Here's why Leaving Neverland is a lie

[Adakam 2]

46 minutes ago, Economy said:

I always say this in general cases where there's no proof because the whole #metoo movement is a double edged sword

 

On the one hand it encourages people to speak out and come forward and also encourages emotional support etc and not just brush off a victims trauma...

 

But on the other hand there's individuals taking the "we believe them" thing too far where without proof they'd be ready to throw in the supposed abuser in jail or think completely different on the individual without giving them a benefit of the doubt

 

I am generalizing tho I'm not talking about MJ specifically. I have no seen the documentary yet nor have I really followed past accusations/court cases so I don't really have an opinion on MJ as of right now

 

Its a very complicated topic. 

Its a long story, but basically I know someone who is in prison for something like this, his exgf called him for a bareback one night stand, she called the police inmediately after he left, with all his DNA still inside of her, claiming a rape. (I know enough details to trust him). And now his life is ruined.

 

Its a very hard topic that I dont think has an easy solution, but I really dont think automatically believing accusers is the right one, just like with every other kind of crime. 

(And before someone says something, I was raped multiple times when I was around 6 by my own brother, so I do have a right to talk about this)

 

[Economy 46,983]

12 minutes ago, Adakam said:

Its a very complicated topic. 

Its a long story, but basically I know someone who is in prison for something like this, his exgf called him for a bareback one night stand, she called the police inmediately after he left, with all his DNA still inside of her, claiming a rape. (I know enough details to trust him). And now his life is ruined.

 

Its a very hard topic that I dont think has an easy solution, but I really dont think automatically believing accusers is the right one, just like with every other kind of crime. 

(And before someone says something, I was raped multiple times when I was around 6 by my own brother, so I do have a right to talk about this)

 

If u have something against someone one of the easiest things to make up or try to frame someone for is harrassment or rape/abuse

 

So I think it's simple... If someone claims to be raped, don't call them a liar or brush them off because if they are telling the truth that only closes them up further and makes them suffer alone even more

 

We obviously have an issue of not supporting victims enough and the stigma causes them to be even more closed off. No one should have to suffer alone

 

But regardless of our support for the supposed victims, as far as legal action against the accused goes... Proof it necessary... U never wanna throw someone in jail just because someone says they did this or that

[Didymus 34,379]

7 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

And this is the problem. The monetization of #MeToo movement.

I wish this kind of investigations were done by independent journalists who aren't seeking money out of it,with some insight from psychologists and other expert testimonies.

This documentary isn't doing any of that. Its main goal is to generate a lot of buzz with shocking accusations, and make a lot of money.

This is an independent film company specializing in serious, well researched and qualitative docs though  It’s four friggin’ hours long in one sitting and its pace is slow and almost exhausting. That is so not the format for a tabloid-y hate piece.

Also, read some interviews with the director. The goal is not to hate Michael, but to understand how child abuse functions and how it affects a family. When you see the documentary it’s obvious that’s indeed the goal. And it’s why this doc is actually acclaimed.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

12 minutes ago, Didymus said:

This is an independent film company specializing in serious, well researched and qualitative docs though  It’s four friggin’ hours long in one sitting and its pace is slow and almost exhausting. That is so not the format for a tabloid-y hate piece.

Also, read some interviews with the director. The goal is not to hate Michael, but to understand how child abuse functions and how it affects a family. When you see the documentary it’s obvious that’s indeed the goal. And it’s why this doc is actually acclaimed.

Is it making them money? Yes. I could make a company tomorrow that exploits social causes and it'll still make me rich. The problem with that, is that the tactic wouldn't be to try to be as fair and accurate as possible, but to make it that the film grabs as many headlines as possible and creates as much buzz as possible. So producers would be more focused on making it shocking and other marketing tactics that make the news talk about it. They didn't give the other side of the story the chance to share any insight or rebuttal to the claim being made. 

And yeah saying that the documentary is about "how child abuse functions" doesn't really negate the fact that the documentary is intended to paint MJ as a rapist pedophile. So that's not an argument really.

I think when as an adult you testify twice in defense of MJ, you participate in his VMA tribute after he passes away (voluntarily), you go out of your way to defend him and praise him on TV as an adult in your mid 20s, when these allegations take place. You risk going to prison by saying under oath that he didn't molest you (he wasn't even compelled by the court to provide that testimony). He was already an established choreographer at the time who didn't rely on MJ financially (he worked with Britney Spears, NSYNC and won two Emmy's). You continue to work on his memorial show after he passed away (when you're in your 30s). Only when you're dropped by his Estate, do you raise these accusations in a monetary lawsuit against his estate.

At this point, people have EVERY right to question your claims, because all of these things are just extremely suspicious.

[Whispering 18,865]

Both men describe being in love with the singer, and wanting to participate in sexual acts to please him. It’s a jolting reminder of the insidious nature of child sexual abuse, so deftly portrayed in HBO’s “The Tale” just last year: victims often don’t consider that what they are experiencing as abuse until years later. For Robson and Safechuck, the turning point arrived when they themselves became fathers, and realized just how young they really were when all of the abuse was taking place.

 

[Didymus 34,379]

16 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

Is it making them money? Yes. I could make a company tomorrow that exploits social causes and it'll still make me rich. The problem with that, is that the tactic wouldn't be to try to be as fair and accurate as possible, but to make it that the film grabs as many headlines as possible and creates as much buzz as possible. So producers would be more focused on making it shocking and other marketing tactics that make the news talk about it. They didn't give the other side of the story the chance to share any insight or rebuttal to the claim being made. 

And yeah saying that the documentary is about "how child abuse functions" doesn't really negate the fact that the documentary is intended to paint MJ as a rapist pedophile. So that's not an argument really.

Sigh. Sad response, really. Some of you are so obsessed with Michael you’ve let the estate convince yourselves there was a witch hunt that required protest when that’s just not the case. At all.

If you seriously believe this is headline grabbing Lifetime trash then there’s nothing I can say anymore. It just upsets me because I know you haven’t seen it, you haven’t read anything about it that didn’t come from the Michael is innocent brigade,... And yet you have the balls to sit here and talk about the obvious problems of being one-sided. Absurd.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

39 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Sigh. Sad response, really. Some of you are so obsessed with Michael you’ve let the estate convince yourselves there was a witch hunt that required protest when that’s just not the case. At all.

If you seriously believe this is headline grabbing Lifetime trash then there’s nothing I can say anymore. It just upsets me because I know you haven’t seen it, you haven’t read anything about it that didn’t come from the Michael is innocent brigade,... And yet you have the balls to sit here and talk about the obvious problems of being one-sided. Absurd.

What's sad is that people never address the actual point, look how you completely avoided making sense of this:

"I think when as an adult you testify twice in defense of MJ, you participate in his VMA tribute after he passes away (voluntarily), you go out of your way to defend him and praise him on TV as an adult in your mid 20s, when these allegations take place. You risk going to prison by saying under oath that he didn't molest you (he wasn't even compelled by the court to provide that testimony). He was already an established choreographer at the time who didn't rely on MJ financially (he worked with Britney Spears, NSYNC and won two Emmy's). You continue to work on his memorial show after he passed away (when you're in your 30s). Only when you're dropped by his Estate, do you raise these accusations in a monetary lawsuit against his estate."

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

46 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Both men describe being in love with the singer, and wanting to participate in sexual acts to please him. It’s a jolting reminder of the insidious nature of child sexual abuse, so deftly portrayed in HBO’s “The Tale” just last year: victims often don’t consider that what they are experiencing as abuse until years later. For Robson and Safechuck, the turning point arrived when they themselves became fathers, and realized just how young they really were when all of the abuse was taking place.

 

"years later", you mean it took him 25 years to realize that it was abuse (at the age of 31)? 

Also not sure how you can still be in love with a pedophile, at the age of 31, after he passes away, and only realize it's sexual abuse when you're dropped by his Estate and you're low on funds so you sue them in court.

I would've believed these accusations if they came from people who don't have sketchy history, people who aren't seeking money out of it, and if they weren't drown by inconsistencies.

But let's follow this argument okay. Let's pretend Michael Jackson was a pedophile, and abused MANY MANY children. It was discovered and he was put on trial. You're a grown ass man in your late 20s, you go voluntarily (not compelled) by the court, testify twice under oath risking going to jail, to defend someone that you know was abusing children. What does that say on their character? They were not teenagers when they did this. They were grown men in their late 20s. So I'm really not buying this whole "they didn't know it was abuse".

I don't listen to MJ music and I'm too young to be a fan since he wasn't hot at the time I grew up really. He had no influence on me whatsoever. But I have commonsense. I'm not going to systematically believe anyone who claims rape. I will give everyone the benefit of the doubt and hear their story, but if it's full of stuff that don't even make sense and is contradictory, I'm not going to believe them. That is the cornerstone of our judicial system.

[Didymus 34,379]

39 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

What's sad is that people never address the actual point, look how you completely avoided making sense of this:

Well, I thought the claim that this documentary was sensationalist gossip slash cash grab was also an important point I had to address.

39 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

"I think when as an adult you testify twice in defense of MJ, you participate in his VMA tribute after he passes away (voluntarily), you go out of your way to defend him and praise him on TV as an adult in your mid 20s, when these allegations take place. You risk going to prison by saying under oath that he didn't molest you (he wasn't even compelled by the court to provide that testimony). He was already an established choreographer at the time who didn't rely on MJ financially (he worked with Britney Spears, NSYNC and won two Emmy's). You continue to work on his memorial show after he passed away (when you're in your 30s). Only when you're dropped by his Estate, do you raise these accusations in a monetary lawsuit against his estate."

I've already addressed this so many times elsewhere though lol. He explains that in the documentary, directly. That doesn't mean he's telling the truth, it just means that there's no point in bringing this up over and over again. It's not a good argument.

What you're relying on is finding whatever information is available to fit your already pre-established belief that Michael never abused anyone. It's exactly what you're blaming the supposedly anti-Michael people in these threads of: only looking at (some of) the evidence in a one-sided way. If you haven't even heard Wade explain why he did come forward about the abuse even after all of what you have described, how can you possibly have anything meaningful to say about this subject?

[Economy 46,983]

2 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

Is it making them money? Yes. I could make a company tomorrow that exploits social causes and it'll still make me rich. The problem with that, is that the tactic wouldn't be to try to be as fair and accurate as possible, but to make it that the film grabs as many headlines as possible and creates as much buzz as possible. So producers would be more focused on making it shocking and other marketing tactics that make the news talk about it. They didn't give the other side of the story the chance to share any insight or rebuttal to the claim being made. 

And yeah saying that the documentary is about "how child abuse functions" doesn't really negate the fact that the documentary is intended to paint MJ as a rapist pedophile. So that's not an argument really.

I think when as an adult you testify twice in defense of MJ, you participate in his VMA tribute after he passes away (voluntarily), you go out of your way to defend him and praise him on TV as an adult in your mid 20s, when these allegations take place. You risk going to prison by saying under oath that he didn't molest you (he wasn't even compelled by the court to provide that testimony). He was already an established choreographer at the time who didn't rely on MJ financially (he worked with Britney Spears, NSYNC and won two Emmy's). You continue to work on his memorial show after he passed away (when you're in your 30s). Only when you're dropped by his Estate, do you raise these accusations in a monetary lawsuit against his estate.

At this point, people have EVERY right to question your claims, because all of these things are just extremely suspicious.

Documentaries are almost always one sided. I whatch them all the time and find them interesting but I always take them with a grain of salt because they are one of the most biased things u can whatch. It's almost always just one side of the story so I don't know why actually take documentaries so seriously

 

And about the money I partially agree. If it was just about child abuse in general they could have also done it on other victims but by choosing Michael Jackson a famous figure it gets way more headlines

 

As for whether the doc makes any sense tho or whatnot I cannot judge at this time because I have not had the time to whatch it yet so I can't really say anything about its content

 

But I've yet to whatch a documentary that isn't totally one sided

 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,356]

5 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

What's sad is that people never address the actual point, look how you completely avoided making sense of this:

"I think when as an adult you testify twice in defense of MJ, you participate in his VMA tribute after he passes away (voluntarily), you go out of your way to defend him and praise him on TV as an adult in your mid 20s, when these allegations take place. You risk going to prison by saying under oath that he didn't molest you (he wasn't even compelled by the court to provide that testimony). He was already an established choreographer at the time who didn't rely on MJ financially (he worked with Britney Spears, NSYNC and won two Emmy's). You continue to work on his memorial show after he passed away (when you're in your 30s). Only when you're dropped by his Estate, do you raise these accusations in a monetary lawsuit against his estate."

1. They BOTH said in the documentary that what made them finally come to the realization that this was abuse(in their 30s) was when they both became fathers. Wade thought about that happening to his children by some grown man and it Disgusted him he said. So that’s why he FINALLY came forward after so long lying about it.  🙌  

 

2. Okay, if everything you just said explains why Wade Robson is lying, then how do you explain the other guy?!?  🤨

 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

1 minute ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

1. They BOTH said in the documentary that what made them finally come to the realization that this was abuse(in their 30s) was when they both became fathers. Wade thought about that happening to his children by some grown man and it Disgusted him he said. So that’s why he FINALLY came forward after so long lying about it.  🙌  

 

2. Okay, if everything you just said explains why Wade Robson is lying, then how do you explain the other guy?!?  🤨

 

That's a cheap excuse. Oh what a coincidence. They both (who know each other) only decided to condone something that EVERYONE KNOWS is bad, when they became fathers...

But they go on the stand under penalty of imprisonment and supposedly defend the most horrible crimes while they're adults and have no problem with their conscience.

Give me a break. I'm just not buying this stupid nonsense. I'll believe credible accusations, not stuff that's just designed to sway public opinion in their favor so that they win their appeal later this year and get awarded the 100M$ they're suing for.

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,356]

20 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

That's a cheap excuse. Oh what a coincidence. They both (who know each other) only decided to condone something that EVERYONE KNOWS is bad, when they became fathers...

But they go on the stand under penalty of imprisonment and supposedly defend the most horrible crimes while they're adults and have no problem with their conscience.

Give me a break. I'm just not buying this stupid nonsense. I'll believe credible accusations, not stuff that's just designed to sway public opinion in their favor so that they win their appeal later this year and get awarded the 100M$ they're suing for.

The other guy is not sueing like Wade is & he only testified on Michael’s behalf as a kid. NOT as an adult. Michael asked him to testify in his 2005 trial & he refused(Michael got pissed & threatened him with legal action) & he told his mom to refuse him too, because he wasn’t a good man he told her...  🙌

 

[Married the Night 3,955]

God, this thread is gross. 

[Andy McQueen 4,484]

https://www.mjfacts.com/category/debunking-mj-apologist-lies/