‘Leaving Neverland’, Docu about MJ’s Victims, Coming to HBO in March

[JJATL]

I've just started the documentary, but already I'm not pretending it's not a very real possibility (probability even) that MJ was guilty of these things.  Bringing this back to Janet, however, I would suggest she watch this herself so that she's informed because as this thing grows, and it most certainly will, her continued defense of him (at the very least performing Scream on tour) has potential to severely impact her career and legacy.  

[BlackCat1989]

1 hour ago, JJATL said:

I've just started the documentary, but already I'm not pretending it's not a very real possibility (probability even) that MJ was guilty of these things.  Bringing this back to Janet, however, I would suggest she watch this herself so that she's informed because as this thing grows, and it most certainly will, her continued defense of him (at the very least performing Scream on tour) has potential to severely impact her career and legacy.  

She is in a really hard position. I feel like as more and more time go on. More people will start to believe these men. And I fear that if people stop playing Michael's music. They will stop playing Janet's. Although Janet is an artist/legend in her own right. You can't help but see the Jackson in her. She will have to be very careful how she addresses this. I've seen some MJ fans upset with her for not defending him. But how do you defend something like this when you really don't know what happened. I don't want to see her legacy ruined because of someone else. Another example of being a Jackson is a blessing and a curse. 

[Laveaux]

I'm certain that Janet is already privy to a lot of information that we don't know. Janet was smart to separate her legacy from his a looooong time ago, so I don't think it will impact anything concerning her. Janet is very smart with her words and things she wants us to know. Notice when she commented on Jussie Lyon that she kept it cute 'sending you my love'....she didn't denounce his attack or get political like so many other celebs and if Jussie didn't just tribute her a few months back, she may not have commented at all. 

[Bailey]

25 minutes ago, Voodoo said:

I'm certain that Janet is already privy to a lot of information that we don't know. Janet was smart to separate her legacy from his a looooong time ago, so I don't think it will impact anything concerning her. Janet is very smart with her words and things she wants us to know. Notice when she commented on Jussie Lyon that she kept it cute 'sending you my love'....she didn't denounce his attack or get political like so many other celebs and if Jussie didn't just tribute her a few months back, she may not have commented at all. 

Janet keeps it very well polished and short. Except for the #MeToo she spoke her mind on that

I dont think there is anything for anyone to be concerned with, Oprah's interview was a bust, the "documentary" lost numbers in audience for the second part. Its over let's all move on.

[JJATL]

7 minutes ago, Bailey said:

Janet keeps it very well polished and short. Except for the #MeToo she spoke her mind on that

I dont think there is anything for anyone to be concerned with, Oprah's interview was a bust, the "documentary" lost numbers in audience for the second part. Its over let's all move on.

So, in essence, you want this story, even it's the god awful truth, to be buried so as not to hurt Janet?  Or Michael?  That's pretty messed up.  If all this is true, as I think it most likely is, it needs to be heard by as many as possible to help save other victims from similar situations.  My comment was just about how Janet best not be defending Michael publicly if she cares anything about her legacy/career.  It wasn't about hoping it goes away to save someone's reputation.  

[Laveaux]

Janet will defend her brother...it's a matter of how she will defend him and the words she uses.

If Janet's legacy is in jeopardy, so be it. It's not the end of the world and it wouldn't be the first time. She'll go do another Tyler Perry movie , maybe an Essence Festival or two...sis will be fine.

[jarrylf]

Thing is, however anyone feels about the "doc", it's 1 side and presents no evidence, and comes from 2 inconsistent accusers, and 1 of whom is Wade who is and always has been a piece of shit (again, he's open for donations now, nothing less than $250 tho). If what they said and how they said it moved people, that's that but that's not the equivalence of evidence (again the nerve of people to compare that doc to Surviving R.Kelly, that's just lazy), Janet and his family (all but his kids) were there every day of the trials I doubt this stuff would move anyone who's been on or witnessed the trial.(it's been exposed the family dinner Wade spoke of being at before the trial got debunked, he wasn't there, and why would he be, he said himself he wasn't that close to Micahel at that point, that sounded like something he imagined).

What Janet's gonna do about it, we don't know, but make no mistake she does defend her brother at all costs. She was at every court date for the molestation trial, she was at many of the dates for the suit against AEG, she's spoken out in interviews, she did Scream, she performs Scream. She's pretty consistent at being at his defense no matter the capacity.

[Laveaux]

Chile Corey Feldman just flipped the script 

Dis tew much. Tew much! 

 

[jarrylf]

I think he jumped back on the fence (he maintains he doesn't think Michael is guilty but he does believe in supporting all victims) for support of his upcoming doc about his abuse he's been talking about and he doesn't want this to get in the way of that. I dig him for not coming out and saying he think Michael was guilty, but basically said he's not gonna be at his defense against this doc.  His official words:

I’m not taking sides. I’m out of the argument. My job is to protect all victims. That is what I’m trying to do. We can’t silence 1 accuser but say another has rights. So 2 be fair, let the lawyers do their jobs, and all will work out as God wills it.

I haven’t turned on anyone. I’m simply no longer arguing the case. I’m not a lawyer. It’s not my job. I’ve done all I can by being honest.

[bu.]

Calm down guys. Anyone that had an issue with Janet being MJ's sister already jumped ship in 2004. Her few remaining fans and stans won't leave just because she defends her brother. Game is proof of that.

[Bailey]

9 hours ago, JJATL said:

So, in essence, you want this story, even it's the god awful truth, to be buried so as not to hurt Janet?  Or Michael?  That's pretty messed up.  If all this is true, as I think it most likely is, it needs to be heard by as many as possible to help save other victims from similar situations.  My comment was just about how Janet best not be defending Michael publicly if she cares anything about her legacy/career.  It wasn't about hoping it goes away to save someone's reputation.  

that's a twist of what was said and adding statements I never made. Neither I nor you know what the "God awful truth" is. In our justice system the accused is innocent until proven guilty, this "documentary" failed to provided any evidence so as far as I am concerned its dismissed and so is anyone claiming the story had any credibility.

I'n hoping this story has gone away, because it did not deserve the attention it received, there wasnt a single interview with an eye witness to corroborate the stories, not an investigative report, nor any actual factual evidence that can be put to scrutiny.  I wouldn't take anyone down on the evidence these folks failed to provide

[Bailey]

The best justice I can do to not buying into the bullshit, is I wont be watching Oprah's interview not interested, and I will delete the second half of the "documentary" as I have not watched it nor do I intend to.  Dismissed

[EphraimAdamz]

The film is very boring and waaaay too long. It's not well directed. The interviews seems terribly coached and scripted. Some of the footage of Michael are clips with the audio replaced to make it seem suspicious to the viewer. But when you look up the real clips it's not what he even says or who he's even speaking to. Then they add cheesy suspenseful music for shock value. 

[jarrylf]

Here's an actual real documentary released today by someone who was involved in the trial and went into making the trial thinking he was guilty but then actually did extensive work on studying all sides and came to his own Conclusions. It presents all sides, it's edited well & its 1 hour instead of 4... This shit ain't science

1 of the many things of the 4hr mockumentary that's out completely mistreated was the 05 trial, they treated it like the jurors didn't like the boys mother because she shoplifted, because she was aggressive, THIS paints the whole picture, they admitted to faking accusations before......why didn't the 4hr 1 mention that? (cause it doesn't go with their narrative they're trying to push).

 

 

[bu.]

https://www.reddit.com/r/MichaelJackson/comments/ay42cx/a_condensed_version_of_the_major_credibility/?ref=share&ref_source=embed&utm_content=title&utm_medium=post_embed&utm_name=4bf28035b0cb492797cfae0c0cd2aef6&utm_source=embedly&utm_term=ay42cx

 

A condensed version of the major credibility issues of Robson and Safechuck.

 

From Charles Thomson:

FACT-BOMB: The evidence the media refuses to show you about Michael Jackson’s accusers

I’ve felt total and utter shame at my industry as the coverage of tonight’s Michael Jackson TV show has grown increasingly dishonest and dangerous. I’ve worked in the media since I was a teenager. The whole media knows these two men are liars. But that’s not good for clicks or ratings.

For five years, these men have been suing Michael Jackson’s 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 the men are lying. The whole media knows about these documents, but is refusing to report on their contents. I’ve tried not to fill my Facebook feed with posts about this, but you are all being lied to from every direction. So this is my contribution to the debate on Facebook – a list of just some of the public record information the media is refusing to tell you.

• 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.

• 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’d never discussed his allegations with anyone except his lawyers. When the Jackson estate discovered he’d 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Months later, according to Jimmy Safechuck, he flipped 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 didn’t 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 him – for control of the family business.

• Robson was also ordered to produce his diaries as evidence. In them, he’d 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.

• Both men tell stories in the TV show 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 week.

• 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 tonight’s TV show 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’s 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.

• Robson claimed in a BBC interview last week 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.

• Questioned about their financial motive, the men now say they don’t 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 a bean did he go public.

I could continue, but if you’re still on board with the TV show and its accusers at this point, you are irrational to the point of mania.

Tonight’s TV show covers up all of this information, instead presenting two professional actors’ heavily edited and completely unchallenged testimony without ever examining their credibility, their proven lies and perjury, their constantly changing stories or their financial motives.

It is a stain on the journalistic profession, as has been the rest of the media’s coverage.

[Rock & Roll Hall of Game]

I love how Wackos think judges will watch this documentary as proof of their abuse

Like “oh yeah! I saw the documentaries! I reward you a settlement”

Thats not how that works. Their lawsuits and their stories are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS

You can continue to copy and paste the same bullshit from Wackos over and over but that doesn’t take away from the victims’ stories. How many times have people said “oh she just wants money, fame, etc..” about the victims of women who have been sexually assaulted by powerful men? ALL THE TIME! EVERY TIME! “Why she wait so long to report it?!” EVERY TIME

This is just their story. This is NOT a trial.. this documentary is NOT an investigation. This was a story about two men who were abused by the world’s most powerful man and living with that. Period. You can argue MJ was innocent in the court of law all ya want but, minorities especially, y’all know how prestigious and fair the courts are in the United States

And you’ll notice how Wackos only focus on Wade like he speaks for James. 

Lets talk about James. The man who MJ purchased rings for... the man who was molested before the FBI investigation.. the man molested before Neverland was ever built. The man who went on tour with MJ and slept in his hotel bed

Ignoring his cohersed interview with investigators in the 1990s.. His story didn’t change... And him not testifying for MJ 2005 trial speaks volume. 

[Rock & Roll Hall of Game]

On 3/7/2019 at 12:38 AM, JJATL said:

So, in essence, you want this story, even it's the god awful truth, to be buried so as not to hurt Janet?  Or Michael?  That's pretty messed up.  If all this is true, as I think it most likely is, it needs to be heard by as many as possible to help save other victims from similar situations.  My comment was just about how Janet best not be defending Michael publicly if she cares anything about her legacy/career.  It wasn't about hoping it goes away to save someone's reputation.  

It’s pathetic.. especially him. “Let’s just bury the story bc I think it’s not true” - says forum sheep 

[Rock & Roll Hall of Game]

As far as Janet goes, I hope she doesn’t comment on it because it will only become a bigger story and overshadow her legacy. 

But if she does then she does.. it’s her brother for God’s sake

The other Jackson’s can stfu tho. We know they need money since their bank roll overdosed ten years ago

[jarrylf]

1 hour ago, Game For Now said:

I love how Wackos think judges will watch this documentary as proof of their abuse

Like “oh yeah! I saw the documentaries! I reward you a settlement”

Thats not how that works. Their lawsuits and their stories are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS

You can continue to copy and paste the same bullshit from Wackos over and over but that doesn’t take away from the victims’ stories. How many times have people said “oh she just wants money, fame, etc..” about the victims of women who have been sexually assaulted by powerful men? ALL THE TIME! EVERY TIME! “Why she wait so long to report it?!” EVERY TIME

This is just their story. This is NOT a trial.. this documentary is NOT an investigation. This was a story about two men who were abused by the world’s most powerful man and living with that. Period. You can argue MJ was innocent in the court of law all ya want but, minorities especially, y’all know how prestigious and fair the courts are in the United States

And you’ll notice how Wackos only focus on Wade like he speaks for James. 

Lets talk about James. The man who MJ purchased rings for... the man who was molested before the FBI investigation.. the man molested before Neverland was ever built. The man who went on tour with MJ and slept in his hotel bed

Ignoring his cohersed interview with investigators in the 1990s.. His story didn’t change... And him not testifying for MJ 2005 trial speaks volume. 

Yes anyone who watches their doc and considers that as proof is a wako, we know this. And actually as the doc based on evidence I posted pointed out, during the trial, they played Martin Bashir's documentary.....thus....contradicting your point, and this man was brought in to make a documentary about going to Neverland as a guest and what they might see...thus another documentary  Stop making up stuff please.

Again, they aren't victims because there is no trial like you keep insisting, though the doc is clearly made to feel like it's them on the witness stand. And the "they want money" defense is justifiable when it's a paper trail like it is for these 2 and for the other 2 MJ accusers like again you know you're on team "belief over facts" right?  What next you're not atheist anymore because you just believe?

Also, you contradicted yourself, an interview(which is what this mocumentary is) isn't an investigation, a documentary is supposed to do investigative journalism and that's why this is being ripped for being so heavily 1 sided and so heavily devoid of facts. And sorry but "the court/police is corrupt" actually doesn't apply here, it's actually the opposite, if you saw the documentary (rhetorical, I know) I posted where they go into details, the police went above and beyond to do everything they can to make a case for Michael being guilty even trying to make a case for 1 of his statues and 1 of his art books being the case for "porn"  They worked overtime for a guilty verdict and used more than double the usual amount of manpower & force to look at every single thing they could, but the facts wouldn't have it and the 2nd accuser & his family had a history of false accusations and trying to get money from celebs, but hey they came up with a story on Michael so it must be true

That's also what's fantastic about the doc I posted (besides it being about the facts) they actually use footage from the police Officers raid to make their points and to make the point about they had way more cops than in a normal case. 

Who have you been watching? Yes there's more dirt on Wade than James but James has been uncovered for inconsistencies in his story on this since he came out too, this isn't new, it's just not as juicy as Wade's trashy ass  And Bu's post already drags Jimmy's inconsistencies, but here's my favorite:
"Safechuck was never asked to testify for Jackson’s defense. 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 defense cannot have asked him to testify – and certainly not after the trial was already underway."

Take your seat, this is facts only not theory.  

 

[Rock & Roll Hall of Game]

 

No no.. my post wasn’t meant to be replied to but thanks

Between Trump supporters and Wackos, idk which is worse “BUT HER EMAILS” = “BUT PERJURY/LAWSUIT”

Continue thinking their lawsuits for causing them and their families emotional pain has anything to do with their truth

My thread has made it to 12 pages (thanks to me) so that is all

You can continue to copy and paste the same bullshit from Wackos over and over but that doesn’t take away from the victims’ stories. How many times have people said “oh she just wants money, fame, etc..” about the victims of women who have been sexually assaulted by powerful men? ALL THE TIME! EVERY TIME! “Why she wait so long to report it?!” EVERY TIME. R Kelly, Donald Trump, Bill Cosby, Michael Jackson

[jarrylf]

47 minutes ago, Game For Now said:

 

No no.. my post wasn’t meant to be replied to but thanks

Between Trump supporters and Wackos, idk which is worse “BUT HER EMAILS” = “BUT PERJURY/LAWSUIT”

Continue thinking their lawsuits for causing them and their families emotional pain has anything to do with their truth

My thread has made it to 12 pages (thanks to me) so that is all

You can continue to copy and paste the same bullshit from Wackos over and over but that doesn’t take away from the victims’ stories. How many times have people said “oh she just wants money, fame, etc..” about the victims of women who have been sexually assaulted by powerful men? ALL THE TIME! EVERY TIME! “Why she wait so long to report it?!” EVERY TIME. R Kelly, Donald Trump, Bill Cosby, Michael Jackson

 

But you said things that weren't factual, so I'm correcting you, if that doesn't work for you, you have to post facts

Except Trumpers are saying there's something in her emails we haven't found, which is a lie. The people point to the perjury & lawsuit are pointing to actual lies and inconsistencies. 

Me personally, the lawsuit is only part of the thing, they went all around saying they weren't making money off of this, and then Wade announces he's accepting donations for a "foundation" that's not transparent about where the money goes. 

Dear it's so long because you've been consistently wrong and consistently corrected.....that's not a bragging point...for you.

...You're literally saying "facts don't matter, their fiction & blind belief should be the most important", save that for the church on Sunday & Wednesday night Bible study, we're talking about things that are proven. James & Wade are all financially motivated and incredibly inconsistent with the stories they came up with=Fact

[janetDAYZ]

What's interesting is Ive been looking up alot of body language experts who have viewed Wade Robson interviews related to these Michael allegations from in the past even up to the current doc and i have not found not ONE expert who hasnt said that Wade was being deceptive in his interviews and/or story telling. From their analysis overall....he is not telling the truth. I couldnt find none on the other guy, maybe bc he's a "new" accuser and no body language expert has took the time out to analyze his body language.

[Rock & Roll Hall of Game]

2 hours ago, janetDAYZ said:

What's interesting is Ive been looking up alot of body language experts who have viewed Wade Robson interviews related to these Michael allegations from in the past even up to the current doc and i have not found not ONE expert who hasnt said that Wade was being deceptive in his interviews and/or story telling. From their analysis overall....he is not telling the truth. I couldnt find none on the other guy, maybe bc he's a "new" accuser and no body language expert has took the time out to analyze his body language.

Really  really  

James Safechuck 

 

[jarrylf]

Again, they're both pile's of shit, Wade is just a bigger pile, and getting more attention because he was a C-list celeb for a moment in time, so ofcourse he's gonna overshadow James in terms of he's done & said so much more. But as we know from the facts laid out, James isn't a clean accuser.

[BlackCat1989]

6 hours ago, janetDAYZ said:

What's interesting is Ive been looking up alot of body language experts who have viewed Wade Robson interviews related to these Michael allegations from in the past even up to the current doc and i have not found not ONE expert who hasnt said that Wade was being deceptive in his interviews and/or story telling. From their analysis overall....he is not telling the truth. I couldnt find none on the other guy, maybe bc he's a "new" accuser and no body language expert has took the time out to analyze his body language.

I will give you Wade... Even though I don't believe he is completely lying. But James...that man has been through something terrible. He wears the shame on his face...