Let's jump into it: Why do you believe Safechuck and Robson's testimonies when at least some of their statements are incorrect? For example, the molestation that reportedly took place at Euro Disney in 1988, but Euro Disney wasn't open until 1992.

-

I mean, how can we be sure if and how the molestations happened if some claims aren't true? What convinced you? Would you believe anyone coming forward with an accusation even if there were untrue statements within their testimony?

MattyJam said:

Check out my MJ board: http://mymjjforum.boards.net

Wow nice

FullLipsDotNose said:

Let's jump into it: Why do you believe Safechuck and Robson's testimonies when at least some of their statements are incorrect? For example, the molestation that reportedly took place at Euro Disney in 1988, but Euro Disney wasn't open until 1992.

-

I mean, how can we be sure if and how the molestations happened if some claims aren't true? What convinced you? Would you believe anyone coming forward with an accusation even if there were untrue statements within their testimony?

I don't believe them, I was talking to someone few days ago and was like: "There were so many kids on Neverland, why is it that always money hungry people accuse him? Okay, Wade could've lied as a child but he repeated the same thing as an adult under oath during the trial. Taj is right when he said that wade could've said that MJ did these things to him and Mj would've gone to jail. So no, I don't believe it.

No one else came forward as far as I know, and I doubt they ever will. I recently saw that one german channel will show the documentary and I'm really disgusted. They made a TV special at MJ's 60th Birthday "WE LOVE MICHAEL JACKSON" was the title....and now this....they want ratings with using MJ's name, no matter how.....

Yes his relationship to kids was kinda weird, but it's not evidence that he did illegal things to them....He made himself an easy target, that's all.

The only reason why I'd watch this would be if I was a body language expert.....but then again....they are actors....so who knows how good they are...

I was pretty surprised to hear that everybody i talked to about the documentary said they didnt believe the accusations.

nextedition said:

I was pretty surprised to hear that everybody i talked to about the documentary said they didnt believe the accusations.

both my uncles believe he did it just because they hate him.

Okay, I'll bite.

I chalk factual inaccuracies up to the abuse being 30 years ago, the victim being 7, and the trauma being...well, traumatic. It's easy to imagine being confused about locations and dates, something that goes down at Disneyland in 1988, and something else goes down at Eurodisney in 1992, or Disneyland Paris, and I get them confused. That's human. Especially if I'm jet setting around the world, and Disney trips are a common event.

Put another way, in my late thirties, if I had to describe to you a situation of abuse that happened to me in 1988, I would hate it if you didn't believe me because I got some specific details wrong. I was 8 in 1988, and those years seem like a dream of another life.

On the flip side, what convinces me is the uncomfortable emotional truth of their testimony; the small details no one would come up with, the conflicting nature of their emotions toward Michael Jackson to this day. There's a depth, a messiness, and an honesty there, which I don't think can be faked, or anticipated.

So...yeah. That's me.

I watched Leaving Neverland and was disgusted and upset for James and Wade. I believe them. You seriously think that they would lie about being sexually abused? There were too many specific details for it to be untrue - like when Michael phoned James and instructed him to put his underpants in the bin after he had tried to rape him. Michael fooled us all with his 'I'm innocent' act.

jungleluv said:

https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/

They did more than just get the timelines wrong. They straight up lied. How you gonna get molested in the train station when it wasn't even built yet. The director didn't even do a BASIC fact check. I didn't watch it....I would never watch something like that without the other side being presented....but I hear that parts of the so-called documentary have been cut because it's too easy to find where MJ was at certain times and a lot of the times that the boys were there, MJ wasn't. The true die hard MJ fans are on it!

NorthC said:

There was a scène early in the film where Jackson took one of the boys (I forgot which one) to Hawaii and he did an interview with Jackson. -What do you like about Hawaii? -Being with you. -Do you like being on stage? -I like it because I can be with you. I do this from memory, so it's not the exact quotes, but the film had Jackson's voice on tape saying these things, so that's not made up. And a grown man saying this to a young boy, that's not healthy. Also, the stories about Jackson wooing the boys away from their families so he could be alone with them, that's creepy to say the least. Of course you can wonder what parent would leave their kid with a man who is after all still a stranger, but they were probably blinded by fortune and fame and nobody is as blind as somebody who doesn't want to see. All in all, even if only half of the things Wade & Safechuck are saying is true, then Michael Jackson still had an unhealthy obsession with young boys.

I didnt watch it, but supposedly he said being with "you and your family" but the family part was cut.

I feel the same way.I think it's ridiculous to go after a dead person when he's not here to answer/respond.

illimack said:

I didn't watch it....I would never watch something like that without the other side being presented....

ThatWhiteDude said:

EmmaMcG said:

MattyJam said:

Check out my MJ board: http://mymjjforum.boards.net

[Snip - luv4u]

NorthC said:

EmmaMcG said:

NorthC said:

That also works the other way around: if you're a fan, you don't want this to be true, so you will look for whatever you can find to "prove" these two men wrong and then you come up with little details, like the time when Disneyland in Paris was built, anything to blow holes into their story.
For the record: I neither like nor hate Michael Jackson. I'm not here to accuse or defend anybody. I watched the doc because I was curious after all the hype. I don't think we should believe everything these two men said, but there is too much to their story to just dismiss it as lies. If Michael Jackson's relationship with young boys was "kinda weird", as ThatWhiteDude put it, then that's the understatement of the year.

That's also true. A lot of people who love Michael Jackson will dismiss any and all criticism. And, for the record, I don't like or dislike Michael Jackson, the person. I like his music (well, most of it) but that's as far as my feelings go regarding him. I do, however, require actual proof of any wrongdoing. Also, I don't automatically believe accusers in this or any other case. Based on what I've heard from several people who both knew Michael Jackson and/or worked with Michael Jackson, he was mentally ill. Now, a lot of what he said and did was part of the act. He played up to his own oddness for the cameras because as much as he disliked the press, he loved the publicity. But he was also not quite sane and unfortunately for him, he didn't listen to critical feedback from those he worked with. Which is why he surrounded himself with Yes Men. He also liked hanging around with children. Some people who knew him think he liked hanging around with children because they never told him "no" or ever criticised him the way adults did. I don't know how true that is but it definitely fits with the stories of him firing anyone who disagreed with him. And it definitely sounds more plausible to me than the stories this "documentary" would like you to believe. So, realistically, yes, Michael Jackson had his problems. He was petty, childish, arrogant and completely unable to accept criticism or acknowledge his own failures. But that doesn't mean he was a child molester. It's because of these reasons that I don't believe he was guilty of that particular crime. But if any actual evidence or proof is ever found that he was, then I'll agree that he was scum. I'll still listen to his music though but Baby Be Mine might take on a different meaning in my mind.

kremlinshadow said:

NorthC said:

EmmaMcG said:

That's also true. A lot of people who love Michael Jackson will dismiss any and all criticism. And, for the record, I don't like or dislike Michael Jackson, the person. I like his music (well, most of it) but that's as far as my feelings go regarding him. I do, however, require actual proof of any wrongdoing. Also, I don't automatically believe accusers in this or any other case. Based on what I've heard from several people who both knew Michael Jackson and/or worked with Michael Jackson, he was mentally ill. Now, a lot of what he said and did was part of the act. He played up to his own oddness for the cameras because as much as he disliked the press, he loved the publicity. But he was also not quite sane and unfortunately for him, he didn't listen to critical feedback from those he worked with. Which is why he surrounded himself with Yes Men. He also liked hanging around with children. Some people who knew him think he liked hanging around with children because they never told him "no" or ever criticised him the way adults did. I don't know how true that is but it definitely fits with the stories of him firing anyone who disagreed with him. And it definitely sounds more plausible to me than the stories this "documentary" would like you to believe. So, realistically, yes, Michael Jackson had his problems. He was petty, childish, arrogant and completely unable to accept criticism or acknowledge his own failures. But that doesn't mean he was a child molester. It's because of these reasons that I don't believe he was guilty of that particular crime. But if any actual evidence or proof is ever found that he was, then I'll agree that he was scum. I'll still listen to his music though but Baby Be Mine might take on a different meaning in my mind.

The thing that makes it, to say the least, uneasy is that he didn't surround himself with children (which could be understandable because he wanted to make up for the childhood he never had), but... only with boys.

Charlotte Krol Mar 31, 2019 1:17 pm BST



Michael Jackson biographer claims he’s uncovered evidence that could disprove child sex abuse allegations

Read more at https://www.nme.com/news/...8YCV45J.99

modified said:

modified said:

NorthC said:

EmmaMcG said:

That's also true. A lot of people who love Michael Jackson will dismiss any and all criticism. And, for the record, I don't like or dislike Michael Jackson, the person. I like his music (well, most of it) but that's as far as my feelings go regarding him. I do, however, require actual proof of any wrongdoing. Also, I don't automatically believe accusers in this or any other case. Based on what I've heard from several people who both knew Michael Jackson and/or worked with Michael Jackson, he was mentally ill. Now, a lot of what he said and did was part of the act. He played up to his own oddness for the cameras because as much as he disliked the press, he loved the publicity. But he was also not quite sane and unfortunately for him, he didn't listen to critical feedback from those he worked with. Which is why he surrounded himself with Yes Men. He also liked hanging around with children. Some people who knew him think he liked hanging around with children because they never told him "no" or ever criticised him the way adults did. I don't know how true that is but it definitely fits with the stories of him firing anyone who disagreed with him. And it definitely sounds more plausible to me than the stories this "documentary" would like you to believe. So, realistically, yes, Michael Jackson had his problems. He was petty, childish, arrogant and completely unable to accept criticism or acknowledge his own failures. But that doesn't mean he was a child molester. It's because of these reasons that I don't believe he was guilty of that particular crime. But if any actual evidence or proof is ever found that he was, then I'll agree that he was scum. I'll still listen to his music though but Baby Be Mine might take on a different meaning in my mind.

The thing that makes it, to say the least, uneasy is that he didn't surround himself with children (which could be understandable because he wanted to make up for the childhood he never had), but... only with boys.

modified said:

Most people who are not committed Michael Jackson fans understand that Michael Jackson was a pedophile. They see no reason to question James and Wade's story in Leaving Neverland, whatever details get mixed up. Many if not most Prince fans are not Michael Jackson fans. It is sickening how Michael Jackson fans have taken over this forum and are now banning and insulting people for saying things they don't want to hear. I was 10 when Billy Jean came out. I loved it, like all the Quincy Jones stuff starting with The Wiz etc. But even then I never really liked Beat It - whiny, childish. Then as I was turning 11, 12, Prince appeared, with Vanity and Appolonia and Sheila E, Nasty Girl, Sex Shooter, Erotic City. Prince was hot, adult, edgy, creative, constantly reinventing himself, while Michael Jackson was turning into a whiny weird freakshow repeating the same schtick over and over. Prince was the anti-MJ, the adult alternative to MJ. By the mid-1990s Michael Jackson was done. Everybody knew he was a pedophile. Millennials missed that and would have been ready for an MJ comeback if he hadn't died in a self-inflicted drug overdose. Again, for anyone who has been around during MJ's lifetime and was not a rabid MJ fan, there is nothing new in Leaving Neverland. So MJ molested little boys. We already knew that.

You are mixing personal preference with reality.

The case has nothing to do with Prince being for adults or Michal doing the same tricks.

Thats their art and has nothing to do with being guilty of something.

"So MJ molested little boys. We already knew that.": if that was the case he would have been convicted. But he wasn't. Don't you think they were after him?

Reality now is that he can't defend hmself.

And there s no factual evidence.

there is a justice system where people are only guilty when convicted, all the other stuff are just emotions.

EmmaMcG said: