Here's why Leaving Neverland is a lie

[Runway 27,876]

Yes he slept on the same bed with boys just because 

[Whispering 18,865]

8 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

"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.

Yes, that’s what I meant. There isn’t a timetable and there isn’t a set pattern for abuse victims. In these men’s cases, full realization of abuse and the need to talk about it came when they had children. That intense love for their children forced them to come to terms with what happened to them. It wasn’t intentional, it was biological. 

I can tell you are young and that you don’t understand the Demi-god power MJ had in the eighties. Take Beyonce, Gaga, Swift and Rihanna, put them together and multiply it by a hundred...and it might be the star power that MJ had. People who are fans know that it was a rare time and an even rarer situation. 

This isn't the judicial system. It’s an online forum, where people are expressing their opinions on a topic. 

[monster4life231 4,304]

 

[monster4life231 4,304]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw5h4-Mki4A

[ALGAYDO 29,923]

The mentail loops thy his hardcore fans have to do in order to defend him... yikes. Just say that you hate that one of your childhood idols was attracted to little boys and move on. It doesn't diminish his music if that's what you're trying to protect.  

[smitherz 2,110]

This is why people don’t speak out. Anyone who defends Michael Jackson is nasty. 

[giskardsb 12,565]

Latoya would disagree  

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/latoya-jackson-claimed-brother-michael-paedophile-resurfaced-1990s-interview-161430114.html

 

[Didymus 34,379]

3 hours 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.

Every psychologist will tell you their behavior was completely predictable. It's not nonsense, you just have the misfortune of having experts not sharing your personal opinion.

Stop belittling the mechanisms of child abuse and its aftermath just because you don't want to believe Michael is guilty. Just say you don't believe Wade and James, you don't have to make up this insulting general stuff like "everyone knows it's bad so they would've admitted it earlier". Super wrong and super hurtful.

[StarstruckIllusion 49,506]

On 3/6/2019 at 2:13 AM, Didymus said:

So tired of the "here's a YouTube video to educate you" format here. So embarrassing. You do realize this is sexual abuse we're talking about here, right? You wanna use a fanmade video to battle a four hour exhaustive documentary that you probably haven't even seen? Right.

.

[Didymus 34,379]

2 minutes ago, Wigless said:

imagine dismissing an entire set of arguments just bc of the platform it’s on. the lack of comprehension of this is even more embarrassing. just because something is on TV that makes it 100% more credible and factual right? no. Moneys the only deciding factor. get it together please 

coming for OP bc he didn’t watch the doc but yet you won’t watch the video oh okay

The difference is that I'm not voicing my opinion about the video though. I have nothing to say about it because I know I haven't seen it.

I'm also not saying if something's on tv, it's more credible... But obviously there's a difference between two people and their family members talking about their own experiences (false or not) and a fan video defending Michael. The latter can only collect data that's already there (and I've studied Michael's case for a while, I know the facts) but the former can bring new info to the table so there's another difference you didn't pick up.

So nope, don't think all that is valid.

[StarstruckIllusion 49,506]

6 minutes ago, Didymus said:

The difference is that I'm not voicing my opinion about the video though. I have nothing to say about it because I know I haven't seen it.

I'm also not saying if something's on tv, it's more credible... But obviously there's a difference between two people and their family members talking about their own experiences (false or not) and a fan video defending Michael. The latter can only collect data that's already there (and I've studied Michael's case for a while, I know the facts) but the former can bring new info to the table so there's another difference you didn't pick up.

So nope, don't think all that is valid.

okay good tbh 

thats all i care about bc I’m so sick of people dismissing Youtubers just bc their new. anyone can scrape a fact based documentary... it’s premiere platform is irrelevant lol

also i know nothing about the whole MJ thing so I’m def not touching that but I’m glad there’s no platform slander bc that’s not how you argue against points 🤗

[MrDarkGa 311]

I have only seen Part 1. Part 2 is on tonight in the UK so my opinion may change afterwards.

Im in two minds on Jimmy and Wade. The biggest problem I have with both of them is that they are either lying now to get a settlement or publicity etc OR they both lied during the court case putting any number of young children in danger. If Michael was in fact guilty and was still acquited, he would have been a lot more clever in his abuse and hiding it. 

Now Jimmy - the buck really ends with the court case. I dont know what his motive would be to lie about being abused which makes his claim a tiny little bit more credible.

But Wade. Wade is shady. He praised Jackson all the way up until 2011. Here, as many know, he tried to get into the Vegas MJ show as choreographer and was rejected. It should also be known that his financial situation was not good at this time so he was likely henching all bets on landing the gig. After rejection, he suddenly remembers or realizes he was sexually abused for years. Hmm. Also, I think if we take this theory as truth, the fact Wade was replaced as the "it-boy" could give extra motive to create such an accusation and give it reasonable emotional weight in his mind. A revenge accusation for dropping him if you will.

After this sudden realization, Wade tried to push a book deal which was rejected - either as a result of the nature of the accusation or who he was and how this story is a complete 180 from his fierce defense of MJ at trial. Its also worth noting that he wasnt told he had to talk in court, he volunteered of his own accord which is probably another reason his book was rejected. Both Wade and Jimmy then filed massive legal lawsuits under the same layer against the MJ Estate and both were repeatedly thrown out, most recently in 2017 to the best of my knowledge. They are now in debt to the MJ estate for damages and legal fees.

 

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.

[AgusPop 4,064]

The Justice System is the Only one who can tell if someone is inocent or guilty. Not a Documentary or Twitter.

Michael is inocent till the Justice says otherwise.

We are not in medieval witch hunt times.

[Antichrist 9,818]

4 minutes ago, AgusPop said:

The Justice System is the Only one who can tell if someone is inocent or guilty. Not a Documentary or Twitter.

Michael is inocent till the Justice says otherwise.

We are not in medieval witch hunt times.

yES bUtT TruMPsS AMericA & tHe jUSTicE sYsSTemM liEeS

[monster4life231 4,304]

1 hour ago, smitherz said:

This is why people don’t speak out. Anyone who defends Michael Jackson is nasty. 

Maybe the people who are defending him have opinions backed with evidence, just as those who think he's a pedophile argue that it's their opinion. 

Just because I don't follow, and many others, don't follow the mainstream belief that he was a pedophile, doesn't make us nasty, and neither does you believing he was a pedophile make you nasty.