Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson Documentary, HBO

[downzy]

18 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

In fairness to action he is just reacting to concurrent events as they appear - like we all are. My opinion shifted considerably upon watching the documentary. 

We all have our reasons for believing what we believe in this case.  It's just a little strange he believes Jackson's guilty of something because of something La Toya said while under duress but doesn't seem to believe any of the accusers.  At the same time he calls people naive for believing Robson and Safechuck.  It's just a strange way to get to the same place that you and I arrived at. 

[Angelica]

 

https://youtu.be/af8XU5Ajq8s 

 

Downzy, have you listened to the Howard Stern interview? She gives a lot of detail (including mentioning a million dollar check made out to the Safechuck’s). Her backtrack about being forced to turn on Michael has never seemed entirely plausible to me on account of that. 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Angelica

[action]

8 hours ago, downzy said:

So let's recap:

You didn't think Jackson was guilty.  

You saw the documentary, then felt differently.

Posts that highlighted some date/time inconsistencies with Safechuck and Robson led you to believe that both men are liars who gave oscar worthy performances

But you still think Jackson is guilty because of claims made by his sister La Toya, who was at the time was constantly being beaten and extorted by her then husband.  

And since you didn't bother to read the wikipedia post, I'll copy the most relevant part here (with most relevant underscored and bolded):

In 1993 in their New York home, Gordon beat Jackson repeatedly with a heavy brass dining room chair, leaving Jackson with black eyes, swollen lip and chin "the size of a clenched fist", cuts requiring 12 mouth stitches and contusions on her face, arms, legs and back.[33][34] Jackson lost consciousness during the beating, leading Gordon to believe she was dead. She recalled, "He called his friends and said, 'She's dead. I killed her,' because I was lying in a puddle of blood and I was out."[35] Gordon was arrested but then released, claiming he beat Jackson in self-defense.[36] In December 1993, Gordon hastily arranged a press conference in Tel Aviv, where he had Jackson read a statement claiming to believe the sex abuse allegation against her younger brother Michaelmight be true.[37][38] This was an abrupt reversal of her previous defense of Michael against the charges.[39] Gordon claimed La Toya had proof which she was prepared to disclose for a fee of $500,000. A bidding war between US and UK tabloids began, but fell through when they realized that her revelations were not what she had claimed them to be.[40] According to La Toya, Gordon threatened to have siblings Michael and Janet killed if she didn't follow his orders.[35][41] In 1993, Jackson claims her father Joe Jackson sexually abused her as a child.

But for some reason you still find La Toya's 1993 claims credible while Robson and Safechuck you accuse of lying (despite having no financial gain from participating in the film).

Never mind La Toya later recanted her claims and reunited with Jackson once her marriage to Gordon was over.  

So you believe Jackson is guilty of being a pedophile, but not with respect to Robson and Safechuck, who you claim are liars.  

--------------------------

Like I said earlier, people can believe whatever they want.  We'll never truly know with absolute certainty.  

But you're reasoning here seems pretty suspect.  You seemed convinced of your opinion and that anyone who feels differently is naive and not acting in good faith despite the fact that there's little rhyme, reason, or consistency in your own opinions.  

I did read the wikipedia article, multiple times in fact. But the only certain fact here, is that clip and her tone. for your convenience, I created a timestamp at the exact moment where she goes from, maybe, reading a statement, to giving a genuine, heartfelt confession about her brother.

that wikipedia article, measured against that clip, just does not give a credible explanation at all.

for me, the moment of 1.39 onwards, was when I came from a non-believer to a believer.

[action]

4 hours ago, downzy said:

We all have our reasons for believing what we believe in this case.  It's just a little strange he believes Jackson's guilty of something because of something La Toya said while under duress but doesn't seem to believe any of the accusers.  At the same time he calls people naive for believing Robson and Safechuck.  It's just a strange way to get to the same place that you and I arrived at. 

my wife pointed me to the la toya clip, AFTER I watched the LN docu. that docu led to some debate between us, and we were looking for more clues until we stumbled upon that latoya clip.

that could give you some explanation on my shifts in belief.

I maintain, I have far less difficulty believing his own bloody sister, than two people who are, the signs are there if you are willing to see them, in it for the money.

I may have arrived at the same place that you have, but I'm not sure you "can" really believe he is guilty seeing how you don't believe jackson's sister but you do believe safechuck and robson. If I were you, I'd pay good attention to what happens next because people are investigating the backgrounds of those two (please watch the docu made by the jackson family if you haven't) and as time goes on, more and more elements are showing up that prove they are liars. When that day finally comes, and seeing how you don't believe jackson's sister, will you question your own beliefs then?

Edited April 11, 2019 by action

[downzy]

3 hours ago, Angelica said:

 

https://youtu.be/af8XU5Ajq8s 

 

Downzy, have you listened to the Howard Stern interview? She gives a lot of detail (including mentioning a million dollar check made out to the Safechuck’s). Her backtrack about being forced to turn on Michael has never seemed entirely plausible to me on account of that. 

I remember listening to it along time ago; but didn't remember it so gave it a brief listen.  

My issue with La Toya was that she initially publicly proclaimed her belief that her brother was innocent in September of '93, then at the behest of her abusive husband who was trying to line up a $500k pay day with tabloids, changed her opinion a few months later, only to recant the accusations years later and is now one of her brother's latest defenders.  It's just impossible to take anything she says seriously, in my opinion, due to all the circumstances.  

She's already lying in the Stern interview when she's not doing this for the money, since it's been established that her husband was working on a deal with the tabloids.  

With respect to referencing Safechuck, perhaps she knew his name because she knew Michaels spent so much time with the kid and assumed he paid the family out.  Moreover, why was Safechuck's family never made aware of the check, as there's no mention of it in Finding Neverland?  There is the possibility that it was used to pay for the house Michael bought them, but I'm fairly certain the film makes it clear that Michael held the mortgage on the house, hence any check would have gone to the bank (or to Michael himself if the mortgage was originally held by him).  

I'm not sure if people really remember the extents to which La Toya went to in the late 80s and early 90s to keep her name in the spotlight.  From the features in plaboy and playboy videos to hawking the psychic hotline, it's difficult to believe that someone who, according to her, was making millions of dollars on touring, would put herself in these situations.  Her finances were in such a disaster that she filed for bankruptcy not too long after.   

Anything is possible and there's the chance that she was both compelled to do it for financial reasons or under the direction of her husband and also believing at the time that Jackson was guilty.  But she's just such an incredibly hard person to believe if you remember what she was like back then.  

As I said, i believe Jackson is guilty for a variety of reasons and maybe apart of that has to do with La Toya, but it just strikes me as incredibly odd for someone like @action to cast doubt on Jackson's accusers because he doesn't find them credible but finds someone like La Toya should be believed. Just makes little to no sense to me. 

[downzy]

24 minutes ago, action said:

my wife pointed me to the la toya clip, AFTER I watched the LN docu. that docu led to some debate between us, and we were looking for more clues until we stumbled upon that latoya clip.

that could give you some explanation on my shifts in belief.

I maintain, I have far less difficulty believing his own bloody sister, than two people who are, the signs are there if you are willing to see them, in it for the money.

I may have arrived at the same place that you have, but I'm not sure you "can" really believe he is guilty seeing how you don't believe jackson's sister but you do believe safechuck and robson. If I were you, I'd pay good attention to what happens next because people are investigating the backgrounds of those two (please watch the docu made by the jackson family if you haven't) and as time goes on, more and more elements are showing up that prove they are liars. When that day finally comes, and seeing how you don't believe jackson's sister, will you question your own beliefs then?

La Toya had many financial reasons to lie at the time, along with being under the control of her husband who was looking to make a buck anyway he could.

I believe Jackson is guilty because I find his accusers credible.  

Robson and Safechuck weren't paid to be apart of the film and likely will never get a dollar from the Jackson estate.  The clip you played is just La Toya raising points that everyone else was at the time (and still to this day).  There's nothing in there that makes her claim any more credible.  She just asks what 35 year old man sleeps and travels with little boys.  It's a good question.  But i don't see how it makes her anymore credible.  

Again, are there any of the accusers you do believe?  It's just incredibly strange to believe someone is guilty of something but none of his accusers are telling the truth.  Somehow his sister who had been beaten and threatened by her monster husband who changed her story three times and is now one of her brother's biggest defenders is more credible.  

[action]

38 minutes ago, downzy said:

La Toya had many financial reasons to lie at the time, along with being under the control of her husband who was looking to make a buck anyway he could.

I believe Jackson is guilty because I find his accusers credible.  

Robson and Safechuck weren't paid to be apart of the film and likely will never get a dollar from the Jackson estate.  The clip you played is just La Toya raising points that everyone else was at the time (and still to this day).  There's nothing in there that makes her claim any more credible.  She just asks what 35 year old man sleeps and travels with little boys.  It's a good question.  But i don't see how it makes her anymore credible.  

Again, are there any of the accusers you do believe?  It's just incredibly strange to believe someone is guilty of something but none of his accusers are telling the truth.  Somehow his sister who had been beaten and threatened by her monster husband who changed her story three times and is now one of her brother's biggest defenders is more credible.  

we're going in circles by this point, Downzy.

You believe safechuck and robson, but not latoya. I believe latoya, but not safechuck and robson. You have your reasons, I have mine. You don't buy my reasons, I don't buy yours.

You are allowed to find my reasons strange of course. Hell, the entire board can find my reasons strange for all I care, ridiculous even. But that is of little concern to me, to be honest. Trying to make my reasons less strange to you, is a fight I can not win, and a task I'm not willing or even expected to undertake.

No doubt, there will be more information coming forward. A lot of key parties haven't told their piece yet. We'll see what comes up next. I'll adjust my opinion accordingly, if it is allowed (and also, if it isn't)

[EvanG]

Action, I think what confuses some people is how convinced you seem to be and the words you choose, at least that is why I first reacted to your post. You go from pretty much believing their testimony to calling them frauds and anyone who believes them to be naive. Same thing with the La Toya interview now, stating that sisters don't say something like that about brothers if it's not true, how can you even know that? You can't.

Personally I have made a point in saying with almost every post in here that I don't know for sure, that we can't know for sure, and unless there's some real evidence, no one will know for sure about any of this except the people involved. Even after watching the documentary and I was leaning more and more towards thinking he's guilty. Doesn't mean you can't form an opinion, but your firm conviction is confusing. You're allowed to think whatever you want and express it the way you want it, but I guess for some it's confusing to follow.

Edited April 11, 2019 by EvanG

[action]

57 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Action, I think what confuses some people is how convinced you seem to be and the words you choose, at least that is why I first reacted to your post. You go from pretty much believing their testimony to calling them frauds and anyone who believes them to be naive. Same thing with the La Toya interview now, stating that sisters don't say something like that about brothers if it's not true, how can you even know that? You can't.

Personally I have made a point in saying with almost every post in here that I don't know for sure, that we can't know for sure, and unless there's some real evidence, no one will know for sure about any of this except the people involved. Even after watching the documentary and I was leaning more and more towards thinking he's guilty. Doesn't mean you can't form an opinion, but your firm convinction is confusing. You're allowed to think whatever you want and express it the way you want it, but I guess for some it's confusing to follow.

I never "pretty much believed their testimony". Somehow, you came to the wrong conclusions. I hope this is cleared up by now. I think I have thus far spent three pages, making my stance clear. Somehow, at some point, it "has" to become clear, don't you think? There has to come a time, where it would be wise to start questioning: is the problem with action, or with me?

as for the second paragraph of your post: I fully agree. I think I have made that very clear myself, many times. You can easily find posts where I have stressed 'I dont know'.

As for the words I chose, my vocabulary is pretty limited. I try to make the best I can from my posts, but my native language is not english. It's dutch, just like yours. Here we have two dutch speaking people, arguing over word use in the english language. I find that rather.... amusing

[EvanG]

27 minutes ago, action said:

I never "pretty much believed their testimony". Somehow, you came to the wrong conclusions. I hope this is cleared up by now. I think I have thus far spent three pages, making my stance clear. Somehow, at some point, it "has" to become clear, don't you think? There has to come a time, where it would be wise to start questioning: is the problem with action, or with me?

as for the second paragraph of your post: I fully agree. I think I have made that very clear myself, many times. You can easily find posts where I have stressed 'I dont know'.

As for the words I chose, my vocabulary is pretty limited. I try to make the best I can from my posts, but my native language is not english. It's dutch, just like yours. Here we have two dutch speaking people, arguing over word use in the english language. I find that rather.... amusing

Why are you defensive? There is no problem. The only reason our little discussion continued is because you contradicted yourself with a statement, not an opinion. And it took me many posts to make you see that, but I thought we had cleared that up on the previous page. It was never about the fact that you changed your mind repeatedly because I've explained many times that I understand that.

When you say: ''this footage gives a lot of weight to their testimony, I'm not going to put my head in the sand on this.'', then I am sorry for confusing that with ''pretty much believing their testimony''. My bad, I guess.

Yes, my vocabulary is limited too, as I'm sure anyone can tell, however your English seems to be fluent enough, I don't think that's an excuse. Not that you need an excuse at all for choosing the words you use, I was merely explaining why I got confused and reacted to your initial post. 

You know what? Forget it.

[action]

8 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Why are you defensive? There is no problem. The only reason our little discussion continued is because you contradicted yourself with a statement, not an opinion. And it took me many posts to make you see that, but I thought we had cleared that up on the previous page. It was never about the fact that you changed your mind repeatedly because I've explained many times that I understand that.

When you say: ''this footage gives a lot of weight to their testimony, I'm not going to put my head in the sand on this.'', then I am sorry for confusing that with ''pretty much believing their testimony''. My bad, I guess.

Yes, my vocabulary is limited too, as I'm sure anyone can tell, however your English seems to be fluent enough, I don't think that's an excuse. Not that you need an excuse at all for choosing the words you use, I was merely explaining why I got confused and reacted to your initial post. 

You know what? Forget it.

no, you're right. There is no excuse for contradicting myself, the way I do. I'm taking that one to heart.

For the past several pages, I have acted way too defensive. Too late, I have realised your concerns. I'm sorry, if my serious lack of ability to come up with a coherent argument has made your experience on the board of lesser quality, in any way, shape or form.

thanks for the complement on my fluent english though. much appreciated

Edited April 11, 2019 by action

[EvanG]

2 minutes ago, action said:

Too late, I have realised your concerns. I'm sorry, if my serious lack of ability to come up with a coherent argument has made your experience on the board of lesser quality, in any way, shape or form.

 

That's ok, I'm still coming to grips with the fact that Gert is quitting Samson & Gert and I might be reacting a bit too emotional to everything right now.

[action]

1 minute ago, EvanG said:

That's ok, I'm still coming to grips with the fact that Gert is quitting Samson & Gert and I might be reacting a bit too emotional to everything right now.

it's ok to cry man - tears over that buddy. I feel your pain. First jackson turns out to be a pedo, now gert is leaving his dog for crying out loud. All what was good, is bad now.

boo fucking hoo

[Scream of the Butterfly]

Oftentimes fans are just people with a great deal of knowledge about the artist in question. I would give more credit to a fan's well-educated opinion than the opinion of somebody who watched one totally onesided documentary and decided Jackson was guilty.

As fans of GNR, many of us have no trouble believing Axl abused women or at least that it's possible that he did. We know first hand that being a fan doesn't mean that you have to blindly defend everything the artist ever did or refuse to believe anything bad about him. Why then would you assume that the fans of another artist are all incapable of critical thinking, or rabid dogs as somebody put it?

From what I've seen, the fans, family members, and other defenders of MJ have been doing a pretty good job contradicting the accusations with facts. Thanks to their good work, I'm now increasingly convinced that both Robson and Safechuck are lying, and I've lost all respect for the director Dan Reed.

It's still possible that either Robson or Safechuck or both were abused at some point in their lives by either Michael Jackson or somebody else. The problem is they had very little credibility to begin with and now it's gone. At this point, I wouldn't trust anything they say unless it can be independently verified.

[downzy]

15 hours ago, action said:

we're going in circles by this point, Downzy.

You believe safechuck and robson, but not latoya. I believe latoya, but not safechuck and robson. You have your reasons, I have mine. You don't buy my reasons, I don't buy yours.

You are allowed to find my reasons strange of course. Hell, the entire board can find my reasons strange for all I care, ridiculous even. But that is of little concern to me, to be honest. Trying to make my reasons less strange to you, is a fight I can not win, and a task I'm not willing or even expected to undertake.

No doubt, there will be more information coming forward. A lot of key parties haven't told their piece yet. We'll see what comes up next. I'll adjust my opinion accordingly, if it is allowed (and also, if it isn't)

I wouldn't say we're going in circles. 

You have called others naive and not acting in good faith because they believe Robson and Safechuck.  You made it personal when it didn't need to be.  

Then asked why you believe someone like La Toya who was obviously having some serious issues at the time, you simply list her tone and the fact that she's Michael's sister.  

But then you don't seem to believe any of the accusers.

I'm just trying to make sense of your opinion but you don't seem very interested other than stating that it's simply your opinion.  

[downzy]

2 hours ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

As fans of GNR, many of us have no trouble believing Axl abused women or at least that it's possible that he did. We know first hand that being a fan doesn't mean that you have to blindly defend everything the artist ever did or refuse to believe anything bad about him. Why then would you assume that the fans of another artist are all incapable of critical thinking, or rabid dogs as somebody put it?

I don't see people who believe Robson and Safechuck perceiving all MJ fans as a monolith either.  Most are, or were, fans of MJ's music.  

The difference between Axl and MJ is that MJ is being accused of something far worse than whatever Axl was accused of.  

[Angelica]

19 hours ago, downzy said:

I remember listening to it along time ago; but didn't remember it so gave it a brief listen.  

My issue with La Toya was that she initially publicly proclaimed her belief that her brother was innocent in September of '93, then at the behest of her abusive husband who was trying to line up a $500k pay day with tabloids, changed her opinion a few months later, only to recant the accusations years later and is now one of her brother's latest defenders.  It's just impossible to take anything she says seriously, in my opinion, due to all the circumstances.  

She's already lying in the Stern interview when she's not doing this for the money, since it's been established that her husband was working on a deal with the tabloids.  

With respect to referencing Safechuck, perhaps she knew his name because she knew Michaels spent so much time with the kid and assumed he paid the family out.  Moreover, why was Safechuck's family never made aware of the check, as there's no mention of it in Finding Neverland?  There is the possibility that it was used to pay for the house Michael bought them, but I'm fairly certain the film makes it clear that Michael held the mortgage on the house, hence any check would have gone to the bank (or to Michael himself if the mortgage was originally held by him).  

I'm not sure if people really remember the extents to which La Toya went to in the late 80s and early 90s to keep her name in the spotlight.  From the features in plaboy and playboy videos to hawking the psychic hotline, it's difficult to believe that someone who, according to her, was making millions of dollars on touring, would put herself in these situations.  Her finances were in such a disaster that she filed for bankruptcy not too long after.   

Anything is possible and there's the chance that she was both compelled to do it for financial reasons or under the direction of her husband and also believing at the time that Jackson was guilty.  But she's just such an incredibly hard person to believe if you remember what she was like back then.  

As I said, i believe Jackson is guilty for a variety of reasons and maybe apart of that has to do with La Toya, but it just strikes me as incredibly odd for someone like @action to cast doubt on Jackson's accusers because he doesn't find them credible but finds someone like La Toya should be believed. Just makes little to no sense to me. 

I agree La Toya’s words shouldn’t be the basis on which anyone decides his guilt or innocence but that interview is still an important piece of the puzzle. I don’t believe that Gordon forced her to turn on MJ (though the money grabbing part was certainly his idea). Her responses are passionate and emphatic. During the (oh so awkward) argument with Feldman it’s confirmed she was living with Michael in the late 80s and saw the favorites brought in to sleep with him night after night then get replaced as they aged out. She talks openly about it. All stuff that’s long been confirmed. The interview also goes into the backlash she received from the press and other celebrities for speaking out, that she recanted isn’t surprising. 

The Safechuck check certainly paints his parents in a less flattering light than Dan Reed does. 

Edited April 12, 2019 by Angelica

[action]

6 hours ago, downzy said:

I wouldn't say we're going in circles. 

You have called others naive and not acting in good faith because they believe Robson and Safechuck.  You made it personal when it didn't need to be.  

Then asked why you believe someone like La Toya who was obviously having some serious issues at the time, you simply list her tone and the fact that she's Michael's sister.  

But then you don't seem to believe any of the accusers.

I'm just trying to make sense of your opinion but you don't seem very interested other than stating that it's simply your opinion.  

these are my exact words:

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

note: "by this point", "if" and "still"

by using those three words, I wanted to make it not personal. obviously, I failed in that.

if anyone feels addressed by that statement, I apologize

[Angelica]

3 hours ago, action said:

these are my exact words:

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

note: "by this point", "if" and "still"

by using those three words, I wanted to make it not personal. obviously, I failed in that.

if anyone feels addressed by that statement, I apologize

 

So...you acknowledge he was a predator but you doubt he molested these particular boys? How do you explain the check and just in general, I don’t get your thinking?

[action]

• For the past six years, both men, James Safechuck and Wade Robson, have been suing the Michael Jackson Estate for hundreds of millions of dollars. This lawsuit has generated thousands of pages of court records: witness statements, motions, depositions and disclosure. These public documents PROVE beyond any reasonable doubt that these men are lying.

• Both men strenuously defended Jackson, including under oath, for decades, and only decided they’d been molested years after his death, when they were both in financial trouble and filed a lawsuit seeking hundreds of millions of dollars. That lawsuit was thrown out of court – twice – but the men are in the middle of an appeal, giving them a gigantic financial motive to lie.

• Since filing their lawsuit, both men have repeatedly changed their stories, frequently telling directly contradictory versions of the same supposed events. For example, Wade Robson has told at least four directly contradictory stories about the first time Jackson supposedly abused him.

• In the lawsuit, Robson was caught lying under oath so brazenly that the judge threw out his entire witness statement and said no rational juror could ever believe his account. (source 1 - https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/2017-06-26-estate-notice-of-summary-judgement-redacted-wm1.pdf)  / (source 2 https://www.scribd.com/document/367639167/Robson-Summary-Judgment-Ruling)

• Between 2012 and 2014, Robson wrote two drafts of an abuse memoir and tried unsuccessfully to sell them to publishers. Meanwhile, he lied under oath and said he had never discussed his allegations with anyone except his lawyers. When the Jackson estate discovered he had actually been shopping books, the court ordered him to produce the drafts as evidence. They revealed the story of his abuse had changed significantly from one draft to the next. (https://www.scribd.com/document/335685460/MJ-Estate-Motion-to-Compel-Robson)

• Robson was also ordered to release his emails as evidence. He breached the order repeatedly, first by claiming they didn’t exist, then by simply refusing to hand them over. Then he redacted all the emails between himself and his family members and cited ‘attorney-client’ privilege, even though none of his family are attorneys.

• When he eventually complied with the court order and released the emails, they revealed that at the time he was constructing his lawsuit and abuse memoir, he was researching and emailing himself links to old tabloid newspaper stories about abuse allegations against Michael Jackson.

• The emails showed Robson found one particular story from the early 1990s which specifically named he and his mother. He emailed it to his mother and asked whether it was true. She replied, ‘Wow, none of that is true’. He then included it in his story anyway. (https://www.scribd.com/document/336110667/Robson-Emails)

• Emails also revealed that throughout 2011/12, Robson was lobbying Jackson’s estate for a job directing and choreographing an official Michael Jackson tribute show in Las Vegas. His campaign to secure this role had included sending emails explaining that his amazing friendship with Jackson meant nobody was better qualified for the role than he was, and he was devoted to doing the best job he possibly could ‘for Michael’. After being told someone else had got the job, he suddenly claimed he’d been abused and filed a creditor’s claim against the estate for millions of dollars. (https://leavingneverlandfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Wade-Email-to-Cirque)

• Months later, according to Jimmy Safechuck, he turned on the TV and saw Wade Robson being interviewed about his lawsuit. In that moment, Safechuck suddenly remembered that he had been abused by Jackson as well, so decided to join the lawsuit. He did not mention that this epiphany coincided exactly with his inheritance circling the drain after a relative died and the surviving siblings started suing each other – including himself and his mother – for control of the family business. (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.564084.1.0.pdf)

• Robson was also ordered to produce his diaries as evidence. In them, he had written about how these allegations might rescue his failing career by making him ‘relatable and relevant’. He also wrote, ‘It’s time for me to get mine.’ When questioned under oath about what he’d meant when he wrote that, he refused to answer. (https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/wade-robson-deposition-extracts.pdf) [p. 250-252]

• Both men tell stories in the film which directly contradict stories told under oath in their lawsuit. In fact, they have continued to change their stories as recently as within the last month.

• For example, Jimmy Safechuck claims under oath in the lawsuit that he only remembered Jackson had abused him in 2013 when he turned on the TV and saw Robson. Yet in the film and interviews promoting it, he claims he knew he’d been abused in 2005 and thus, when asked to testify for Jackson’s defence ‘towards the end of the trial’, he refused to do so.

• But that is a provable lie. Safechuck was never asked to testify for Jackson’s defence. The judge ruled long before the trial began that testimony could only be heard about certain children, and Safechuck was not one of them. All testimony about Safechuck was literally banned from the courtroom. So Jackson’s defence cannot have asked him to testify – and certainly not after the trial was already underway. 

  / http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/03-28-05_FINAL__1108_Lopezes_Spinner_.txt [3782/15 to 3783/13]

• In Safechuck’s 2014 lawsuit, he swore under oath that his alleged abuse ended in 1992, and in the film, he described in graphic detail being abused in the second story of the Neverland train station. But this claim is literally impossible. The train station was only permitted to be constructed in September 1993 and was not completed until early 1994, when Jackson was in New York recording music, meaning it is impossible for Safechuck’s story to be true. https://etcanada.com/news/437246/michael-jackson-biographer-claims-new-evidence-challenges-leaving-neverland-accusations/amp/?__twitter_impression=true / 

   

• In the film, Wade Robson goes into graphic detail about a week of alleged abuse with Jackson while his family visited the Grand Canyon in 1990, but this story is also impossible given that in 1993 and 2016, Robson’s own mother swore under oath in legal depositions that Wade had in fact accompanied them to the Grand Canyon, meaning Wade Robson could not possible have been abused as he described in the film. 

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

• Robson claimed in a BBC interview that Jackson had abused him ‘hundreds of times’. Yet his mother’s sworn testimony is that they went to Neverland roughly 14 times but Jackson was almost never there. She estimates the number of times they visited the ranch and he was actually there was four. http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/05-06-05__Joy_Chantal_Lizbeth_Karlee_.txt

• Robson’s claim that he was abused in the recording studio while Jackson was working on his Dangerous album is rebuked by Brad Sundberg who was present in the studio for every single recording session with Jackson and witnessed absolutely no suspicious behaviour ever. 

  / https://thehustle.podbean.com/e/bonus-brad-sundberg-technical-director-for-michael-jackson/

• Questioned about their financial motive, the men now say they do not care about money and are only suing to embolden other abuse victims by holding the Jackson estate accountable. This is a provable lie. The lawsuit was originally filed under seal and Robson tried to extract a settlement from the estate with zero publicity. Only when the estate refused to pay him did he go public. http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/106-wade-robson-files-sex-abuse-claim

Edited April 12, 2019 by action

[Scream of the Butterfly]

14 hours ago, downzy said:

The difference between Axl and MJ is that MJ is being accused of something far worse than whatever Axl was accused of.

I disagree. As far as I know, MJ has never been accused of forcible rape or physical violence of any kind. Because of the amount of violence and sexual sadism, I think the things Axl was accused of were worse.

[downzy]

13 hours ago, Angelica said:

I agree La Toya’s words shouldn’t be the basis on which anyone decides his guilt or innocence but that interview is still an important piece of the puzzle. I don’t believe that Gordon forced her to turn on MJ (though the money grabbing part was certainly his idea). Her responses are passionate and emphatic. During the (oh so awkward) argument with Feldman it’s confirmed she was living with Michael in the late 80s and saw the favorites brought in to sleep with him night after night then get replaced as they aged out. She talks openly about it. All stuff that’s long been confirmed. The interview also goes into the backlash she received from the press and other celebrities for speaking out, that she recanted isn’t surprising. 

The Safechuck check certainly paints his parents in a less flattering light than Dan Reed does. 

I agree that I think it adds to the suspicion.  But if it were the only piece, it wouldn't be much of a case.

We'll have to disagree about what her husband was forcing her to do.  From the accounts of it, she was at the receiving end of numerous beatings, one so severe it left her unconscious.  She was shrilling for hucksters and performed a complete 180 on using and promoting sex to sell her brand.

In my opinion simply being emotional or emphatic about something doesn't necessarily lend it validity.  OJ was emotional emphatic.  Susan Smith, convicted of driving her kids into a lake, was emotional and emphatic about having her car hijacked by a black guy.  Hell, I've dated enough women who got emotional over stuff that later turned out to be not true that I've long disassociated emotional responses with any level of validity.  Conversely, I'd look at Robson and Safechuck as far more credible despite being quite stoic throughout most of the film.  

My question to La Toya would be if she was concerned about the boys being brought into Neverland in the late 80s, why did she initially claim Michael was innocent in September in 93 and then change her tune?  If she truly thought her brother was up to no good, why did she wait?  Perhaps the accusation by Jordy made her reassess what she saw, so there is that possibility.

All in all, I think it's noteworthy but I just don't think La Toya's public comments at a time when she was under such duress should be used to convict her brother.  There's a reason why she was never called to testify in the 2005 trial.

If what she claimed was true about the check, then either the Safechucks never received the check (which leads one to ask why it was even produced) or the Safechucks lied about Jackson throughout the entire film, but for reasons that make even less sense.  Why would cover the fact that Jackson paid them $1 million way back in the late 80s or early 90s?  Why not reveal it in the documentary?  I'd have a hard time believing it was due to any kind of confidentiality agreement, since that would be something Safechuck would want to present in the film and would likely be invalid at this point anyway with Michael's passing.  

In the end I think La Toya (well, her husband) took the pieces that were publicly known and saw an opportunity to make money.  There could have been a part of La Toya that truly felt that MJ was guilty, but considering she said nothing before and changed her account numerous times while under the control of her abusive husband, it just belies belief that she was speaking out for genuine reasons.  

24 minutes ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

I disagree. As far as I know, MJ has never been accused of forcible rape or physical violence of any kind. Because of the amount of violence and sexual sadism, I think the things Axl was accused of were worse.

Forcible rape?  You'll have to expand on that one.

To each their own, but I think most would agree that while there's no excuse for physical violence of any kind, sexually abusing children is the worst thing a person can do.  It's the lowest of the low.  It's why those convicted of the crime are separated from the general prison population.  

[downzy]

@action

Many of your bullet points have already been discussed, explained and refuted in this thread.  There's no basis for a lot of the claims, particularly the dollar figures associated with the lawsuits.  Safechuck, as I have seen it reported, did quite well for himself in software development the last ten years and wouldn't need the money.  No one really knows how Robson is doing but he did just donate $10k of his own money to his own foundation to help people who have suffered sexual abuse as children.

Many of the other claims can't be known, since the only public court documents do not include any of the information that your source claims.  Again, none of these claims are verifiable.  

Moreover, pointing out inconsistencies with respect to dates isn't proof that they're lying.  It's just proof that they have some dates wrong.  Read up on survivals of sexual abuse.  Most will admit that their memories are fuzzy during this period (likely a product of their subconscious trying to avoid the trauma) and have similar issues with dates and timelines.  It's a common occurrence among victims of sexual assault.   

[Towelie]

59 minutes ago, downzy said:

@action

Many of your bullet points have already been discussed, explained and refuted in this thread.  There's no basis for a lot of the claims, particularly the dollar figures associated with the lawsuits.  Safechuck, as I have seen it reported, did quite well for himself in software development the last ten years and wouldn't need the money.  No one really knows how Robson is doing but he did just donate $10k of his own money to his own foundation to help people who have suffered sexual abuse as children.

Many of the other claims can't be known, since the only public court documents do not include any of the information that your source claims.  Again, none of these claims are verifiable.  

Moreover, pointing out inconsistencies with respect to dates isn't proof that they're lying.  It's just proof that they have some dates wrong.  Read up on survivals of sexual abuse.  Most will admit that their memories are fuzzy during this period (likely a product of their subconscious trying to avoid the trauma) and have similar issues with dates and timelines.  It's a common occurrence among victims of sexual assault.   

Is it common for victims of CSA to claim remembering being molested at locations that don't even exist?

 

[downzy]

11 minutes ago, Towelie said:

Is it common for victims of CSA to claim remembering being molested at locations that don't even exist?

 

If you’re talking about the train station, that was already addressed by Reed and others in this thread. 

Reed’s response at the bottom of the article:

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/meaww.com/amp/news/michael-jackson-james-safechuck-neverland-ranch-abuse-allegations-new-twist-train-station