Here's why Leaving Neverland is a lie

[ImpossiblePrincess 3,847]

9 hours ago, smitherz said:

the facts are that this grown ass man had little children sleeping in his bed. I find that to be ****ing nasty. 

I’m pretty sure he slept on the floor and they slept in the bed obvs it’s not the best thing to do but let’s be real here 

 

9 hours ago, AgusPop said:

oops

This is the truth 

[Didymus 34,379]

12 hours ago, MrDarkGa said:

The bottom line is these are nothing but ACCUSATIONS. There is not any physical evidence to prove or disprove as MJ is long dead and the alleged incidents were between the two parties and MJ seperately. No witnesses. We will likely never know what is truth or lie, but as I see it - there is fair grounds for reasonable doubt in the accusations.

Wait until part 2 is all I’m gonna say. Wade’s family’s testimony is really powerful. Is it really credible that they too would lie to make their son/brother/husband some money and turn into award-winning actors? Not to me. 

Still not saying Michael is necessarily guilty but these aren’t ‘just’ allegations imo. They fit in with clinically established research about child grooming, they fit in with testimonies of Michael’s Neverland staff, with the damaging objects found at Neverland, and it has two families that are involved in the whole story and, now, this accusation. It’s convincing at the least.

[Didymus 34,379]

27 minutes ago, Franchesca said:

I’m pretty sure he slept on the floor and they slept in the bed obvs it’s not the best thing to do but let’s be real here 

lol 

That is so unlikely though. Why would he sleep on the friggin’ floor when he always had several beds nearby?

[Didymus 34,379]

10 hours ago, kyanewest said:

Drop facts with a SOURCE.

Just bcs u felt sick doesnt mean it's true. That was the whole point of that docu, to tell details so u get disgusted and instantly feel like it was real, bcs it's so "detailed".

Use ur brain. Do ppl use their brain in this day and age anymore?

Do you read? Do u do research? Do u take time to create ur own opinion?

Y'all are sheeps nowadays following the media and social media 

Come back to me with source and facts or dont respond

He did though... He’s right, it’s all explained in the documentary  With their family’s reconstruction of their emotional state at the time.

We’re not gonna start quoting the whole entire movie just because y’all refuse to watch it.

And before you come at me with ‘that’s just people saying stuff, that’s no evidence’, then all those people saying Michael was a good guy and he never touched anyone aren’t relevant either and we just don’t know anything. Except for the fact that Michael’s staff’s claims corroborate their story, as well as the damaging objects found at Neverland of course. You wanna talk facts? Let’s talk about those facts then instead of blabbering on about your guesses about why the accusers can’t be trusted. Pure speculation that can never be proven. So don’t come at other people with your bs.

[Ryusei 60,798]

Why do all defenders only say: WADE WADE WADE WADE??? Like there were plenty others, even jimmy already seems way more credible if you dont believe Wade. I'm on the edge about Wade but Jimmy seems very genuine, I mean the scene where his hands were shaking looking at that jewelry.. he'd have to be a hell of an actor to stage that (just one example) 

Also again people seem to always ignore this point: he still hung out with children, told them they're special and his best friend and then replaced them without notice, destroying their whole world and feeling worthless because their idol suddenly doesnt wanna hang out anymore... seems a bit fishy no? Also again even if there was no abuse, this screams grooming..

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

4 hours ago, Ryusei said:

Why do all defenders only say: WADE WADE WADE WADE??? Like there were plenty others, even jimmy already seems way more credible if you dont believe Wade. I'm on the edge about Wade but Jimmy seems very genuine, I mean the scene where his hands were shaking looking at that jewelry.. he'd have to be a hell of an actor to stage that (just one example) 

Also again people seem to always ignore this point: he still hung out with children, told them they're special and his best friend and then replaced them without notice, destroying their whole world and feeling worthless because their idol suddenly doesnt wanna hang out anymore... seems a bit fishy no? Also again even if there was no abuse, this screams grooming..

Jimmy and Wade have the same lawyers and are filing the same claims. 

So if one of them is blatantly lying, the other one must be complicit as well. 

There are 100M$ at stake. Don't be fooled into thinking these guys are just enlightening the world. They are trying to sway the public opinion and put the court under pressure to win their appeal and be awarded 100M$.

The director isn't doing this documentary to enlighten the word either, it's all about money. The documentary is now being sold in 133 countries? Why because it created a lot of buzz. Controversy sells. How to get controversy? Make sure the documentary is as shocking, graphic and emotionally-manipulative as possible. Notice how they did not want to include any rebuttal from the estate. They didn't want any information that may undermine the story of the two guys. They didn't even want to include psychologist insights. They wanted to make sure the guys are as believable as possible. And I agree they deserve an Oscar.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

3 hours ago, Didymus said:

 

And before you come at me with ‘that’s just people saying stuff, that’s no evidence’, then all those people saying Michael was a good guy and he never touched anyone aren’t relevant either and we just don’t know anything. Except for the fact that Michael’s staff’s claims corroborate their story, as well as the damaging objects found at Neverland of course. You wanna talk facts? Let’s talk about those facts then instead of blabbering on about your guesses about why the accusers can’t be trusted. Pure speculation that can never be proven. So don’t come at other people with your bs.

First of all, the burden of proof lays on the claimant. Whoever the accuser is has the burden of proof to provide evidence or corroborating stories. 

The damaging objects found at Neverlands are mostly books and artistic work that contained some partial nudity. They were admitted in court. And the court has ruled that it was not ****ography and that it didn't prove anything. So if a court of law ruled so, why should I believe some online posters that the material is indeed incriminating?

A court of law has already ruled on that matter. That material was presented to them and the claim was shut down in court. So I'd appreciate it if people stop bringing that up when it's a moot argument. 

[doppelganger 3,854]

1 hour ago, Ryusei said:

Also again people seem to always ignore this point: he still hung out with children, told them they're special and his best friend and then replaced them without notice, destroying their whole world and feeling worthless because their idol suddenly doesnt wanna hang out anymore... seems a bit fishy no? Also again even if there was no abuse, this screams grooming..

This is what really gets me. The pattern is predatory, even with no proof of sexual assault. It's not a genuine friendship if he moved on from one person to another at a drop of his hat, with the commonality being that they're all charismatic good looking very young boys.

The documentary really highlights how children are drawn into the world of predators, right under the noses of their guardians. 

The "not guilty under the court of law" thing isn't really valid either. The same argument was used to defend R Kelly until very recently. And let's not forget that R Kelly was was acquitted over that video. Realistically, most of the victims of sexual assault will never be able to prove anything but that doesn't mean that their stories do not deserve to be told.

[Didymus 34,379]

17 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

The damaging objects found at Neverlands are mostly books and artistic work that contained some partial nudity. They were admitted in court. And the court has ruled that it was not ****ography and that it didn't prove anything. So if a court of law ruled so, why should I believe some online posters that the material is indeed incriminating?

What you're talking about are the books found in 1993, what I'm talking about is the material found ten years later which was basically a truckload of full-on p-rn, heterosexual and homosexual.

Of course it doesn't prove anything. Nothing but full-on child p-rn could prove anything and you don't think he'd be dumb enough to have that at his home, do you? Not only that, he declined to comment on his possession of all of that material in court so the jury couldn't even ask questions about it anyway. That in itself is weird if he had nothing to be ashamed of.

But the fact that he invited kids over there while there was a truckload of p-rn (yes, full-on p-rn, wtf sis have you ever looked at the official lists of what was found there?) everywhere within full reach of those kids, even in their friggin' bathroom isn't a tiny bit suspicious or questionable? It surely is to me. Especially when he hid bottles of alcohol in the kids' bathroom.

Interestingly, the accusers' stories include descriptions of Michael having misogynist traits which are absolutely reflected in the kind of female p-rn, often sadomasochistic, and objects (like the ball-gagged woman on his desk in plain sight of those kids) he kept lying around there and which were found in 2003. All I've ever heard fans say about this kind of stuff is that it was sent over by his "fans" (as if that's not weird) and that he never touched it, even though it somehow ended up in his bedroom, bathroom ánd the arcade room It's just ridiculous.

None of that stuff obviously proves he's a child molester, but it is very odd material for someone like Michael, who supposedly was an infant in an adult body and who never showed sexual interest in his wife, to have in his home, especially with kids present. Michael obviously knew that and decided to plead the fifth accordingly.

[Didymus 34,379]

44 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

A court of law has already ruled on that matter. That material was presented to them and the claim was shut down in court. So I'd appreciate it if people stop bringing that up when it's a moot argument.  

This is equally questionable. Everyone knows Michael could walk away because of Gavin's mother's disastrous court fiasco. There's one jury member appearing in the documentary who literally said she voted for Michael's innocence because she didn't like how Janet "snapped her fingers" at the jury.

Janet's awful behavior and the defense deciding to play all their chips on her sealed the deal when it came to that trial and the jury even acknowledged explicitly that the only reason the verdict took place was because there was no evidence that proved with certainty that Michael was guilty. So basically that doesn't mean squat and we all know it.

Again, not saying he's guilty but continuously playing the "but what about the court!!" card is just weak. The issue of providing proof of sexual abuse has been a thorny one for decades.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

4 minutes ago, Didymus said:

This is equally questionable. Everyone knows Michael could walk away because of Gavin's mother's disastrous court fiasco. There's one jury member appearing in the documentary who literally said she voted for Michael's innocence because she didn't like how Janet "snapped her fingers" at the jury.

Janet's awful behavior and the defense deciding to play all their chips on her sealed the deal when it came to that trial and the jury even acknowledged explicitly that the only reason the verdict took place was because there was no evidence that proved with certainty that Michael was guilty. So basically that doesn't mean squat and we all know it.

Again, not saying he's guilty but continuously playing the "but what about the court!!" card is just weak. The issue of providing proof of sexual abuse has been a thorny one for decades.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-child-****-found-at-neverland-thenor-now-the_us_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8

Look these are from a decade later, the ones you're talking about

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

1 hour ago, doppelganger said:

The "not guilty under the court of law" thing isn't really valid either. The same argument was used to defend R Kelly until very recently. And let's not forget that R Kelly was was acquitted over that video. Realistically, most of the victims of sexual assault will never be able to prove anything but that doesn't mean that their stories do not deserve to be told.

R. Kelly was acquitted because the woman in the video could not be identified (the quality was horrible).

We have a judicial system that says a crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before someone is sent to jail. So if the jury couldn't be sure who the girl in the video is, how can they know her age and whether she's underage.

However, R Kelly has other court cases which may send him to prison. So it's different from Michael Jackson. MJ was subject to investigations for 3 decades and nothing incriminating was ever found. It wasn't just one case.

[Bolkins 4,073]

Not being funny but Louis has made documentaries about paedos, has spent time in paedo prisons, he even spent time with Jimmy Saville in the early 2000's before anyone knew about his crimes. Basically if there is anyone who could recognise someone for who they are, especially if they're paedophile, its this guy. 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

10 minutes ago, WohnJayne said:

Not being funny but Louis has made documentaries about paedos, has spent time in paedo prisons, he even spent time with Jimmy Saville in the early 2000's before anyone knew about his crimes. Basically if there is anyone who could recognise someone for who they are, especially if they're paedophile, its this guy. 

SJWs...

I am really scared of the future. We are headed in the wrong direction.

Since when words spoken by someone who lied under oath are supposed to be gospel now and be believed 100%?

These people are suing for 100M$ and they have 100M$ at stake. We have the right to scrutinize their claims just because of the financial interest at stake.

He can just shut his mouth and stop accusing people of ridiculous nonsense.

[Didymus 34,379]

1 hour ago, nicolasrumet said:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-child-****-found-at-neverland-thenor-now-the_us_577fdfbce4b0f06648f4a3f8

Look these are from a decade later, the ones you're talking about

What are you talking about? I'm talking about the 2004-5 case, not about the 2016 controversy.

The "art books" argument is just as hysterical as it was in 2004/5. These were the books that pedophiles had in their home back then and they all used the "this is legal" excuse, because, duh.

How can you compare Michael Jackson to other people who had these books as part of their "art collection"? These people didn't invite strange kids over for adult sleepovers It's the combination that makes the possession suspicious, the author of that article fails to make note of that super obvious fact.

Also, "You have to remember that Jackson was under constant FBI surveillance for over ten years." How embarrassing. Just not true. You can just look on the official webpage of the FBI and you can see with your own eyes they didn't investigate sh-t about the child abuse allegations. Clearly written by a fan, which Raven Woods undeniably and self-admittedly is. So again, super unreliable account as it is biased af.