgot to add that they have also added Brett Barnes' letter to HBO to their lawsuit.

Yep! It seems the estate is done waiting, well so are we! Hopefully the judge grants it. It's a start at least. It won't do a thing to clear MJ's name in the public though, but it's a start.
 
Saw that on twitter. It seems HBO are very hostile to the estate. They are not even responding.
 
Than I am willing to bet that these people were already quite far into their doubts about his innocence. Because anyone that had been following the 2005 trial and maybe some knowledge in general just can't be swayed so easily.
And some people are fair weather. Next week, they will be back defending MJ.
 
Those are some very good ones. Several I didn't see on Twitter yet. To who should these be tweeted?


I would say post it anywhere you know people will see it.. large audience, I was trying to start communication with larger youtubers and that's when my accts were suspended.. I'd try convincing anyone you know that has a larger fallowing to share the info!!

I've sent this to TMZ twice and nothing.. So social media seems to be the route to go until they start taking it seriously.. Again I am not 100% sure about 1 point, the 1988 honeymoon - so if you are not sure about that, just keep that one bullet out.

Unless someone can help confirm or deny
 
Starbucks banned mj's music.
In time, these things will come back. MJ is innocent more than Cosby and Cosby is back on tv playing 3 to 4 times a day. Doing great. They will pick MJ back up in a few. Let things cool down. I do not believe it is the overall pubic either. it is the media.
 
You have to be more percific in this.
They mentioned that Amanda Robson is a sexual abuse survivor in the victimfund til a few days. Perl Jr. and others have reported on this and then they have removed this info.
In this video peple can see how the victimfund looked before they have remove this info about Amanda R:
https://youtu.be/x97a83QvVUw
So they could have lied in LN or they could have lied on their vicimfund page til a few days ago. But they lied definitly in one version!



The man from MJs defense team says he was a "non entity" .



I must sadly admit that this not right. The Robsons visit MJ the first time in January 1990. The message was recorded in Febuary 1990.
But it can be stil something wrong with this masssage.



Was the man with the thriller Jacket not Wade?



We should not share something we don't know if it is true cause then the whole movement lost its credibilty and power.



This is difficult. In his lawsuit he said that he told his mother that he was abused and that MJ was a bad man.
But in the oprah interview he said something simular to what you have quoted......



Hm... do we have a proof for this?



Do we have a proof form this?




Give some links with prooves when it is possible to your points.
Thank you very much for your effort.


* Wade saw Michael his second week in of his LA trip, so that video would be literally the same week he met Michael in LA..
* James is the one that claimed to have taken the thriller jacket
* Yes the links of Wade sending himself from a specific anti MJ site is in the court docs
*Legal docs show it was Wades attorneys that reached out to James
 
Fat Joe is not ready to mute MJ, according to a video from TMZ that I see in my YouTube recommended list, but didn't click it. They don't deserve it. Good that Joe uses common sense.

So far we have

T.I.
The Game
Timbaland
Fat Joe
Pete rock
 
Last edited:
In time, these things will come back. MJ is innocent more than Cosby and Cosby is back on tv playing 3 to 4 times a day. Doing great. They will pick MJ back up in a few. Let things cool down. I do not believe it is the overall pubic either. it is the media.

The public is also outraged. There was no rebuttal to these allegations. More people are watching it and more are being swayed. The support to MJ is very limited to non existence the Jacksons are retweeting tweets by random people and z list celebrity they r that desperate. No one dares to defend MJ. It is that hostile. I cannot believe how ineffective the estate has been. I feel HBO feel the pressure will build on the estate until they withdraw their lawsuit. HBO are not even responding.
 
Starbucks banned mj's music.

I'd like to know exactly what it is Starbucks are saying about this.

If the UK stores indeed are banning his music then I'm out. I am a very regular customer but I will not return if this is true.
 
The estate needs someone out there defending Michael publicly. Defending him behind closed doors won't help in the court of public opinion
 
This is all you have to watch to understand why they are saying they don't realize or have no understanding that what MJ did to them was abuse.
Its of one part the billion of dollars lie:


Its really an impotant rebuttle video who needs million of views.

This is the other part of the billon of dollars lie...

The money they can get out of their claims depend on the amount of demage, that they abuse had to endure as children and how much it has infected their lifes.

Thats why....

- They say it happened multible times (100 times)
- They say it happened over a long period of time from many years
- They say when it hapened it happened nearly everytime they were togeteher with Mj without days or weeks breaks between the molestations
- They say the molestations were always very exreme and intense
- They roll everthing what went wrong in their lifes off the things MJ did to them

Everything makes the financial outcome from the lawsuits, the interviews and from the sells of LN higher for them!

When the would only say it happend one til 5 times and it would be only some inapropreate touching, it whould be not so valuable, not enough to get huge public attention and fill out a film with this.

When they must get trogh this they wanna 'win big time" not only a few dollers... bilions of dollars so everthing what did happen to them has to be so extreame as possible!!!

They are collecting the dollars since the sundance premier now and will collect much more til they are really exposed publically.
When they are exposed they can leave the country and don't have to give anything back cause nobody can sue them for deformation of a dead person.

Wow that vid is amazing, explains so much! I'm new to the forum (I think I was a member like 10 yrs ago but not been on since) I just had to come back after that doc. Apologies if I do anything wrong regards quoting or on the discussion, I don't go on any forums much so still finding my way around.

It makes so much sense now but it's unbelievable they can sell that to the public. I have to admit, although I never believed them about the abuse for one minute I didn't until that Oprah interview even question the "I didn't realise it was abuse" line, then I was thinking about it and was like "hang on, no adult person is surely allowed to say they don't know what child abuse is?" Is it ok if you're the child it happened to then? Of course so many haters have come into the argument and said "people like YOU make it harder for abuse victims to come forward"-All I want is fairness for both sides, that's the way the law is supposed to work. I don't wanna trash any abuse victim, they try and make you feel bad for "defending a pedo" smdh. Yes child abuse ruins lives, but so do false accusations! MJ may not be here but his family are, and his fans. I expected Oprah not to ask any difficult questions but at least she asked about them wanting money. They are the ones that decided to go public with it, if they are telling the truth and have nothing to hide they shouldn't mind being asked the hard questions and no one should attack anyone for questioning them-that's what would happen in a court of law. They did get four hours to put "their side" across, but apparently we're not supposed to question any of that.
 
Back
Top