Jump to content
JONEZY

Leaving Neverland, Michael Jackson Documentary, HBO

Recommended Posts

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?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
  • 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 truehttps://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 by action
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Towelie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Towelie
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Towelie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by DieselDaisy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×