Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson Documentary, HBO

[action]

https://www.nme.com/news/music/michael-jackson-biographer-exposes-wade-robson-james-safechucks-allegations-false-leaving-neverland-2469413

jackson's biographer points to a couple of lies in their story.

jackson's accusers are asking the question "why would the victims lie about their abuse", which immediately gives them the moral high ground, but the fact is:

- that the victims lied in court before

- and they are, again, lying in the new documentary

So to answer the question of the accussers "why would the victims lie about their abuse" I can only reply that I don't know why they lied (lying, is what liars do). But that they lied, is certain and well documented.

Edited March 31, 2019 by action

[Tourettes2400]

I watched this and almost didn't even watch the 2nd part. The first part made me feel I needed a shower, but decided to watch the second part only to complete the whole thing. The whole show was pretty sick! It doesn't even matter who is lying anymore. It is just nasty. It is a no win situation. 

I am a fan of Michael, but if he did anything close to any of this, fuck him. If these kids are making all this sick shit up about Michael for no reason, fuck them. I just can't even pay any more attention to these accusations and stories any more.

[action]

the version of the jackson family

reinforces my beliefs that robson and safechuck are oscar worthy liars.

this new documentary places the facts next to the version given by them.

by this point, I think if you still believe those two frauds, you're either very naive or of bad faith

my stance remains the same as it always was though: safechuck and robson are liars, but I still believe that jackson has done wrong things to other children.

[EvanG]

2 hours ago, action said:

reinforces my beliefs that robson and safechuck are oscar worthy liars.

Haha... in the course of this thread you have gone from sceptic, to believing them, to now saying they are ''oscar worthy liars''. Seriously...

[Ratam]

1 hour ago, EvanG said:

Haha... in the course of this thread you have gone from sceptic, to believing them, to now saying they are ''oscar worthy liars''. Seriously...

I noted it too 

[action]

nothing wrong with changing your mind, in the light of new information.

only a fool would keep to his opinion, even when new evidence clearly shows your opinion is wrong. only a fool would ever claim to know the absolute truth, and not change his mind about anything.

many people changed their opinion after watching the first documentary, other people changed their mind earlier, and still other people refuse to watch any of it.

 

[EvanG]

21 minutes ago, action said:

nothing wrong with changing your mind, in the light of new information.

only a fool would keep to his opinion, even when new evidence clearly shows your opinion is wrong. only a fool would ever claim to know the absolute truth, and not change his mind about anything.

many people changed their opinion after watching the first documentary, other people changed their mind earlier, and still other people refuse to watch any of it.

 

Of course not, better than some people who stick to their initial opinion and refuse to change it even though they know they are wrong.

But you go from very sceptical, to believing them, to calling them ''oscar worthy liars'' now. There isn't a lot of nuance. If tomorrow another docu comes that says he's a sicko, will you go back to thinking he's a pedo again? You seem rather impressionable, you wouldn't do well in Russia!

Edited April 7, 2019 by EvanG

[action]

1 hour ago, EvanG said:

Of course not, better than some people who stick to their initial opinion and refuse to change it even though they know they are wrong.

But you go from very sceptical, to believing them, to calling them ''oscar worthy liars'' now. There isn't a lot of nuance. If tomorrow another docu comes that says he's a sicko, will you go back to thinking he's a pedo again? You seem rather impressionable, you wouldn't do well in Russia!

but where have I ever stated I believed them? from the very beginning, to this day, I've been very vocal in my view of them being liars. There was one incident, with the surveilance footage of him walking around with robson in a store, looking for wedding rings, that I put some nuance to my stance, but on the whole I kept to my view.

Still, I'm willing to overview any new information, and have actually stated I looked forward to more witnesses, more elements. and most importantly, I have always very well made it clear that "I don't know"

I've always maintained, to this day, that I think safechuck and robson are liars, but that regardless I think jackson has done wrong stuff with children.  that is very much a nuanced opinion, and you seem incapable to process all of it.

I suggest you re-read everything I wrote, and if you can point me to some posts that you feel contradict myself, then feel free to look them up. I've only ever changed my view in the light of his sister's claims (latoya) in an interview I was previously not aware of.

[EvanG]

On 13-3-2019 at 4:17 PM, action said:

I'm not going to put my head in the sand on this. My faith in jackson just dropped considerably.

To be fair, I don't remember every post you've made in here because it's a lot, but I remember you being very sceptical at first, then you watched the documentary and started making quotes like the one above. The entire documentary is only about those two guys and it changed your tone, but now you've watched another documentary and are you saying they are liars again. Yes, they are liars, they either lied in court or they are lying now, but it seems like you have already made up your mind. I'm under the impression that you haven't been very consistent in your opinion, and that probably goes for a lot of people in this thread and that's okay, but it's a bit extreme in your case, hence making the nuance comment.

Edited April 7, 2019 by EvanG

[action]

2 minutes ago, EvanG said:

To be fair, I don't remember every post you've made in here because it's a lot, but I remember you being very sceptical at first, then you watched the documentary and started making quotes like the one above. The entire documentary is only about those two guys and it changed your tone, but now you've watched another documentary and are you saying they are liars again. Yes, they are liars, they either lied in court or they are lying now, but it seems like you have already made up your mind. I'm under the impression that you haven't been very consistent in your opinion, and that probably goes for a lot of people in this thread, but it's a bit extreme in your case, hence making the nuance comment.

oh dear. try to defend yourself against someone who doesn't remember your posts, but still feels confident enough to highlight your "extreme inconsistencies".

I'm going to try to explain it one more time...

I'm not denying that my faith in jackson dropped considerably and has been since I made that post.

today's post didn't change that.

but like I said, it reinforced my belief that robson and safechuck are liars.

Again, i'm not denying that my view is kind of complicated and nuanced, and you still fail to fully understand it. but nothing I can do about that.

[EvanG]

3 minutes ago, action said:

oh dear. try to defend yourself against someone who doesn't remember your posts, but still feels confident enough to highlight your "extreme inconsistencies".

I'm going to try to explain it one more time...

I'm not denying that my faith in jackson dropped considerably and has been since I made that post.

today's post didn't change that.

but like I said, it reinforced my belief that robson and safechuck are liars.

Again, i'm not denying that my view is kind of complicated and nuanced, and you still fail to fully understand it. but nothing I can do about that.

Just because I don't remember every post you made in here doesn't mean I couldn't have noticed how you changed your tone. And apparently I'm not the only one who noticed that. So your faith in Jackson dropped considerably after watching it, but the entire docu is about those two guys, it wasn't about anyone else, and now after watching yet another docu you're saying they're liars, so your faith in Jackson must be restored? Or what are they lying about then? They never had sexual encounters with Jackson? The docu is completely wrong? 

[action]

1 hour ago, EvanG said:

Just because I don't remember every post you made in here doesn't mean I couldn't have noticed how you changed your tone.

 

I don't know what you mean with that. it's hard to communicate "tone" on a message board. 

 

Quote

And apparently I'm not the only one who noticed that.

that's possible

Quote

So your faith in Jackson dropped considerably after watching it, but the entire docu is about those two guys, it wasn't about anyone else,

the latoya jackson interview changed my faith in jackson, not the docu. I have made this clear in previous posts, but since by your own admission you don't remember all my posts, I think this is where your misunderstanding came from. Now you should know, I told you three times already. To further deny my explanation would prove of bad faith by you

 

Quote

and now after watching yet another docu you're saying they're liars,

I've always said they were liars. the docu has reinforced that. I have already made this clear multiple times already in previous posts.

Quote

so your faith in Jackson must be restored?

no, it isn't. I think he's guilty. The latoya interview has changed my mind.

Quote

Or what are they lying about then? They never had sexual encounters with Jackson? The docu is completely wrong?

pretty much. that's what the docy made by the jacksons has made abundantly clear. Watch the new docu I posted, maybe you can then add something substantial to the discussion, in stead of trying to find supposed inconsistencies in my posts 

Edited April 7, 2019 by action

[EvanG]

4 hours ago, action said:

I don't know what you mean with that. it's hard to communicate "tone" on a message board. 

 

that's possible

the latoya jackson interview changed my faith in jackson, not the docu. I have made this clear in previous posts, but since by your own admission you don't remember all my posts, I think this is where your misunderstanding came from. Now you should know, I told you three times already. To further deny my explanation would prove of bad faith by you

 

I've always said they were liars. the docu has reinforced that. I have already made this clear multiple times already in previous posts.

no, it isn't. I think he's guilty. The latoya interview has changed my mind.

pretty much. that's what the docy made by the jacksons has made abundantly clear. Watch the new docu I posted, maybe you can then add something substantial to the discussion, in stead of trying to find supposed inconsistencies in my posts 

What I mean by tone is that you go from being very sceptical to saying things like: 

Quote

I'm not going to put my head in the sand on this. My faith in jackson just dropped considerably.

Then you use hyperbole and say things like:

Quote

I think if you still believe those two frauds, you're either very naive or of bad faith

Quote

 robson and safechuck are oscar worthy liars.

After you watched that surveillance footage scene, which was mentioned in the documentary, you made this comment: (page 15 of this thread)

Quote

but the surveilance footage is a smoking gun. it gives a lot of weight to wade's testimony. I'm not going to put my head in the sand on this. My faith in jackson just dropped considerably. 

So it is because of the documentary that you lost faith in Jackson? Then it's a bit odd that once you found out that those guys are frauds and oscar worthy liars (your words) your opinion doesn't go back to what it was before you watched the documentary when you were still very sceptical. Oh wait, now it's because of La Toya's interview from 30 years ago? Right.

Edited April 7, 2019 by EvanG

[action]

9 hours ago, EvanG said:

What I mean by tone is that you go from being very sceptical to saying things like: 

Then you use hyperbole and say things like:

After you watched that surveillance footage scene, which was mentioned in the documentary, you made this comment: (page 15 of this thread)

So it is because of the documentary that you lost faith in Jackson? Then it's a bit odd that once you found out that those guys are frauds and oscar worthy liars (your words) your opinion doesn't go back to what it was before you watched the documentary when you were still very sceptical. Oh wait, now it's because of La Toya's interview from 30 years ago? Right.

all of these points I have already addressed multiple times. I have mentioned Latoya's interview for the first time waaaaaaaaaaaaay back, not now, not yesterday. The last sentence of your post proves that I'm wasting my time responding to you 

[EvanG]

4 hours ago, action said:

all of these points I have already addressed multiple times. I have mentioned Latoya's interview for the first time waaaaaaaaaaaaay back, not now, not yesterday. The last sentence of your post proves that I'm wasting my time responding to you 

But you contradict yourself, and that's what I pointed out. I even quoted you to prove I'm not making it up and you can still not admit it.

Look, it's fine that you change opinion every time you watch another documentary, but you can expect someone to mention that on here sooner or later. 

[action]

1 hour ago, EvanG said:

But you contradict yourself, and that's what I pointed out. I even quoted you to prove I'm not making it up and you can still not admit it.

Look, it's fine that you change opinion every time you watch another documentary, but you can expect someone to mention that on here sooner or later. 

but I admit that I changed my opinion.

I just disagree with you that I believed robson and safechuck. I have indeed nuanced this somewhat after watching that surveilance footage of them buying a wedding ring. Reading my post again, I can see it might seem to contradict what I'm saying now. But you should put all the available information of a certain point in time next to the corresponding post. What was known versus what was my reaction. But you can't pick a post of mine of any given time, and just compare it to the things I'm saying today. What information was available when I made a given remark? Over the course of this thread, so much information has come forth, that this influences my opinion, and that of everyone else. Today, more elements have come forth than were available at the time when I made those remarks. Information is continuously coming forth, and my opinion changes accordingly. I fully accept doing so. You seem to have an issue with that.

You like to call my opinions "contradictory" but all these opinions were made with different information available. 

It's not surprising my opinion changes with every new element that comes forward, don't you think? Are you saying I am not allowed to adjust my opinion? When I do, you say I'm contradicting myself. I really don't. Even if I dont agree with my own previous statements anymore. There is nothing contradictory about it.

I might change my opinion again if new information comes forth. I see no problem doing so. Good luck to you trying to keep up with it all though. You seem easily confused...

Edited April 8, 2019 by action

[EvanG]

1 hour ago, action said:

but I admit that I changed my opinion.

I just disagree with you that I believed robson and safechuck. I have indeed nuanced this somewhat after watching that surveilance footage of them buying a wedding ring. Reading my post again, I can see it might seem to contradict what I'm saying now. But you should put all the available information of a certain point in time next to the corresponding post. What was known versus what was my reaction. But you can't pick a post of mine of any given time, and just compare it to the things I'm saying today. What information was available when I made a given remark? Over the course of this thread, so much information has come forth, that this influences my opinion, and that of everyone else. Today, more elements have come forth than were available at the time when I made those remarks. Information is continuously coming forth, and my opinion changes accordingly. I fully accept doing so. You seem to have an issue with that.

You like to call my opinions "contradictory" but all these opinions were made with different information available. 

It's not surprising my opinion changes with every new element that comes forward, don't you think? Are you saying I am not allowed to adjust my opinion? When I do, you say I'm contradicting myself. I really don't. Even if I dont agree with my own previous statements anymore. There is nothing contradictory about it.

I might change my opinion again if new information comes forth. I see no problem doing so. Good luck to you trying to keep up with it all though. You seem easily confused...

No. It's fine to change opinion, I've already said this, in fact most people do, especially regarding this topic, although most are a bit more nuanced than you, but that's fine too. You can say things however you want to say them. You can change your opinion as many times as you want, and you're right that one should adjust an opinion after getting more information, it's just that your lack of nuance amused me a bit, therefore I made my initial comment. No big deal really.

The contradictive part is about how you are now saying that it's not because of the documentary that you lost faith in Jackson but because of La Toya's interview. Well, maybe that's true, you would know better than me why you would lose faith in something, however earlier in this thread you posted a link to the surveillance footage scene, that was discussed in the documentary, and you said that your faith in Jackson has ''considerably dropped'' because that footage gave a lot of weight to those guys' testimony. Well, that's fine too, but then don't contradict yourself now by saying it's only because of the La Toya interview. That's all I meant.

Edited April 8, 2019 by EvanG

[action]

11 minutes ago, EvanG said:

 

The contradictive part is about how you are now saying that it's not because of the documentary that you lost faith in Jackson but because of La Toya's interview. Well, maybe that's true, you would know better than me why you would lose faith in something, however earlier in this thread you posted a link to the surveillance footage scene, that was discussed in the documentary, and you said that your faith in Jackson has ''considerably dropped'' because that footage gave a lot of weight to those guys' testimony. Well, that's fine too, but then don't contradict yourself now by saying it's only because of the La Toya interview. That's all I meant.

that's the way message boards go. posts that were made during different times, remain here for all to see.

Sometimes, people say things they feel at a certain moment in time, say immediately after watching that surveillance clip, and post a strong opinion. But as we all know, a night's sleep, a new day, and things can change.

Only someone who doesn't post anything, can't contradict himself. On this subject, I probably probably post more than others, I'm more opiniated, so things are bound to get confusing with all this new information coming.

There's really nothing I can do about that. I don't feel like I'm doing anything wrong here. I'm just going through the motions, reacting to stuff I see. Every new element surprises me, changes my opinion. So I can understand how people may be confused by that.

I see little point in dissecting my posts, analysing them and laying them next to information that was there at the time. What purpose does it make? It doesn't interest me. When you point me to previous posts of mine, granted they surprise me a bit. I don't remember everything I wrote, word for word. My memory isn't perfect. I'm not perfect. And you, you spend far too much time analysing my posts. Still, It's kind of nice to know I have a fan like you who has so much interest in what I write. Not that I have that big of an ego, but coming from a dutchman, I think that's really something to experience.

[EvanG]

34 minutes ago, action said:

Still, It's kind of nice to know I have a fan like you who has so much interest in what I write. Not that I have that big of an ego, but coming from a dutchman, I think that's really something to experience.

Dutch people like Belgians, it's as simple as that, I know you guys don't care about us that much and I don't blame you, I don't really care about the ''Hollanders'' either to be honest.

Wellicht ben ik daarom zo'n grote fan van jou! (of moet ik zeggen ''u''.)

Edited April 8, 2019 by EvanG

[Homefuck]

(wall of text)
I can (and am) separating the person MJ from the artist MJ. I've watched the documentary, if you know the common mechanisms of victims of child abuse (especially in cases like this, where there was a lot of manipulation and no violence occuring) it's not uncommon for the victims to really understand that they are just that, victims, until a LOT of years later.

My line of work is based on making decisions on whether peoples assesments is considered trustworthy and I would definitely consider both Robson and Safechuck stories as trustworthy. The circumstance of some conflicting details (like that the train station was built after the molestations stopped occuring) doesn't change the big picture. Of course some details will be flaunted, this happened nearly 30 years ago and peoples memories are often blurry and some memories will be distorted. Perhaps Safechuck and MJ didn't have sex in the train station, but if they had sex at a lot of those other places in Neverland and Safechuck later saw the train station, no wonder he might remember them having sex there as well.

I've seen/heard about the "evidence" against Safechuck and Robsons assesments, and in my opinion, this "evidence" is WEAK.

If you don't believe MJ was a child molester, I recommend you to read EVERYTHING about the '93 case (the detailed description of MJ's penis from the child for example), and the books that were found in MJ's estate that was considered art, would probably nowadays be considered as child pornography.
I understand why fans of MJ are acting like rabid dogs, because he's their hero and could do no wrong, but it's very clear to me that he was a child molester. It is a phenomenon called cognitive dissonance, and people will go great lengths to avoid it. I will still enjoy his music, because his obvious crimes doesn't diminish his talent (not for me at least), and since he's dead, he won't benefit from my consumtion of his music. See you in Tokyo, bitch.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Homefuck

[downzy]

13 hours ago, EvanG said:

The contradictive part is about how you are now saying that it's not because of the documentary that you lost faith in Jackson but because of La Toya's interview. Well, maybe that's true, you would know better than me why you would lose faith in something, however earlier in this thread you posted a link to the surveillance footage scene, that was discussed in the documentary, and you said that your faith in Jackson has ''considerably dropped'' because that footage gave a lot of weight to those guys' testimony. Well, that's fine too, but then don't contradict yourself now by saying it's only because of the La Toya interview. That's all I meant.

It's a little crazy that the La Toya interview is what convinced him that Jackson is guilty of some form of sexual assault.  She took it back and later blamed her statement on her controlling boyfriend who was hoping to cash in on it.

And yes, anyone following along (or at least trying to) can attest to the fact that @action has been all over the place on this issue.  It really feels as though the last thing he watches forms his opinion. 

[downzy]

8 hours ago, Homefuck said:

My line of work is based on making decisions on whether peoples assesments is considered trustworthy and I would definitely consider both Robson and Safechuck stories as trustworthy. The circumstance of some conflicting details (like that the train station was built after the molestations stopped occuring) doesn't change the big picture. Of course some details will be flaunted, this happened nearly 30 years ago and peoples memories are often blurry and some memories will be distorted. Perhaps Safechuck and MJ didn't have sex in the train station, but if they had sex at a lot of those other places in Neverland and Safechuck later saw the train station, no wonder he might remember them having sex there as well.

Great post.  Thanks for your contribution.  

One thing I'd like to add to the point above is that though it would appear that some of Safechuck's dates are wrong, the pictures of the train station included in the film were provided by Safechuck, which were taken by him personally.  So he was present with Jackson when the station was built.  

[DieselDaisy]

The Latoya thing is ancient news. It is of Jordan Chandler vintage I believe. 

[action]

3 hours ago, downzy said:

 

 It really feels as though the last thing he watches forms his opinion. 

yes, it does

[EvanG]

8 hours ago, downzy said:

It's a little crazy that the La Toya interview is what convinced him that Jackson is guilty of some form of sexual assault.  She took it back and later blamed her statement on her controlling boyfriend who was hoping to cash in on it.

I don't understand why that specific example would convince him either, I realize it's weird for a sister to accuse her own brother of something like that, but this is not your typical family we're talking about. 

But my discussion with him was already silly enough, I didn't want to bring this to it as well, and at the end of the day I can't argue his reasoning for losing faith in someone, even if he contradicted himself concerning that subject.