Here's why Leaving Neverland is a lie

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

7 hours ago, Andy McQueen said:

It wouldn't change anything because obviously the estate would claim it is not true, what else should they say? It's the same situation like in the 90's, just with different people. 

Back then, his sister admitted that she did believe the victims:
https://www.complex.com/music/2019/03/latoya-jackson-accuses-michael-crimes-against-innocent-children-1993-footage
 

(Tragic the mother was using homophobic slurs for pedophile acts, though...)

It would be no surprise if Joe Jackson abused him too. (Maybe not sexually, but physically...)

https://slate.com/technology/2019/03/michael-jackson-leaving-neverland-cycle-of-abuse-childhood.html

Also, Feldman admitted that Michael showed him ****ographic material, which doesn't make him appear too innocent or less creepy either... 

 

Oh the same old argument...

In case you didn't know his sister admitted that her abusive husband forced her to make those claims. Source: her book "Starting Over".

Nice try.

For Feldman. I've seen a quote floating around that he found nude pictures in Michael's mansion or something. But I don't know the source and the full context. So you gotta be careful with your wording "showed him ****ographic material".

Many books have nude pictures, especially artistic ones. It's not necessarily ****ographic. 

Bottom line Feldman consistently defended MJ and always said there was never anything inappropriate between both of them. So I'm pretty sure that if "they watched **** together" as you falsely claim, he wouldn't have said that.

Same with Macaulay Culkin. 

 

 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

@Didymus I'm simply not responding to you, because I'm tired of you making up your sources and twisting things as you see fit.

Barely legal is not a second magazine. It's the same one and only magazine that was published 6 months after Gavin's departure and the only one that had both MJ and the accuser's finerprints. Stop taking quotes, mixing them up and pretending that there were two magazines with both fingerprints.

The quotes you were quoting could've been about other magazines that DID NOT have MJ fingerprints so the defense would argue that Gavin found them and touched them on their own in MJ's absense. That is not a 180 turn. Those are two seperate issues and two seperate defenses. 

"Under an exacting cross-examination by defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr. on Tuesday, the younger brother of Jackson's accuser conceded to lying during a previous court case and backtracked on testimony about a girlie magazine supposedly shown to him by the singer.

"Michael Jackson never showed you that magazine, Barely Legal, did he?" Mesereau asked the brother, pointing to a cover of the X-rated publication that jurors were shown Monday.

"He did show us," the 14-year-old replied.

"He did?" Mesereau asked again.

"Yes," the boy said again.

Then Mesereau pointed out that the date on the magazine was August 2003--months after the brother and his family moved out of Jackson's Neverland Ranch for good."

https://www.eonline.com/news/49394/barely-legal-mix-up-at-jackson-trial

[Whispering 18,865]

18 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

 

He talks about powerful attachment between abuser and the victim? Is he an expert on the matter? Why there was no room in his documentary for expert testimony? Why there was no psychologist to explain this "powerful attachment", is it because psychologist would probably not confirm his theory?

From Psychology Today:

“Exacerbating matters in most cases of early-life male sexual abuse is that it’s usually committed by a known perpetrator, either a family member or some other trusted caregiver. This form of close relationship trauma, known as attachment trauma, nearly always creates stronger and ultimately more destructive responses than less personal traumas.* Essentially, the betrayal of a close relationship is incredibly confusing to the victim, who relies on the perpetrator for food, shelter, emotional support, and other forms of support. Because of this inequality the child often internalizes blame (rather than blaming the perpetrator), thinking that he did something wrong or that he is inherently flawed in some way, and therefore cannot expect to be loved and cherished and properly cared for.

*Treating Complex Traumatic Stress Disorders ( in Adults): Scientific Foundations and Therapeutic ModelsPaperback – September 27, 2013 

It is exactly this sort of sexualized shame that drives the later-life problems associated with all forms of trauma. Unfortunately, as discussed above, because sexually abused males are expected to follow the man rules, even at a very early age, they tend to keep their abuse secret, allowing their shame to grow and to gradually distort their self-image.

Even worse, when sexually abused males do choose to talk about their abuse, they don’t always garner the empathetic and supportive response they need, because all of us—even therapists—are trapped in the man rules to some degree.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

29 minutes ago, Whispering said:

From Psychology Today:

“Exacerbating matters in most cases of early-life male sexual abuse is that it’s usually committed by a known perpetrator, either a family member or some other trusted caregiver. This form of close relationship trauma, known as attachment trauma, nearly always creates stronger and ultimately more destructive responses than less personal traumas.* Essentially, the betrayal of a close relationship is incredibly confusing to the victim, who relies on the perpetrator for food, shelter, emotional support, and other forms of support. Because of this inequality the child often internalizes blame (rather than blaming the perpetrator), thinking that he did something wrong or that he is inherently flawed in some way, and therefore cannot expect to be loved and cherished and properly cared for.

*Treating Complex Traumatic Stress Disorders ( in Adults): Scientific Foundations and Therapeutic ModelsPaperback – September 27, 2013 

It is exactly this sort of sexualized shame that drives the later-life problems associated with all forms of trauma. Unfortunately, as discussed above, because sexually abused males are expected to follow the man rules, even at a very early age, they tend to keep their abuse secret, allowing their shame to grow and to gradually distort their self-image.

Even worse, when sexually abused males do choose to talk about their abuse, they don’t always garner the empathetic and supportive response they need, because all of us—even therapists—are trapped in the man rules to some degree.

I think you're misusing attachment trauma in this context.

Attachment trauma is a type of trauma that occurs to children when they are confused by the actions of their parents, family member or a very close person that's almost like a parent, granted.

No one is denying the existence of this type of trauma.

If Wade was indeed assaulted as he claims, he could've suffered from that type of trauma when he was 10 or so and maybe was confused by why it happened to him.

But what I'm disputing is ANY scientific proof that backs his claim that he didn't understand what happened to him until the age of 31. There is no proof that somehow trauma made him continue to love Michael Jackson in his adult years, even when married? He only realized it was abuse when he had a baby? (Or if I wanted to scrutinize him more, I couldsay he only realized it was abuse when he was denied the job of lead choreographer for Cirque Du Soleil by MJ's Estate?)

I just don't buy that, and I don't see any psychological basis for that either.

Your and Dan's use of this "attachment bond" or "attachment trauma" if you want to call it that, is inaccurate, since this type of trauma affects children. And 31 year-old Wade isn't a child:

https://www.brightquest.com/relational-trauma/what-is-attachment-trauma/

"Attachment trauma is a disruption in the important process of bonding between a baby or child and his or her primary caregiver. That trauma may be overt abuse or neglect, or it may be less obvious—lack of affection or response from the caregiver. "

[Whispering 18,865]

18 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

I think you're misusing attachment trauma in this context.

Attachment trauma is a type of trauma that occurs to children when they are confused by the actions of their parents, family member or a very close person that's almost like a parent, granted.

No one is denying the existence of this type of trauma.

If Wade was indeed assaulted as he claims, he could've suffered from that type of trauma when he was 10 or so and maybe was confused by why it happened to him.

But what I'm disputing is ANY scientific proof that backs his claim that he didn't understand what happened to him until the age of 31. There is no proof that somehow trauma made him continue to love Michael Jackson in his adult years, even when married? He only realized it was abuse when he had a baby? (Or if I wanted to scrutinize him more, I couldsay he only realized it was abuse when he was denied the job of lead choreographer for Cirque Du Soleil by MJ's Estate?)

I just don't buy that, and I don't see any psychological basis for that either.

Your and Dan's use of this "attachment bond" or "attachment trauma" if you want to call it that, is inaccurate, since this type of trauma affects children. And 31 year-old Wade isn't a child:

https://www.brightquest.com/relational-trauma/what-is-attachment-trauma/

"Attachment trauma is a disruption in the important process of bonding between a baby or child and his or her primary caregiver. That trauma may be overt abuse or neglect, or it may be less obvious—lack of affection or response from the caregiver. "

Michael was a surrogate father/brother to these boys, for several years. He was considered part of the family. The mothers say themselves as a mother figure to him. 

He was seven when it started, not ten.

From Scientific Studies: Frequently, men who have survived CSA worry that they will not be good fathers. They may even fear that they will abuse their children. These men understand that fathers are important to child development (Cabrera, Shannon, & Tamis-Lemonda, 2007). Fathers facilitate child cognitive and emotional growth, and a loving father/child relationship can positively influence a child’s social interaction with peers (Cabrera et al., 2007). Some men are extremely protective of their children, fearful of an external threat of abuse (Robertson, 2012). For other men, becoming a father acts as a trigger, causing repressed and denied emotions to resurface (Robertson, 2012). This response is understandable due to the frequency with which so many men deny the existence of abuse in the first place (Kia-Keating et al., 2010). 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

9 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Michael was a surrogate father/brother to these boys, for several years. He was considered part of the family. The mothers say themselves as a mother figure to him. 

He was seven when it started, not ten.

From Scientific Studies: Frequently, men who have survived CSA worry that they will not be good fathers. They may even fear that they will abuse their children. These men understand that fathers are important to child development (Cabrera, Shannon, & Tamis-Lemonda, 2007). Fathers facilitate child cognitive and emotional growth, and a loving father/child relationship can positively influence a child’s social interaction with peers (Cabrera et al., 2007). Some men are extremely protective of their children, fearful of an external threat of abuse (Robertson, 2012). For other men, becoming a father acts as a trigger, causing repressed and denied emotions to resurface (Robertson, 2012). This response is understandable due to the frequency with which so many men deny the existence of abuse in the first place (Kia-Keating et al., 2010). 

I feel you are trying too hard to find a reasoning for their contradictions and changes of story. 

Michael Jackson is not a threat to their children. He passed away. If you're talking about pedophilia in general. That's an existent threat to everyone regardless of who it is. So Wade's children don't really have an increased exposure to pedophilia or some sort of special threat.

I think the main point that I was making, is to please stop saying that it was trauma that made him love and defend michael jacksons all these years and only turn him when he was denied a job by his estate. If you want to claim that, have substantial and clear and relevant evidence, not a far fetched theory.

Neither of us is a psychologist. The documentary did not include a psychologist's input. And I find it just ridiculous that the director who is incompetent when it comes to these matters is making inaccurate scientific claims about attachment trauma (which affect children not adults).

My impression is that you prefer to believe them regardless of their lack of credibility, just because it's trendy/woke to support sexual assault victims. But please keep in mind, that if these are indeed liars, you are doing a huge disservice to real assault victims for putting them in the same basket with them in spite of all the red flags.

If tomorrow evidence is unearthed that they were indeed lying, people will start losing faith in this type of testimonies, and actual survivors will have a harder time being believed. So let's not mix things up and keep a bit of commonsense when assessing allegations. 

[Whispering 18,865]

29 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

I think you're misusing attachment trauma in this context.

Attachment trauma is a type of trauma that occurs to children when they are confused by the actions of their parents, family member or a very close person that's almost like a parent, granted.

No one is denying the existence of this type of trauma.

If Wade was indeed assaulted as he claims, he could've suffered from that type of trauma when he was 10 or so and maybe was confused by why it happened to him.

But what I'm disputing is ANY scientific proof that backs his claim that he didn't understand what happened to him until the age of 31. There is no proof that somehow trauma made him continue to love Michael Jackson in his adult years, even when married? He only realized it was abuse when he had a baby? (Or if I wanted to scrutinize him more, I couldsay he only realized it was abuse when he was denied the job of lead choreographer for Cirque Du Soleil by MJ's Estate?)

I just don't buy that, and I don't see any psychological basis for that either.

Your and Dan's use of this "attachment bond" or "attachment trauma" if you want to call it that, is inaccurate, since this type of trauma affects children. And 31 year-old Wade isn't a child:

https://www.brightquest.com/relational-trauma/what-is-attachment-trauma/

"Attachment trauma is a disruption in the important process of bonding between a baby or child and his or her primary caregiver. That trauma may be overt abuse or neglect, or it may be less obvious—lack of affection or response from the caregiver. "

Also, from the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape and the National Sexual Violence Resource Center and Male Survivors:

It is common for survivors of sexual assault to deny they were abused. 

Offenders reinforce these feelings by the things they say and do to victims. They use the shame and fear to bind the victim to them and isolate them from others who might help them. The victim is left feeling alone, isolated and very different from everyone around them.

Victims describe this as a surreal feeling –to see other kids leading normal lives all around them, but feel so different and separate from them due to the abuse they have endured. This shame and silence can last for decades.

Many survivors wait until well into their adult hood to share their secret. For many male victims, the shame and secrecy is compounded by the fear that their own sexuality may have something to do with it, or at least that others will think so. We must look at the stories of children with the eyes of children and recognize that a 10-year-old or 14-year-old boy has little language or understanding of human sexuality, and may have a very difficult time understanding that manipulation, abuse, exploitation and violence are not related to their own sexuality.

Delayed reporting of sexual abuse is a common, normal reaction from someone who has experienced traumatic events.

Sexual abuse can cause intense feelings of embarrassment, fear and humiliation. Survivors are often terrified that they will not be believed and ashamed that they don’t know how to stop the abuse. Victims often feel trapped between wanting the abuse to stop and being terrified of other people learning what has been done to them. That fear can keep victims silent while the abuse is going on, and for years after it has stopped.

Many victims continue to have a relationship with their abuser.

Though it may be difficult for the public to understand, it is common for survivors of sexual abuse to continue relationships with their abusers after the abuse has stopped. Individuals react to trauma in different ways. For example, it is common for victims to maintain contact with their abusers because they may still feel affection for them even though they hate the abuse. This is especially normal when the abuser is a member of the family or a close family friend. It is also common for some victims to maintain contact in an attempt to regain control over their assault. Others may maintain contact in an attempt to regain a feeling of normalcy.

Additionally, offenders often intentionally build a connection or a bond that isn't broken as a result of sexual abuse. The abuse is often one element of an otherwise loving or fun relationship. Offenders may intentionally maintain the non-abusive parts of the relationship to keep victims feeling close to them and thus less likely to report the prior abuse.

A victim's view of the offender's actions change over time.

 

 

[Whispering 18,865]

1 minute ago, nicolasrumet said:

I feel you are trying too hard to find a reasoning for their contradictions and changes of story. 

Michael Jackson is not a threat to their children. He passed away. If you're talking about pedophilia in general. That's an existent threat to everyone regardless of who it is. So Wade's children don't really have an increased exposure to pedophilia or some sort of special threat.

I think the main point that I was making, is to please stop saying that it was trauma that made him love and defend michael jacksons all these years and only turn him when he was denied a job by his estate. If you want to claim that, have substantial and clear and relevant evidence, not a far fetched theory.

Neither of us is a psychologist. The documentary did not include a psychologist's input. And I find it just ridiculous that the director who is incompetent when it comes to these matters is making inaccurate scientific claims about attachment trauma (which affect children not adults).

My impression is that you prefer to believe them regardless of their lack of credibility, just because it's trendy/woke to support sexual assault victims. But please keep in mind, that if these are indeed liars, you are doing a huge disservice to real assault victims for putting them in the same basket with them in spite of all the red flags.

If tomorrow evidence is unearthed that they were indeed lying, people will start losing faith in this type of testimonies, and actual survivors will have a harder time being believed. So let's not mix things up and keep a bit of commonsense when assessing allegations. 

I feel you are trying too hard to blame victims and defend a man who started this pattern when he was twenty years old. 

Your second paragraph missed the mark for understanding, I seriously don’t even know where to start. 

I know what you are saying and I dispute that, as do people who study childhood sexual abuse. 

You asked for Psychological reports and scientific research. 

My impression is that you are going to defend a man who has now been accused by five boys of sexual assault. I care absolutely nothing about being trendy or “woke” and I’ve told you that before. You keep repeating this tagline thinking this will intimidate me in a discussion. It won’t work. 

People say this every time their is a sexual abuse claim against someone they like. It’s not a good defense and is actually victim blaming and making it harder for victims (especially men who already have a harder time coming forward) to come out with their stories. 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

7 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Though it may be difficult for the public to understand, it is common for survivors of sexual abuse to continue relationships with their abusers after the abuse has stopped. Individuals react to trauma in different ways. For example, it is common for victims to maintain contact with their abusers because they may still feel affection for them even though they hate the abuse. This is especially normal when the abuser is a member of the family or a close family friend. It is also common for some victims to maintain contact in an attempt to regain control over their assault. Others may maintain contact in an attempt to regain a feeling of normalcy.

Except that this wasn't just maintaining contact. This was constant praise, and "supposedly" going as far as lying under oath for MJ? Risking his career and possibly going to jail? He was not compelled by anyone to testify. He wasn't even subpoena'ed.

But you made your point about this and I accept it. Let's move on. Let's hypothetically say, that you're right, he continued to love him for whatever reason (could make sense if he's gay but he's not even gay so not sure what kind of love it is):

Does the timing not look suspicious to you?

Why did he only make these allegations when he had a conflict with MJ's Estate?

Why did he continue to lie under oath in other cases in 2013 and 2014 and having his sworn testimonies dismissed by the judge after it was revealed that his emails contradicted his sworn testimonies about his interactions with MJ's Estate?

Is a pattern of lying under oath not troubling for you? What does it say about the credibility of the claimant? Or does credibility not matter at all?

 

[SilkSpectre 114]

6 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

Except that this wasn't just maintaining contact. This was constant praise, and "supposedly" going as far as lying under oath for MJ? Risking his career and possibly going to jail? He was not compelled by anyone to testify. He wasn't even subpoena'ed.

But you made your point about this and I accept it. Let's move on. Let's hypothetically say, that you're right, he continued to love him for whatever reason (could make sense if he's gay but he's not even gay so not sure what kind of love it is):

Does the timing not look suspicious to you?

Why did he only make these allegations when he had a conflict with MJ's Estate?

Why did he continue to lie under oath in other cases in 2013 and 2014 and having his sworn testimonies dismissed by the judge after it was revealed that his emails contradicted his sworn testimonies about his interactions with MJ's Estate?

Is a pattern of lying under oath not troubling for you? What does it say about the credibility of the claimant? Or does credibility not matter at all?

 

Did you watch the Oprah interview because a lot of what you keep repeatedly asking was discussed there with the accusers and also with other survivors and abuse experts.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

12 minutes ago, Whispering said:

My impression is that you are going to defend a man who has now been accused by five boys of sexual assault.

Is it not conceivable that malicious people who constantly saw MJ on TV playing with children tried to use that against him for money? He was the most famous person on earth. 

Let's focus on the ones where there was a trial or legal proceeding. The rest is hearsay.

1. Evan Chandler: as soon as they got the money they ran away, pressed no charges nothing... They only wanted a civil settlement because of the money. So the intent was pretty clear.

2. Gavin: his mother exploited his cancer to continue to ask celebrities for money, even lying under oath in a previous case:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jackson-accusers-mom-admits-lies/

"Mesereau, trying to show the woman's family has a history of giving false testimony to make money, focused on the woman's lawsuit against a department store. The family received a settlement of more than $150,000 in 2001 after alleging they were roughed up by JC Penney security guards.

The woman eventually responded, "This is correct," but explained that she lied because she was embarrassed about the abuse."

She lied in a previous case about being sexually assaulted "just because she was embarrassed about being roughed up".

So what makes you think that she didn't tell her boy to make those allegations about MJ? His brother who also testified under oath was caught lying under oath in the same case.

So can you acknowledge that the involved families seem to have an ulterior motive?

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

Just now, SilkSpectre said:

Did you watch the Oprah interview because a lot of what you keep repeatedly asking was discussed there with the accusers and also with other survivors and abuse experts.

I did and I didn't find any answer to this:

"Why did he only make these allegations when he had a conflict with MJ's Estate?

Why did he continue to lie under oath in other cases in 2013 and 2014 and having his sworn testimonies dismissed by the judge after it was revealed that his emails contradicted his sworn testimonies about his interactions with MJ's Estate?

Is a pattern of lying under oath not troubling for you? What does it say about the credibility of the claimant? Or does credibility not matter at all?"

[Whispering 18,865]

6 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

Except that this wasn't just maintaining contact. This was constant praise, and "supposedly" going as far as lying under oath for MJ? Risking his career and possibly going to jail? He was not compelled by anyone to testify. He wasn't even subpoena'ed.

But you made your point about this and I accept it. Let's move on. Let's hypothetically say, that you're right, he continued to love him for whatever reason (could make sense if he's gay but he's not even gay so not sure what kind of love it is):

Does the timing not look suspicious to you?

Why did he only make these allegations when he had a conflict with MJ's Estate?

Why did he continue to lie under oath in other cases in 2013 and 2014 and having his sworn testimonies dismissed by the judge after it was revealed that his emails contradicted his sworn testimonies about his interactions with MJ's Estate?

Is a pattern of lying under oath not troubling for you? What does it say about the credibility of the claimant? Or does credibility not matter at all?

 

Yes, that’s correct. 

No, it makes sense because people are complex human beings. They may be straight, but can be manipulated through abuse, especially as a child. 

No. Most adults wait well into their thirties or forties, ans scientific studies show that men are especially triggered by having children. I read one study that said for the men abused by priests, the average age was 52 before they told their story. 

Because he wasn’t ready. Because he blamed himself. Because he didn’t want anyone to know. Because he still confused abuse for love. Because he knew he would be contradicting himself whenever he did come out. Because he’s a straight man. Because human beings are complex with varying emotions. 

No, it doesn’t. He was a victim, just like the other four boys. His family was torn apart, he lost his childhood, he doesn’t trust his mom and his dad is dead. He’s had a lot to deal with. 

[SilkSpectre 114]

12 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

I did and I didn't find any answer to this:

"Why did he only make these allegations when he had a conflict with MJ's Estate?

Why did he continue to lie under oath in other cases in 2013 and 2014 and having his sworn testimonies dismissed by the judge after it was revealed that his emails contradicted his sworn testimonies about his interactions with MJ's Estate?

Is a pattern of lying under oath not troubling for you? What does it say about the credibility of the claimant? Or does credibility not matter at all?"

Okay well I suggest you rewatch it because that was definitely discussed. And no defending an abuser under oath (even repeatedly) is not troubling when it’s incredibley common for abused people to not only speak out but to also defend their abusers. There is no perfect victim. You can try to discredit their “testimony” all you want, as a defence lawyer might in a court, but it doesn’t negate that there is definitely the opportunity for them to have been abused, there is circumstantial evidence that would suggest Something untoward was occurring on these sleepovers with children which in itself is inappropriate, and that there are multiple accusers with similar testimonies. 

What I find strange is all the posters so adamantly against wade and James 100% believe anything being said by any of the jacksons even though they themselves also have a massive financial interest in michaels estate. Jus out of interest, what would you need to believe he may not be innocent? As it seems that even if there were a perfect victim you wouldn’t be content to consider the may have abused children.

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

5 minutes ago, SilkSpectre said:

Okay well I suggest you rewatch it because that was definitely discussed. And no defending an abuser under oath (even repeatedly) is not troubling when it’s incredibley common for abused people to not only speak out but to also defend their abusers. 

Not talking about 2004 trial.

He lied under oath as recently as 2013 and 2014. In one instance, the judge asked if he had any interactions/contact with MJ Estate before he made his allegations, he said in his written statement no. It turns out that there were even emails that confirmed that he was in contact with them asking to be lead choreographer for MJ's Cirque Du Soleil (and they refused).

The judge was so appalled that he said "No rational trier-of-fact could've possibly believed Robson's sworn statement".

So his pattern of lies is an issue for me.

And sorry just because he claims to be sexual assault survivor, doesn't mean we have to turn a blind eye to his credibility issues. If that's the case, the easiest way to destroy someone's reputation is to claim you're their victim.