Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson Documentary, HBO

[Towelie]

41 minutes ago, downzy said:

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

Reed only makes it worse for himself and Safechuck.

James said in the documentary that the train station abuse was early on during his abuse, presumably making it 88, 89, 90 at the latest. But we now know it wasn't even built until 1994 - two whole years after he alleges that the abuse stopped altogether. He claims that by the time the Jordy Chandler allegations hit in 1993, MJ had dumped him and only contacted him afterwards to get him to defend him. This is all claimed in Leaving Neverland!

And now Reed wants us to disregard all of that because Safechuck has been caught out in a lie about being abused in a place that wasn't even built until at least 4 years after he alleges the abuse took place.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Towelie

[downzy]

29 minutes ago, Towelie said:

Reed only makes it worse for himself and Safechuck.

James said in the documentary that the train station abuse was early on during his abuse, presumably making it 88, 89, 90 at the latest. But we now know it wasn't even built until 1994 - two whole years after he alleges that the abuse stopped altogether. He claims that by the time the Jordy Chandler allegations hit in 1993, MJ had dumped him and only contacted him afterwards to get him to defend him. This is all claimed in Leaving Neverland!

And now Reed wants us to disregard all of that because Safechuck has been caught out in a lie about being abused in a place that wasn't even built until at least 4 years after he alleges the abuse took place.

Safechuck never says the abuse happened in the train station early on.  

Here's the transcript:

"At the train station, there's a room upstairs.  We would have upstairs up there too.  It would happen every day."

That is the only reference to the train station.  He never claims when it actually took place.  As Reed points out, Safechuck was on the grounds when the station was built, since the photos of the station in the film were provided by Safechuck.

Again, you're taking issue with an alleged victim's timeline here.  It's very likely that some of the dates or the timeline remembered by Robson and Safechuck is off and not accurate.  But as experts on child sexual assault will attest, this is quite common amongst victims of sexual abuse.  

According to this video, there was a separate train station built prior to the one depicted in the photos provided by Safechuck:

Perhaps the disconnect here is that the train station in question with respect to the abuse isn't the same one shown in the photos that was built later.  

I don't know who this person is or whether they're knowledge of Neverland is accurate, but it sounds quite possible:

The train staion built for Lisa was a different station. The" victorian" is the train station that is around the floral clock in front that has always been there. It is attached to the house, actually. Michael named it the "Katherine", after he had it renovated when he bought the home in 1987. That particular train is the one that took people around Neverland to tour. That was not new. Total seperate train station. Total seperate train station from the one he had built for Lisa.

[Towelie]

16 minutes ago, downzy said:

Safechuck never says the abuse happened in the train station early on.  

Here's the transcript:

"At the train station, there's a room upstairs.  We would have upstairs up there too.  It would happen every day."

That is the only reference to the train station.  He never claims when it actually took place.  As Reed points out, Safechuck was on the grounds when the station was built, since the photos of the station in the film were provided by Safechuck.

Again, you're taking issue with an alleged victim's timeline here.  It's very likely that some of the dates or the timeline remembered by Robson and Safechuck is off and not accurate.  But as experts on child sexual assault will attest, this is quite common amongst victims of sexual abuse.  

According to this video, there was a separate train station built prior to the one depicted in the photos provided by Safechuck:

Perhaps the disconnect here is that the train station in question with respect to the abuse isn't the same one shown in the photos that was built later.  

 

You didn't post the full quote from Safechuck. He refers to how frequently couples have sex in the beginning of a relationship and then proceeds to talk about having sex in the train station.

There was no second train station, just a few "train stops", which were little more than open shacks exposed to the elements. Safechuck specifically refers to being abused upstairs in the station. There is no disconnect. As Reed himself admitted, the train station photos were taken by Safechuck. He knows exactly the location he is referring to and it was proven to be a lie.

Reed never claims that Safechuck is actually describing a seperate location, this fictiscious "second train station" you allude to. What he actually claims is that the abuse must've gone on for longer than Safechuck remembered, meaning that for Safechuck's story of being abused in the train station to be believed, he would have to be 16/17yrs old, and molested AFTER Jordy Chandlers allegations went public. How does this jive with James's assertion that MJ had long dumped him by the time Jordy was on the scene? His story is all over the place.

This is not a timeline issue as in, he says he was abused on a Tuesday, but it was actually a Friday. This is claiming to have been abused in a location that didn't yet exist - a massive red flag and an indicator of a false allegation.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Towelie

[downzy]

Just now, Towelie said:

You didn't post the full quote from Safechuck. He refers to how frequently couples have sex in the beginning of a relationship and then proceeds to talk about having sex in the train station.

There was no second train station, just a few "train stops", which were little more than open shacks exposed to the elements. Safechuck specifically refers to being abused upstairs in the station. There is no disconnect. As Reed himself admitted, the train station photos were taken by Safechuck. He knows exactly the location he is referring to and it was proven to be a lie.

Reed never claims that Safechuck is actually describing a seperate location, this fictiscious "second train station" you allude to. What he actually claims is that the abuse must've gone on for longer than Safechuck remembered, meaning that for Safechuck's story of being abused in the train station to be believed, he would have to be 16/17yrs old, and molested AFTER Jordy Chandlers allegations went public. How does this jive with James's assertion that MJ had dumped him by the time Jordy was on the scene? His story is all over the place.

This is not a timeline issue as in, he says he was abused on a Tuesday, but it was actually a Friday. This is claiming to have been abused in a location that didn't yet exist. 

I'm not alluding to anything other than the fact that others, including Jackson's former bodyguards, have suggested that another train station existed.

Don't understand you're viewing this anything more than an issue with dates.  Safechuck was still part of Jackson's life after the train station was built.  The video I linked to has pictures of Jackson and Safechuck when James was old enough for when the supposed second station was built.  

The reality is that no one knows for sure, only what we can grasp by what is put out there by the Internet.  What we do know is that James provided two photos of the train station, including one of the interior that shows a staircase.  If he was there to take the photos, then he was there for the abuse to happen.  There could very well be conflict with respect to timeline, but there is absolute proof that James was inside the train station to take that photo.  

[downzy]

5 minutes ago, Towelie said:

You didn't post the full quote from Safechuck. He refers to how frequently couples have sex in the beginning of a relationship and then proceeds to talk about having sex in the train station.

No, the part of couples having sex at the beginning was following the comments on the train station, not prior.

And it doesn't necessarily denote anything with respect to the timeline.  I viewed it as a general description about how Safechuck felt about the entire episode.  

[Towelie]

13 minutes ago, downzy said:

I'm not alluding to anything other than the fact that others, including Jackson's former bodyguards, have suggested that another train station existed.

Don't understand you're viewing this anything more than an issue with dates.  Safechuck was still part of Jackson's life after the train station was built.  The video I linked to has pictures of Jackson and Safechuck when James was old enough for when the supposed second station was built.  

The reality is that no one knows for sure, only what we can grasp by what is put out there by the Internet.  What we do know is that James provided two photos of the train station, including one of the interior that shows a staircase.  If he was there to take the photos, then he was there for the abuse to happen.  There could very well be conflict with respect to timeline, but there is absolute proof that James was inside the train station to take that photo.  

The former bodyguard you refer to has since spoken out and said that the train station he described in his book as having been built in 1990 was actually based on footage shot in 2003 taken from the Neverland raid. It was the same train station which land permits and the actual Neverland train driver all PROVE wasn't built until 1994. 

And one of the two photos which Reed claims James took of the station was proven to be taken from the realtors listing of Neverland.

Even if he was there (many people visited the Ranch when MJ was off sight), we are still being expected to believe the abuse happened when he was 16/17, which is a far cry from 13/14 which is when Safechuck himself alleges the abuse ceased.

Also, why would he lie and say that MJ had long dumped him by the time Jordy was on the scene in 92/93 if they were still having sex in 1994?

 

Edited April 12, 2019 by Towelie

[downzy]

20 minutes ago, Towelie said:

The former bodyguard you refer to has since spoken out and said that the train station he described in his book as having been built in 1990 was actually based on footage shot in 2003 taken from the Neverland raid. It was the same train station which land permits and the actual Neverland train driver all PROVE wasn't built until 1994. 

And one of the two photos which Reed claims James took of the station was proven to be taken from the realtors listing of Neverland.

Even if he was there (many people visited the Ranch when MJ was off sight), we are still being expected to believe the abuse happened when he was 16/17, which is a far cry from 13/14 which is when Safechuck himself alleges the abuse ceased.

Also, why would he lie and say that MJ had long dumped him by the time Jordy was on the scene in 92/93 if they were still having sex in 1994?

 

Do you have sources for your first two claims (bodyguard, photo taken from realtor listing)?  

Again, it's a matter of issues with time lines.  He might just have his facts wrong with respect to when the alleged abuse happened and what was occurring around him.  I'm no expert in this department but from what I read those who do profess to be experts claim that this kind of situation occurs a lot with individuals who suffered sexual assault while they were minors.

Plus it's one aspect of the entire story.  Let's say Safechuck is getting this wrong and abuse didn't happen in the train station.  Does that render his entire account false?  

I also fail to see what either have to gain at this point.  Civil litigation is almost entirely closed off to them and neither were paid to be part of the documentary.  Why put themselves out there?  How do they benefit from this kind of attention?  

12 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

Fair enough.

But I am curious, do you believe any of Jackson's accusers?  If Safechuck and Robson are lying, do you believe any of the three other kids who made similar accusations?  

[Jw224]

Honestly it really doesn't matter how many inconsistencies come up with those two people in the metoo era will make up any excuse to believe them. "it doesn't matter that all the dates are wrong", "it doesn't matter that the train station didn't even exist when he said he was abused", "it doesn't matter that they have a clear financial motivation for accusing mj". Absolutely mental. Saying "they are convincing and credible so I'm going to believe them no matter what comes up" is very dangerous. 

[downzy]

On 2019-04-15 at 5:37 PM, Jw224 said:

Honestly it really doesn't matter how many inconsistencies come up with those two people in the metoo era will make up any excuse to believe them. "it doesn't matter that all the dates are wrong", "it doesn't matter that the train station didn't even exist when he said he was abused", "it doesn't matter that they have a clear financial motivation for accusing mj". Absolutely mental. Saying "they are convincing and credible so I'm going to believe them no matter what comes up" is very dangerous. 

"It doesn't matter that he slept with children."

"It doesn't matter that he paid off two of his accusers."

"It doesn't matter that MJ was inconsistent as to why he paid them off."

"It doesn't matter that Robson and Safechuck's accounts are incredibly detailed."

"It doesn't matter that Jackson's own sister accused him of sexual assault in the early 90s."

"It doesn't matter that Jackson had a favourite boy, and always a boy, almost every different year."

Goes both ways.  

[Jw224]

On 17/04/2019 at 5:35 AM, downzy said:

"It doesn't matter that he slept with children."

"It doesn't matter that he paid off two of his accusers."

"It doesn't matter that MJ was inconsistent as to why he paid them off."

"It doesn't matter that Robson and Safechuck's accounts are incredibly detailed."

"It doesn't matter that Jackson's own sister accused him of sexual assault in the early 90s."

"It doesn't matter that Jackson had a favourite boy, and always a boy, almost every different year."

Goes both ways.  

You're bringing this stuff up as if it wasn't wasn't all debunked years ago. If you had done any research at all you'd know that all of this stuff has already been debunked/explained. Also their accounts are incredibly detailed because they have the same lawyers and have had years to get their stories straight, even though they've still done a crap job at it. It doesn't "go both ways" if all the stuff you present has been done to death and explained. 

[downzy]

22 minutes ago, Jw224 said:

You're bringing this stuff up as if it wasn't wasn't all debunked years ago. If you had done any research at all you'd know that all of this stuff has already been debunked/explained. Also their accounts are incredibly detailed because they have the same lawyers and have had years to get their stories straight, even though they've still done a crap job at it. It doesn't "go both ways" if all the stuff you present has been done to death and explained. 

Please explain how any of the points I raised were debunked. Everything listed is a fact. It’s not proof that Jackson was guilty of what he was accused of, but everything listed did in fact happen. 

Mans are you sure about joint legal representation?  Care to provide a source on this matter. 

This seems to be an ongoing issue with Jackson defenders. Too often are claims made in Jackson’s defence that can’t be supported by legitimate sources. Look two posts up. 

[DieselDaisy]

I hope it is so as I want to believe Michael's innocence, and haven't completely given up hope, however: if Safechuck and Wade are lying, then they're certainly the greatest thespians in the history of acting. Olivier, Gielgud, Brando and De Niro are mere amateurs compared to these two. Mifune? Forget it. Pacino? Bah. Day-Lewis? Nowhere close to Safechuck and Wade.

Edited April 18, 2019 by DieselDaisy

[action]

7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I hope it is so as I want to believe Michael's innocence, and haven't completely given up hope, however: if Safechuck and Wade are lying, then they're certainly the greatest thespians in the history of acting. Olivier, Gielgud, Brando and De Niro are mere amateurs compared to these two. Mifune? Forget it. Pacino? Bah. Day-Lewis? Nowhere close to Safechuck and Wade.

to be honest, I find they do a shitty job with it. To me, their lies and their faces look really transparent. I can't quite put my finger on it. Is it how they can barely keep a straight face? is it the staged setup of the interview and the docu as a whole? the calculated answers? their eyes that are litterally shouting: "look, I'm lying"?

they say, first impressions are telling the truth. Well, my first impression within the first 10 seconds or so, was screaming insincerity.

I could be wrong of course, but that's my take on it

[action]

also, I think it is time to stop handing out labels such as "jackson defender" or "jackson attacker"

labels such as those suggest some sort of determination, that prevails over new facts.

I'm not sure what I am: jackson defender or jackson attacker. I don't think I have made my mind up, and I doubt I ever will.

the most I can be, is an "appreciator of certain elements in the jackson case"

there is the latoya interview. That can be appreciated. I think she speaks the truth.

there is the safechuck confession. I think that was a lie.

there is the version of jackson's kids, they tell he was a great dad. I can believe that too.

But taking the next step... a "conclusion"... that is very damn hard to do. So personally, I refuse to be called a "jackson defender" or "jackson accuser" since I haven't even made my own mind up.

But present me clear elements, and I might be able to appreciate it. That's what I'm trying to do here

[downzy]

2 hours ago, action said:

 their eyes that are litterally shouting: "look, I'm lying"?

they say, first impressions are telling the truth. Well, my first impression within the first 10 seconds or so, was screaming insincerity.

I could be wrong of course, but that's my take on it

Fair enough, but literally nobody but you in this thread who has actually watched the film has the same response. 

You seem to view emotional and evocative expressions as being more truthful when there’s no basis in that determination. People telling the truth have a wide range of responses. 

[DieselDaisy]

2 hours ago, action said:

also, I think it is time to stop handing out labels such as "jackson defender" or "jackson attacker"

labels such as those suggest some sort of determination, that prevails over new facts.

I'm not sure what I am: jackson defender or jackson attacker. I don't think I have made my mind up, and I doubt I ever will.

the most I can be, is an "appreciator of certain elements in the jackson case"

there is the latoya interview. That can be appreciated. I think she speaks the truth.

there is the safechuck confession. I think that was a lie.

there is the version of jackson's kids, they tell he was a great dad. I can believe that too.

But taking the next step... a "conclusion"... that is very damn hard to do. So personally, I refuse to be called a "jackson defender" or "jackson accuser" since I haven't even made my own mind up.

But present me clear elements, and I might be able to appreciate it. That's what I'm trying to do here

The Latoya interview is ancient!! I admit it is still damning but why are you suddenly obsessing over it now? 

[Jw224]

5 hours ago, downzy said:

Please explain how any of the points I raised were debunked. Everything listed is a fact. It’s not proof that Jackson was guilty of what he was accused of, but everything listed did in fact happen. 

Mans are you sure about joint legal representation?  Care to provide a source on this matter. 

This seems to be an ongoing issue with Jackson defenders. Too often are claims made in Jackson’s defence that can’t be supported by legitimate sources. Look two posts up. 

It's really strange to me that you're constantly asking me and others in this thread for links and sources yet you watched a 4 hour documentary with no sources or evidence and instantly believed it because it implied MJ was guilty. I think mj is innocent because I have spent a long time researching this stuff. I would not just be saying it if I didn't have reason to believe so. I don't really think you are going to be convinced one way or the other and I'm not going to try and change your mind because it is tiring seeing people go through mental gymnastics to try and make these guys look legitimate. Everything I'm saying has a legitimate source because I have seen it but I am not going to spend time looking for all of them for you just because you want to believe this doc. If you cared enough about this to form an opinion based on the doc then I think you should have been curious enough to do some research. Otherwise you wanted to be convinced one way and just accepted it when you were. This is probably the last I'll say on the matter. 

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Jw224 said:

It's really strange to me that you're constantly asking me and others in this thread for links and sources yet you watched a 4 hour documentary with no sources or evidence and instantly believed it because it implied MJ was guilty. I think mj is innocent because I have spent a long time researching this stuff. I would not just be saying it if I didn't have reason to believe so. I don't really think you are going to be convinced one way or the other and I'm not going to try and change your mind because it is tiring seeing people go through mental gymnastics to try and make these guys look legitimate. Everything I'm saying has a legitimate source because I have seen it but I am not going to spend time looking for all of them for you just because you want to believe this doc. If you cared enough about this to form an opinion based on the doc then I think you should have been curious enough to do some research. Otherwise you wanted to be convinced one way and just accepted it when you were. This is probably the last I'll say on the matter. 

I was fairly agnostic about it before the film, and to a certain extent, there's a portion of me that still is.  No one call really know.  I don't blame yourself or others for believing Jackson's innocence since it hasn't been proven and there's credibility issues with the five accusers.  That said, I still don't know why people who defend Jackson get so angry and dismissive over the possibility that Jackson might have done it.  It's not as though there's nothing there to warrant belief of his guilt.  Claims like yours that dismiss everything that provides ground for suspicion and belief is hard to take with any seriousness.  

You claim that every thing I wrote was disproven.  Really?  It's been disproven that Jackson slept with children?  If so, please provide a source.  Is it not a fact that Jackson and his estate have provided more than one (and contradictory) rationales for why two accusers have been paid off?  It's not debatable that he had a new favourite boy (and always boys) every year or so.  It's not debatable that his sister also accused Jackson of sexual abuse.  @Towlie makes the claim that the photos included in the film were from a real estate listing and Reed is lying that Safechuck provided the photos.  Yet when asked for a source or proof that Reed is lying, none is offered.

That film with Robson and Safechuck is a story of their accounts.  But within their accounts include corroborating evidence that Jackson was creepy as fuck and not a great person, even if you don't think he was guilty of sexually abusing Robson and Safechuck.  He bought Safechuck's mom a house when they played ball, that he bought them jewelry (that he told the jeweller they were for a girlfriend, when they were really for the kid), that he would send them bizarro love faxes and spend hours on the phone.  Not in the documentary but included in court testimony in the 2005 trial was Robson's mom acknowledging that Jackson called her up at 1:30 in the morning and asked her to bring her son over, whereafter Robson was taken into Jackson's bedroom and returned in the morning.  

It's not a matter of convincing and it's been an interesting discussion about how and why people believe what they believe.  As I said, no one should take issue with your belief that Jackson is innocent, but claims like "I've spent a long time researching this stuff" (especially when you won't elaborate) isn't sufficient to dismiss the beliefs of others.  

[Scream of the Butterfly]

On 4/18/2019 at 4:01 PM, DieselDaisy said:

I hope it is so as I want to believe Michael's innocence, and haven't completely given up hope, however: if Safechuck and Wade are lying, then they're certainly the greatest thespians in the history of acting. Olivier, Gielgud, Brando and De Niro are mere amateurs compared to these two. Mifune? Forget it. Pacino? Bah. Day-Lewis? Nowhere close to Safechuck and Wade.

I'm sceptical of any attempt to determinate whether a person is lying based on non-verbal cues, but nonetheless found this video very interesting.

For anybody who thinks Safechuck and Robson are such great actors to pull this off if they are lying, I'd suggest watching this.

 

[action]

On 18-4-2019 at 6:08 PM, DieselDaisy said:

The Latoya interview is ancient!! I admit it is still damning but why are you suddenly obsessing over it now? 

the facts themselves are ancient.

as a historian, you'll agree with me, that contemporate sources are better than more recent ones, years after the facts

the latoya interview was given, in tempore non suspecto, before everyone and his granny were suing the jackson estate.

that, coupled with the very convincing testimony, grants her a lot of credibility in my opinion.

[Towelie]

11 minutes ago, action said:

the facts themselves are ancient.

as a historian, you'll agree with me, that contemporate sources are better than more recent ones, years after the facts

the latoya interview was given, in tempore non suspecto, before everyone and his granny were suing the jackson estate.

that, coupled with the very convincing testimony, grants her a lot of credibility in my opinion.

Latoya Jackson and the word "credible" have never been used in the same sentence in the history of mankind. Until now.

Edited April 22, 2019 by Towelie

[action]

another witness steps forward. this time, in favor of jackson

matt fiddes, his bodyguard for a couple of years

 

[action]

i hope the day will come that the lies of safechuck and robson will be exposed. it all points that way. How much longer can they keep up the charade?

[soon]

Like everyone, I want for children to be protected. I want victims/survivors to heal and see justice. I want to remove power structures from elites that can give them cover for horrible acts.

But all this MJ stuff starts to feel like a tabloid thing after a while. A distraction. 

That said I have like 10 posts in this thread so who am I to talk. 

[EvanG]

Quote

Facts don't lie, people do.

Well, he's got that right. Just look at how much MJ lied in Living With Michael Jackson already. At first he said that Blanket's mother and him had a relationship, then he forgot about that apparently, and a few interviews later he said that she was a surrogate and they don't know each other. Why would he even lie about that in the first place?