Leaving Neverland, Part 9

Paris Jackson attempted suicide today.

Or possibly not, R1. She’s out of the hospital, walking around (per TMZ), so this might have been an over-reaction on someone’s part.

This is, needless to say, weird and creepy. It is 2 brothers from NJ who were on tour with him.

There is a video of a photo shoot. A 3rd boy is in the photos, looks a lot like Brett but maybe it is Jordan, who one of the brothers got friendly with? At one point in a video I think Michael speaks to Wade off camera?

It was like he had a harem of young boys travelling with him.

Most balanced article so far by NY Times. Unlike Daily Mail, Daily Beast, and others that ignore one side.

Mentions the claims, credibility issues, social issues, and Dan Reed’s defense without painting MJ as innocent or guilty.

....

Hopefully people will be able to resist arguing with the Jackostan in this thread.

A lot of us have just blocked them too, R6. Do not feed the trolls, kids!

Is that Mr Liza, David Guest in the pic at R3 ? I know they were friends, real quality people in the Jackson orbit.

Interesting and informative Twitter thread one journalist who works with abused children posted — “Wade is not a credible accuser.”

^^ “A file from Robson's case leaked to RadarOnline & turned out to include forged evidence. Legal gay porn from the 2010s was edited into a fake 'child porn mag' & labelled as having been found at Neverland in 2003. Other exhibits were fake too.”

Another damning blow to Robson’s credibility.

From the look of that guy at R10 his credibility should be looked into, a Michael Jackson defender who takes an interest in vulnerable children...I'll pass.

Many love to claim that Michael Jackson’s Neverland raid revealed child pornography. The article says:

Most damaging to the hoax perpetrators has been the statement issued from Ron Zonen himself, one of the prosecuting attorneys who certainly would have moved heaven and earth to have the “evidence” against Michael Jackson he so desperately craved.

Yet even Zonen released an official statement citing the lack of child pornography found in the investigation. As reported by People:

Prosecuting attorney Ron Zonen's statement to "People Magazine" that no child pornography was found in Jackson's possession.

“There was no child pornography. There were no videos involving children.”

Some of you here pretend that Jackson’s guilt is already solidified. Yet you forget to mention that the majority of people do not agree with you. A great opinion piece on the credibility problems. From the article:

Both Safechuck and Robson describe a calculating Jackson, “grooming” them and their families to trust and rely on him. Both men say Jackson was exceedingly careful when subjecting them to his perversions, installing an alarm that activated when anyone approached his bedroom and running each of them separately through get-dressed-quickly drills to prepare them for if and when the alarm triggered.

And yet Safechuck then describes having “sex” — he doesn’t specify that it’s explicit intercourse — in nearly every area of what was Jackson’s sprawling Neverland Valley Ranch in California.

Robson describes, as a teen, going to visit Jackson in a hotel, and laying with him in bed when Jackson attempted to penetrate him anally. He said that there was too much pain so Jackson stopped but that after returning home the next day, Jackson summoned Robson back to warn him that there may be blood on his underwear, so to return home and quickly collect it before anyone noticed.

So was Jackson a wild pervert bedding children all over his ranch and hotel rooms? Or was he a smooth criminal? Both, if you can believe it. But both can't be true.

You have to laugh to keep from crying at the nonsense of these people.

“Particularly stupefying is the scene that touched major film reviewers all over the country, wherein Safechuck pulls out a jewelry box to display expensive rings given to him by Jackson.

Safechuck expresses his resentment for the gifts — and yet there they are, preciously placed in a decorative box, still in his possession 30 years after the man, who he says licked his anus as a young boy, gave it to him.

During the 1993 sexual abuse allegations against Jackson brought by the family of Jordan Chandler, both Safechuck and Robson testified that Jackson had never behaved inappropriately with them. That lawsuit was settled out of court.”

Continued

“Tell me something: If you’re Michael Jackson and you know that you had in fact done the things Safechuck and Robson allege, why would you ask them to testify twice on your behalf? This is like robbing two stores and asking the owner of the first one to defend you in the second trial. More accurately, it's like robbing eight stores, having the nerve to show your face in them again, and then asking the owners to comp your groceries.

They wanted to protect him, goes one reasoning. But why does anyone have to buy that? And why would they come forward with these new accusations only now that Jackson is dead? The questions are endless, and the idea that they should simply "be believed" is to be forced to bury the equally endless anomalies.”

Again, more nonsense from the documentary:

“Both Robson and Safechuck in “Leaving Neverland” say they knew of several other boys abused by Jackson. Robson specifically identifies Brett Barnes as the boy who “replaced” him, and the documentary displays a photograph of Barnes with Jackson.

Barnes, like Robson, testified as an adult in 2005 that he was never abused by Jackson. Since "Leaving Neverland" aired, he has threatened to sue HBO for what he says is the implication that he was molested.

To give you the extent of how long Robson was friends with Jackson, Robson in the movie describes going with his own wife to visit Jackson and his children in Las Vegas after the 2005 trial. Who is not confused by this?”

^Keep the fact coming!

Why did Paris deny the suicide attempt if the ENT confirmed that they had to go to her place on a call of attempted suicide? Not surprising she attempted suicide after being raked through the mud yesterday by the loony Jackson fans when she said it wasn't her job to defend her dad.

I don't understand why they attacked her. I thought they are his fans, wouldn't his daughter be off limits?

*EMT

R18, I think the stans have very conflicted feelings about MJ's children. As the product of his bizarre marriage to Debbie Rowe, and obviously not his biological children, they are living proof of that he was psychologically disturbed.

The stans definitely do. I remember a few years ago they were all against her when that fat cow Janet attacked her.

[quote]I don't understand why they attacked her.

Because they're pedo-loving LOONS.

Great read.

One of the ironic aspects of this story is that most of the Jacksons themselves remained tied to the people who abused them when they were children -- their horrifying father and their passive, complicit mother. Janet, in particular, continually defended her father and remained convinced until the end that he had truly loved her. Michael seemed to feel both hatred and shame, yet still spoke about "forgiving" his father.

Interesting video of a body language expert who believes Wade is lying.

"The idea that a child sexual abuser would have as their first witness in the 2005 court case, somebody that have sexually abused for seven years just speaks volumes about these allegations. I don’t see any truth in them and it’s Wade Robson’s behavior that reveals, in my opinion, that he is being untruthful about these allegations and he makes a lot of, what are known as emblematic slips, and these are the gestural equivalent of a “slip of the tongue” and it’s brought about by these asymmetrical shoulder shrugs."

"The harrowing testimony from Robson and James Safechuck is compelling but there has been a huge backlash at the lack of any other witnesses, both for and against. Filmmaker Dan Reed has dismissed criticisms: "What is the other side of the story? That Michael Jackson was a great entertainer and a great guy?" He says Robson's original 2005 denial of abuse was rooted in his devotion to his idol. Yet, there is evidence Robson lied repeatedly in the past, was viewed as an unreliable witness by a judge and some of his latest allegations are not even based on his own memories."

R25 LOL! I looked up the credentials of this so-called "body language expert". Surprise, surprise, he has none! Just another amateur obsessive idiot who thinks being a fan makes him an expert.

Wade lacking “credibility” is irrelevant to me. When ALL these kids have accused him, I refuse to believe he is not guilty. Come on. It takes a delusional contrarian to ignore the forest for the trees. I’m sure there are lots of details that could be questioned - but the big picture that Jackson was a pedophile and abused kids is undeniable. But in an era where people like Trump because he is “honest”, not sure reality matters anymore.

Adrian Mcmanus s amazing. I hope she writes a book. I want her to spill the dirt on MJ and Norma Staikos

r3, creepy is right. Those portraits remind me of Warren Jeffs and his various child brides.

Bringing this over from another thread, the 3 embedded links are worth a read, too. Powerful stuff.

"Dan Reed Tries To Defend His “Shockingly Unethical” Film “Leaving Neverland”

R28 "ALL" these kids haven't accused him. This is a lie peddled by Wade/James enthusiasts like yourself to make the duo's allegations seem more credible.

Most of the other boys around Jackson (dozens, if not hundreds) including many he had close relationships with have either said nothing illegal/abusive happened, or not made any allegations whatsoever. This included Wade/James until around 2012, when overwhelming evidence indicates that financial motivations influenced their changes in the story.

That leaves two other accusers. Gavin, who jurors voted 9-3 was not molested by Jackson.

Then Jordan, whose lawsuit was settled out of court. Jordan's father was $60,000 behind in back child support payments and in a bitter custody battle with his ex-wife. He is on tape days before his son "confessed" to him under the influence of sodium amytal during a dental procedure stating "If I go through with this, I win big time. There’s no way that I lose. I’ve checked that out inside out....I will get everything I want...June is gonna lose Jordy. She will have no right to ever see him again." Further, Jordan claimed that Jackson was circumcised. However, Jackson's autopsy report showed that he had not been circumcised and his foreskin appeared naturally intact, with no signs of having been restored from a circumcision. Jordan's father later committed suicide in 2009 and his son's has been silent for over 24 years.

Give it up, Jackaloon...your repetitive spamming doesn't change that little boys were violated.

Innocent people don't settle out of court for tens of millions of dollars. Period. Full stop. End of.

Found this quote in one of the above linked articles.

[quote] In court James ‘jewelry’ story never included a ‘wedding ring’ story, he stated he had a neckless he was given with a medallion – and that is where the story ends.. The wedding ring would be the most important piece of jewelry to the story… James original interview with Dan Reed in Feb 2017 did not include the ring story, they later got together in July 2017 to film and include the ‘ring’ story.

That's because the original story is eerily similar to one that was featured in the book Michael Jackson was My Lover, that was allegedly based on the diaries of Jordan Chandler. The book is best classified as pedo fan fiction.

[quote] * Wade claims that he was at Neverland and saw Michaels children and did not want Michaels kids to live without their dad and that’s how he knew he ‘had’ to testify on Michaels behalf.. The time he visited Neverland was AFTER he testified

This part was cut out of the European broadcast version. I wonder why.

“That leaves two other accusers. Gavin, who jurors voted 9-3 was not molested by Jackson.”

Why are you such a liar? Do you not understand anything about the American justice system, or is this deliberate? The jurors found that the charges were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt — not that the molestation did not happen, or that the accuser was lying, or any other nonsense you come up with.

[quote] Innocent people don't settle out of court for tens of millions of dollars. Period. Full stop. End of.

MJ was currently on Asia during the Dangerous tour. The insurance company pressured him to settle. Jackson's lawyer tried repeatedly but were denied to postpone the civil trial until after the criminal trial. It is now illegal in California. There was not enough evidence to even indict Jackson for a criminal trial despite Chandler's description of Jackson's penis which the prosecution chose not to enter into evidence.

Innocent people don't settle out of court for tens of millions of dollars. Period. Full stop. End of.

R37 I watched the video where the legal team is questioning Gavin. The entire video can be found online. Not only was he obviously coached but he was attributing things to Jackson that were said to him by other family members.

The dangerous tour ended a couple of months before the settlement in January of ‘94. Nice try, r38

r37, you can't talk logic with that pedo-lover. She's a lost cause.

Stop arguing with the Jackostan! Just block it, please! I don't want to have to block you, too. Sick of seeing the same arguments over and over and over and over...

R39 Innocent people and companies settle lawsuits all the time--often with the settlements paid by insurance companies to limit liability. Moreover, they do so with no admission of wrongdoing. Also important: the Chandler's settlement did not prevent them taking/participating in criminal action.

R43 Get over yourself,. No one cares who you block.

[quote]Innocent people and companies settle lawsuits all the time--

Not when they're accused of something as heinous as molestation. Unless they're guilty.

R40, regardless of what you perceived about the accuser, the jury — and every other jury on a criminal trial in the US! — did not judge that a crime DID NOT occur, only that one had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have occurred. Do you understand the distinction there? It is a profoundly important one.

Anyway, I watched the documentary with my mother, who has been a prosecutor for 35 years, largely ‘specializing’ in domestic violence and child abuse. I asked her at the end if she thought the accusers were credible, and her response was either “absolutely” or “completely”. FWIW.

Photoshopping away Jackson's surgery.

I believe that the biggest issue is that Leaving Neverland makes the accusers SEEM very credible by presenting the "prosecution's side." After the film is over, however, then the lights come on and supporters have to confront the "defense." The defense is quite strong and damning.

This is difficult for many of them to do, because the only evidence of each accuser's abuse is anecdotal (their words) or unverifiable (the jewelry collection)--and it does not help that the subject's current claims are in direct contradiction with their past denials (including one as an adult under oath.) So supporters have to resort to either pointing back to the words and excuses of the two accusers ("Totally believable and credible"), pointing to speculation about Jackson himself ("Only a guilty man would have sleepovers"), or speculating about other people the documentary suggested must also be victims ("Barnes and Culkin need to stop lying").

R48 Cont.

This worked initially, but then the "defense" dug further, and revealed that their past actions show a desire to seek money, rather than tell the truth. They discover that one of the accusers was in a 7 year relationship as a preteen-- that coincided with several years of the claimed abuse. Dan Reed excuses this away by saying he could have been "seeing" both the girl and Jackson.

R46 The film uses emotionally manipulative techniques including close ups, pick ups shots, and music to sway the viewer. Admittedly, it's pretty well done. However, they were a lot less convincing during the Oprah interview. Wade seemed to be caught off guard several times, and James just looked like he would rather be anywhere else.

R49 Cont.

The first accuser's repeated attempts to not comply with discovery are also telling. Robson states under oath that a "single responsive document" is all that existed in terms of discovery. However, the court forced him to turn over the rest of the documentation--and he produced several bankers boxes of documents (which he previously claimed did not exist at all). During this process, on three separate occasions he is forced to produce more documents that "supplement" this disclosure. Each time after these he would later claim his production was "now" complete--to this day he has still failed to produce numerous documents with third parties regarding these allegations and has failed to explain why.

He redacted over 50 emails between him and his (non-attorney) mother--claiming these were "attorney-work product." Additionally, documents in one of Robson's "supplemental" productions showed for the first time that he attempted to (unsuccessfully) shop a book draft concerning the allegations--which to this day he has failed to produce. He first claimed this book draft was "privileged," which is why he did not log it. He then waived privilege and presented one "recently created" PDF copy of the book. But numerous documents about the book remain missing or redacted.

On top of this, Robson first claimed he was unable to find the book.

A copy of the signed order where the judge orders Robson to turn over ALL "drafts and versions of his book, with metadata intact," "all unredacted emails to any member of his family." along with "all emails that were previously missing attachments" is available below.

R47 The final result would be more convincing if they kept him white (he had vitiligo) and aged him.

On December 19th 2017, Judge Beckloff ruled in favor of the MJ Estate and dismissed Robson’s lawsuit. Below you will find the ruling document and a discussion about what this means. Keep in mind that during both demurrer and summary judgment, the judge is required to treat Robson’s claims as true and only determine if there is a legal basis for the lawsuit. So the judge summarizing the allegations doesn’t mean they are actually true or the judge believes them. Nevertheless, the case was dismissed. A copy of his signed order for summary judgement is below.

I will post this again so the delusional MJ defender can shut up. Safechuck at 10 shopping for wedding rings with MJ.

The notion that Jackson HAD to pay tens of millions of dollars to cover up accusations of molestation because he was on tour - and had no control over what his lawyers and insurers did - is one of the most inane arguments his stans have made...and that's saying a lot.

Like Charles Barkley said at the time - if you're innocent, you must fight accusations like that with all your might, because you can't let people think you "sleep with babies."

[quote]The stans definitely do. I remember a few years ago they were all against her when that fat cow Janet attacked her.

Paris debunked this lie on her Twitter, you stupid fucking queen.

It figures the stans would shit on the kids over the fucked up Jackson siblings.

This guy had a whole career based on teaching MJ dance. He supports the victims.

As someone who grew up in Oz, after watching the documentary I noticed the part about Wade becoming something of a sensation on Australian children's TV shows for a while. And the segment of him dancing on the "Johnny Young Talent Show" show revived some memories. I also remember there have been some accusations of abuse from the child performers of that show.

Young Talent Time was a "beloved" 70s and 80s children's show that launched the entertainment careers of Tina Arena, Kylie and Dannii Minogue and others.

Several years ago singer Debra Byrne admitted she was sexually assaulted on the set of Johnny Young. The linked article is biased (from a Jackson supporter) but she has compiled a great deal of information about the show, also she seems to have some sympathy for Wade and admits that he probably was abused. Just not by Jackson. Grrrrrrrr.

R56 That isn't proof of guilt. There are lot of inconsistencies and timeline issues in Safechuck's story. Why is it so shocking that he told the truth about one thing that is so innocuous? In the documentary, Safechuck mentioned a mock wedding (which was from the Guiterrez book, published in the mid 90s) and that Michael would give him rings based on sexual favors. Michael having bought rings for James or going shopping with James does not prove anything.

Michael gave away lots of things without expecting anything in return.

R41, new thread, so they are just going to repeat all the lies that have already been debunked in the prior threads.

R63, he got something in return for the money he gave to the Chandler and Francia families.

How can anyone look at Wade’s little face in R61 and not feel deeply for him? He was so young, he was preyed upon so efficiently, and the people who should have protected him did nothing.

Victor Guiterrez met with both Francia and Mcmanus. His relationship with Diane Dimond completely undermines her credibility as well.

Funny that nobody has even attempted to explain the Guiterrez situation in all the thread so far. There are even some people who are quoting passages from his book as definitive proof.

I do not grasp the point. So what if someone in Oz did or did not do anything to Wade. The point is that Jackson DID.

What, if he was molested at 4, it was ok to fuck him at 7 or 14? What is it, some damaged goods theory?

Pervs are everywhere is an important takeaway. Many are not so child centered like Jackson. They are typically married and have sex with adult women and men, they also prey on kids. Some is recreating trauma, some is about abuse of power. The defining characteristic of someone likely to commit incest is said to be a sense of entitlement.

Kids need to be educated about grooming and the public needs to be educated about csa. I have seen people who attack victims later come forward themselves. It is though the message to not tell under threat makes another victim telling feel like a primal threat and they try to enforce silence. All very sad.

People have misplaced faith in the justice system, particularly in the event of divorce or kids put in foster care. Telling as a child can be an out of the frying pan into the fire situation. Far too much money to be made from exploiting kids and images.

Please, Block Jacko stan/s, let them talk to themselves.

Thanks for providing the link to Wade's blog. Very informative.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[quote]The linked article is biased (from a Jackson supporter) but she has compiled a great deal of information about the show, also she seems to have some sympathy for Wade and admits that he probably was abused. Just not by Jackson. Grrrrrrrr.

Don't you love it? "Yeah, they were probably molested at some point, but not by the creepy adult man who they traveled and slept in the same bed with, no way!

To all those who ask "Why is there so much smoke?", I ask why were there so many false allegations? No conspiracy theories please.

............

Which allegations have been proven to be false, r73? ("Proven" being the operative word.)

Now if only they could have spared the rest of from this garbage. Russia says the film is “inappropriate for public viewing.”

(Via Hollywood Reporter)

“Russian State Television Pulls Plug on 'Leaving Neverland'”

"The film's premiere at Sundance and on HBO provoked a controversial public reaction and aggression on the part of both supporters and opponents of the film," Channel One spokeswoman Larisa Krymova told Russian state news agency RIA Novosti. "In this situation, Channel One made the decision to move the Russian premiere of Leaving Neverland to its website."

Spared the rest of who, and from what, r76?

[Quote]All Jackson's underage ( and then some ) boyfriends were good looking [R431], he wasn't going to waste years grooming a dog.

I know, but Jimmy was ethereal. Wade was a cute kid, but nowhere near as beautiful. I can understand why a pedophile like MJ would go for Jimmy, I'm a bit more confused about Wade who was average. Oh well, MJ clearly didn't care as he obviously abused both.

Court document from September 9th 2016:

'Plaintiff is unable to continue writing songs or producing music, as well as being unable to continue performing and directing in any manner or capacity whatsoever.'

Cont: R79

September 20th 2016 Facebook Post

'It has always been a dream of mine to dance with Wade Robson. Now he is directing and choreographing for me.' -re: R80

Contradicting the reasons for his breakdowns:

R78, Wade may have been unusually vulnerable or receptive. MJ pounced on him very quickly, he didn’t do the same painstaking build-up he did with James.

If Jacko hadn't hated being black so much, and instead embraced being an AA, do you think he would've preyed on black kids more? Pre-bleached skin he was carrying around Webster, but post-bleaching he only wanted to diddle and "marry" white and light brown boys.

Interesting article from 2005 trial days—showing just how obvious it was Gavin was lying about Michael abusing him. (The Judy would later overwhelming acquit Jackson and find him not guilty).

The evidence in that case and this new one is overwhelmingly clear—Michael Jackson is innocent, and these new men and their dismissed lawsuits are full of contradictions and lies. It’s remarkable how dishonest and immoral James Safechuck and Wade Robson are, to invent these lies so many years after Michael Jackson’s death. A man who they themselves admitted was nothing but generous and appropriate with them. Completely shameful.

[quote]The evidence in that case and this new one is overwhelmingly clear—.

Keep telling yourself that, pedo lover.

R83, maybe my timeline is off, but it seems as though Michael’s skin grew dramatically whiter after he became infatuated with white boys. They seemed to establish the look he wanted; he wanted to be young, delicate, skinny and pale.

Brett Barnes was also a strikingly attractive kid. He is the one the Canadian social workers made a report about on the train.

Wade is an extremely talented dancer which likely appealed to MJ, also he was so much younger, probably less grooming was needed. The way he moved his body before leaving Oz and after being left with Michael changed so much, it is horrifying to see such sexualized behavior from a 7 year old. In the case of the Robsons he held extra cards as to their immigration status.

James on some level, as any child would, believed the grooming that he was special, but he was just one of SO MANY. It is such a MIND FUCK what happened to these kids and he also blew up their families. 2 of the dads committed suicide and well after his special status ended, he was able to control pulling James out of advanced coursework. His money and celebrity allowed him power in these families that is often reserved to the breadwinner/patriarch or grandfather. Hell is too good for Jacko. I hope he suffers for eternity. The world was groomed and pedos likely got far more cover.

So ironic that what comes between me and my Calvins Brooke Shields was used to beard for the monster. Talk about a sexualized childhood. No wonder she cashed the checks and did not bat an eye.

I wonder how much pressure SONY may be putting on affiliated artists/actors to keep silent? Sunshine Sachs may be doing so as well.

Nice that SIA came out in support of Wade. Would be nice if some threw some choreography work his way.

Why did he have the special friends call him Daddy?

35 year old non child molestors dont sleep EVERY single night in the same bed as an unrelated pre teen boy at his parents Brentwood Ca house as michael Jackson did with Evan Chandler.......................6 STRAIGHT months, EVERY night?

R87 Looks like Leaving Neverland is getting shorter and shorter. They have already cut nearly an hour of its runtime and now Barnes is requesting his image be removed.

Just thinking about and processing the allegations would bring any reasonable person to one conclusion. There is no way these men were abused by Michael Jackson. Only these sick—twisted two individuals (Robson and Safechuck) would fathom concocting such lies solely for a potential payday,

"The Estate of Michael Jackson believes the court made the correct decision in dismissing Wade Robson’s claim against it. In my opinion Mr. Robson’s allegations, made twenty plus years after they supposedly occurred and years after Mr. Robson testified twice under oath — including in front of a jury — that Michael Jackson had never done anything wrong to him were always about the money rather than a search for the truth."

R90 Barnes is also threatening to sue HBO, who aired the film that he believes (falsely) implies that he was abused by Michael Jackson. It’s so sickening to see these two, Wade and James, try to gain credibility on the backs of innocent people when their own actions have cost them the little credibility they had. I’m glad other men are coming out to reaffirm that no abuse ever happened.

Reed had no issue cutting out the obviously fake scenes about the pathetic jewelry collection Safechuck claimed Michael gave him in a “mock wedding” in the UK version of the documentary—which many believe he did so because it mimicked a popular fiction book concerning Michael Jackson in the U.K. They should remove all references to Barnes also—and others who believe they were incorrectly portrayed in the film.

R92 They removed the part with the jewelry. Wasn't that supposed to be the most damning part of all? Does anyone else wonder why Safechuck kept the rings but didn't keep the vows?

R93 Comedic gold!

Another thing “innocently” missing from the U.K. Version of the film. They claim these convenient edits were done to make room for “ads.”

Wade's wife lied. In the documentary "Leaving Neverland," she said she was not a victim of sexual abuse (video below) and didn't know how to help wade; however, on their family fund page (and a since edited out bit from Wade’s website), it stated she was herself a victim of child abuse. Oops! Sounds like she has some explaining to do.

Video of Wade Robson in 1993 as a child saying “I know Michael would never do anything like that. That’s a fact” in relation to the allegation. You be the judge.

He would later reaffirm in 2005, sworn, at the “tender” age of 23—that no abuse ever happened. Wade himself is—the defense’s best witness.

R96, I've only watched the UK edit, and I'm sure it included the moment when Amanda said she had no knowledge of the psychological effects of CSA.

Actually Evan was the dad, he later committed suicide. Jordan was the young boy, he later sued Jacko. Otherwise, totally agree.

No matter how much people trash Wade, the tide finally seems to have turned. The removal of the items from the kids museum in IN and The Princes Trust cutting ties in London are both being widely covered.

Jackson was broke and with a trashed rep when he died. He was literally whitewashed in death and many stood to make $ on him in 2019 and 2020. Sony sure hoped to, having spent a fortune on music rights at the end of 2018. The shows are closing and the Broadway one may never open. I am a bit shocked that companies like H&M and LV believed Jacko to be so marketable, that would not have been the case when he died and was seen as a pedo and a freak, often leaving the US for long periods. Karma, the arc of the moral universe, take your pick, he really is done this time.

Wade seems in a pretty good place with the blog he wrote and he is very involved in healing and in survivor activities, good on him for coming forward. It helped James and if you have helped even one other person, your life has been worthwhile.

I was thinking of how lucky it was for James that Wade went public. I worry that he would have committed suicide if he didn't have that person in a sense that verified his experiences and feelings. At least they both feel like someone can truly empathize bc the other went thru the same experience.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Afropunk Essay

It’s so brave and courageous of some of the children in Michael’s life to come out and call these accusers the liars they are, or state again on the record that Michael never behaved inappropriately despite engaging in the SAME activities that Wade and James used to manufacture their lies.

Wade’s lies (especially) are so atrocious that it defies logic. I hope this trend continues and the millions of fans keep discussing and tearing apart this vicious attack on Jackson’s Legacy.

Thank you for posting that, R101.

A post from a friend earlier in the week:

Nothing has ever been proven. There was an out of court settlement but no admission of guilt was attached. At this point my feeling is that it’s just a try for some money and publicity.

I see the Delusional trolls/Jackson PR trolls have found this thread. No one cares. He’s guilty. No one with all that money at stake needs anyone to defend them. They already paid the best - including probably a lot of the trolls on this site. Guilty x 10. Burn in hell.

Glad the piece in the DM is touching on the family attempting to exploit Paris, Prince and Blanket, once again. The photo with Blanket is creepy as fuck, waist length hair and short shorts? I do not believe that there could have been a genuine suicide attempt with a release within hours, and Paris herself pushed back on SM and by going to the movies that afternoon - was it an attempt by the family to plant a story? Did they make a baseless 911 call? Blanket really should get emancipated.

That Prince wants to be a film maker gave me pause, that was the career MJ always pushed for his special friends. These kids would be better off buying an avacado farm or something and getting away from the biz.

R79 Wade’s lies are incredible. It’s unbelievable that anyone would stand behind him. Then people call the supporters “delusional.” R105 is on drugs.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Jackson family lied about the kids or are using them. Their money stream is being eroded. Maybe now they will stop living off the money of a sociopathic pedophile.

[quote]why didn't Jackson molest his own kids?

Maybe he did.

[quote] pedophiles aren't choosy.

Most pedophiles can't afford to be choosy. Jackson was one of the biggest celebrities on the planet - he had the means and ways to have his pick of prey.

An unrelated man who had been sued repeatedly and who continued to travel and share a bed with unrelated young boys would have to be acting under some kind of compulsion. It continued even when he had children of his own. In addition to the special friend in his bed for typically a year at a time, there was group of young boys who traveled with him.

Except for being a pedo, there are just not really other explanations for sharing a bed with a young unrelated boy for months at a time when there are plenty of other places to sleep, and where you have already been sued and prosecuted for the same conduct.

r104 = too retarded to compose his own dumb posts.

R111 Spoken like a true idiot bitch.

The truth will be uncovered in court. James and Wade already had their suits dismissed due to lack of evidence. The documentary produced no new evidence. Many people who were convinced by the doc already suspected that MJ was guilty, but now are going back and reviewing all the evidence and allegations dating back to 93. The amount of available information online that exonerates Jackson is overwhelming. There is no way you can review all that evidence, including the failed attempts by Wade and James to extort the estate, and come to the conclusion that he was absolutely guilty. At the very least, you'll come away thinking that the truth is unknowable. Most likely, if you do all the research, you'll lean toward Jackson being not guilty.

I'm not surprised at the reaction of those companies. It doesn't necessarily mean that they believe Jackson's guilty. They are removing his merchandise because they consider it a "sensitive" topic and don't' want to deal with it. Public opinion can change, as it has numerous times during Jackson's life.

Cry more, pedo lover r112.

Wade Robson is ugly as hell. He looks like a lying dirtbag and evidence coming out proves it. His credibility is SHOT to hell. James fucked up by even being associated with him.

r112, did your friend tell you to post that?

R116 No, the ghost of Wade Robson’s (aka: your) father did. He also said he should have used a condom, that’s why he blew his fucking brains out. He also wants you to stop lying about being diddled by a pop star. He’s “the bipolar one, ‘member son?”

[quote]That Prince wants to be a film maker gave me pause, that was the career MJ always pushed for his special friends.

He wanted the sons to be movie directors . Maybe they can make their own documentary about the pedo

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

r117, put the pipe down.

Brandi Jackson and Wade Robson had a relationship for about 8 years. Brandi Jackson is a niece of Michael Jackson. They where both 12 years old when the relationship began. Do you know who brought them together?? Uncle Michael Jackson! When they where about 20 years old Brandi found out that Wade cheated on her with multiple woman who he hoped would advance his career. One of those woman was Britney Spears. Britney had a relationship with Justin Timberlake at the time and Wade Robson still had an relationship with Brandi Jackson.

Brandi said: "Wade is not the victim, he is an opportunist! Wade, you constanly talked about wanting to be "relevant". You've burned so many bridges now the only time you are relevant is when you headline with my family's name next to yours. It's time to stop these lies and live your own life."

What you are saying: that the sick Pedo would actually use his 12 year niece to cover up his perverted sex life is beyond disgusting.

R121 She also alleges that one of the girls Wade was cheating with was underage. I'm sure his supporters will find a way to defend that as well.

Course he would, R122. The Jacksons do not care about the safety of kids, never have. They are, however, obsessed with $$$.

What the estate recently got from SONY, LV, H&M, etc was an unexpected windfall. When he died, he had little marketability. They should count their good fortune and move on. The page has turned.

what about LATOYA JACKSON whistle blowing back in the day. All of her videos and interviews are on youtube. She was his sister!!!!!

So, this Brandi person dated Wade when they were underaged, and he cheated on her with another underaged kid. You pedo lovers are really reaching.

R122. Dan Reed is losing his shit trying to come up with lies to justify why Robson isn’t a nutter.

“'The fact that he was boyfriend and girlfriend with Brandi at the age of 12 or 13 doesn't mean he wasn't seeing Jackson too but I don't really follow the logic.' -Dan Reed

More desperation. Ive never seen a director of a doc go this hard about what people say about the film. Guess what Dan—everyone with a BRAIN follows the logic, he’s lying is ass off.

R110, I fully agree. The explanation given by his defenders is that he had shared a bed with his brothers while young and therefore didn't see it as abnormal. But the 1993 allegations would have been a wake-up call. If you had been accused of sexually abusing a child and it was public knowledge that you had paid off the family for $23m, why the hell would you keep on sharing your bed with children?

R126 No, this was around the same time he was screwing Britney Spears. He was having sex with multiple women and at least one girl.

Wade Robson’s SECOND sworn testimony—he was 23 years old. Sorry Wade, nobody is buying your bullshit.

11 Q. You’re aware of the allegations in this

12 case, are you not?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And are you aware, as you sit here today,

15 that there’s been allegations that Mr. Jackson

16 molested you?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. Mr. Robson, did Michael Jackson ever molest

19 you at any time?

20 A. Absolutely not.

21 Q. Mr. Robson, did Michael Jackson ever touch

22 you in a sexual way?

23 A. Never, no.

24 Q. Mr. Robson, has Mr. Jackson ever

25 inappropriately touched any part of your body at any

26 time?

27 A. No.

Innocent people don't pay a dime - much less tens of millions of dollars - to someone who accuses them of something horrible like molestation. They just don't. Period. The end.

As he told a PI hired by his team, he did not want to stop, R128. Simple as that.

A sense of entitlement is a defining characteristic of adults to fuck with kids. MJ or a bus driver, they all think rules do not apply to them and they will not stop.

R130 CONT (Sorry, Wade—23 year old men don’t get to backpedal on the stand)

14 Q. And at no time has any sexual contact ever

15 occurred between you and Mr. Jackson, right?

16 A. Never.

—

7 Q. Did anything inappropriate ever happen in

8 that Jacuzzi?

9 A. No.

10 Q. Has anything inappropriate ever happened in

11 any shower with you and Mr. Jackson?

12 A. No. Never been in a shower with him.

—

13 Q. Is everything you’ve said the complete and

14 honest truth?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Did Mr. Jackson ever do anything wrong with

17 you?

18 A. No.

Adults who like to fuck with kids...

[quote]No, this was around the same time he was screwing Britney Spears. He was having sex with multiple women and at least one girl.

Oh, the horror!

R135 All the while in love with Michael! Like Dan Reed explained away, he was such a stunner he dated Michael and Brandi at the same time after all. #StoryIsntHoldingUp #LiesWillBeRevealed

Stans have argued that the Chandler settlement was just "business," R131, but it wasn't. Everyone knows that if you settle a lawsuit like that for more than nuisance value you are not only ruining your reputation you are setting yourself to be sued again. Everyone will know that you are an easy target. The only reasonable thing for Jackson to have done, from a purely practical standpoint, was to fight the lawsuit. That he did not, that he settled right before a deposition in which he probably would have had to repeatedly invoke the Fifth Amendment, says it all.

Wade Robson’s Emails: ‘A MASTER OF DECEPTION’ What Wade Robson doesn’t understand is that the version he is currently promoting (“I always remembered the ‘abuse’, but didn’t see it as such and thought it was consensual love”) is a totally impossible one.

This theory is devised by real pedophiles, and Robson is unfortunately giving it certain veracity by passing it off as truth – and the worst that could happen to all of us would be believing that this is indeed possible.

If applied to 14-year old teenagers the theory could at least look more or less plausible because of the teenagers’ own stormy sexual issues, confusion and turmoil of emotions. They can imagine that they are in love when it is only curiosity and the adventurous spirit that is driving them into some dubious relationships. At their awkward age adolescents don’t often understand what they themselves want and certainly don’t realize what their escapades into the luring world of adults may result in.

But what may be confusion for a teenager is no longer confusion for a 23-year old man, who is grown up enough to realize that a heinous thing like ‘anal penetration’ of a child, for example, cannot be ‘consensual love’ and can be nothing else but abuse. In fact thinking different at so mature an age is actually another way of supporting pedophilia, only from the opposite end of the spectrum.

In other words if the 23-year old Robson who testified in the defense of Jackson at the 2005 trial had really been a victim, he had the option to say that he hated or loved it, or choose not to testify at all, but the option of defending the alleged perpetrator thinking that there could be ‘consensual love’ between a seven-year old boy and a grown up man was simply not open to him. When you are an adult, believing theories like that is not only ridiculous but is actually a crime.

MORE AT THE LINK BELOW

The family knew decades ago, they gave interviews about Michael and young boys. If they did not care if he was safe as a kid, why would they care about some rando who was a threat to their $? No idea where LT and her hubs got consciences. Maybe she should raise Blanket.

R138 Thanks, you would think that would be common sense. If he thought it was something loving, why not say it happened. The reason was he would have to know that it was wrong at the time.

Yet apparently Michael was still grooming this man, who he hadn't had contact in many years, and who was engaged to be married.

Wade dated Mayte in 2000/2001 when he was 17/18 and met the wife when he was 19. Those were the 2 relationships detailed in the press while Wade was 18/19. Since those were his official girlfriends as written up by the NY Times and other sources at the time, why wouldn't Brandi know that she wasn't dating him when he was 18? I mean the NY Times wrote that Mayte was his girlfriend at the time he was 18, wouldn't that tell Brandi that he wasn't her man?

Even if he dated Brandi she has no idea when they dated. Also where are the pics of this long term relationship?

In addition, Wade stated that he slept around with many women as a way of overcompensating. He never pretended to be a virgin.

Re: Britney. She is older than Wade. She hired him when he was 16 and they worked closely until he was 19. She them hired him and his wife in 2009 so it's not like she felt that he ruined her life. If they slept together which I assume they did, it was while Justin was fucking groupies. Those of us who followed his career knew he was fucking around too. Big whoop.

How is his dating history related to being sexually abused? Hint, it doesn't matter who he dated, it doesn't relate to MJ sexually abusing Wade.

It is a desperate attempt to shift the focus away from Michael Jackson rimming 7 year old boys.

The thing is, the actions or lives of other people have no bearing on his choice to do so repeatedly.

There is money at stake for SONY and the family so they have Sunshine Sachs doing everything possible to muddy the waters, hoping the show in NY will still go forward. It is really as simple as that.

r138, who are you trying to convince with the repetitive cutting and pasting? Jackson's legacy has crumbled, and you and your fellow fantards can't reverse it. Finish your Jesus Juice, take off your bedazzled glove, and go home.

Smoke and mirrors from Dunce the Pervert. Smoke and mirrors from Dunce the Pervert's fan.

The pedio MJ troll spends literally ALL his time on here writing post after post over various threads. Probably some 80 year old living off a trust fund.

R87

First of all , Michael Jackson was ONLY accused by 5 people. Had he been a pedophile he would have had way more accusers, dozens if not hundreds, like Seville and Sandusky and R Kelly. That is NOT the case. Only 5 accusers in 35 years , all proven liars and extortionists. In addition , Michael Jackson’s houses were numerous times raided by the Police and 16 of his computers were confiscated by the FBI and they NEVER found ANY child pornography, hence the acquittal in 2005. That is a FACT.

Pervert objects allegedly found in Neverland of kid and animal torture was a false rumor invented by a loathsome , tabloid , garbage site RadarOnLine, which the Jackson family sued and settled out of court. That was NOT the case. No child porn. That is a FACT, confirmed by the FBI and multiple police departments which investigated Michael Jackson for years. The Truth About What Michael Jackson Had (And Didn't Have) In His Bedroom. The FBI, noting that Jackson was acquitted of all charges, said the case files were made public after Freedom of Information Act requests filed after MJ’s June 25 death. FBI files on Michael Jackson published online. Everything published by Radar Online is false and tampered. NO child pornography has been found. I don’t remember the FBI investigating R Kelly or Weinstein for years nor Weinstein's home wrecked by 70+ police officers for investigational purposes.

R147 I think you're confusing me with yourself. You've got dozens (possibly hundreds) of posts here, You're a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black.

[quote]Michael Jackson was ONLY accused by 5 people.

That's five too many, pedo lover.

R150 Seems like you're the pedo lover, posting hundreds of replies about Michael Jackson licking your anus. Just log off Wade (or Amanda.)

If five complaints isn't enough to convince you, then I have have some PRIME REAL ESTATE on Jupiter you'll probably be interested in buying while your here.

How was Chandler proven to be a liar and extortionist? I hope Reed makes a sequel and is able to finally get Chandler to speak.

I can’t see Sunshine Sachs working their interns upwards of fourteen hours per day....day after day after day. Plus, would they really asssign an ESL case to DL, knowing how we are? The overly formal, weirdly stilted language just screams “high score on the TOEFL; can’t converse comfortably or casually with native English speakers.”

Just two of my favorites:

“Coplantiffs”

“Eight quarter house”

How much are Jacko's stans getting paid to spam these threads?

Anyone who believes that MJ is not a pedo at this point is completely delusional. "No child porn"-pictures of naked and shirtless boys, "art" books about naked little boys, "art" films like You are Not Alone, which includes pre pubescent full frontal nudity, etc. Life size figurines of boys which strangely look like the kids who accused him. A painting commissioned by MJ of himself surrounded by pre pubescent "angels". And, most importantly, HE TOOK LITTLE BOYS TO "SLEEP" WITH HIM IN HIS BEDROOM. Yeah, that's what a normal person does. He was a fucking child molester! Wake the fuck up!

R153 Rather than getting Chandler to speak, Reed should be trying to remove mention of the kid who he implied was also abused by Jackson and is threatening to sue him and HBO. They've cut out an hour of inconvenient tape already, might as well add a few more minutes.

And yet he hasn't sued HBO yet.

R154 This site is visited by English speaking people all over the world. I've spoken with DL users from New York, Paris and London (among others) who are aware of this site and either post or read here with some frequency. Rather than insult other posters, you would do well to listen to the serious credibility issues of Wade Robson; as you continue to defend someone who me and many others consider a liar, dirtbag, and scam artist with credibility and timeline problems that are quickly causing backlash against this ill-advised documentary.

R158 MJ's Estate has sued HBO, and unlike Wade and James' comically poor lawsuits (that only exposed them to extensive, embarassing discovery) by the same lawyer, the Jackson estate is quite likely to reach a settlement with HBO without having their suit fail to survive even a motion to dismiss.

[quote] someone who me and many others consider a liar, dirtbag, and scam artist with credibility and timeline problems

Exactly the same description can be applied your defending Dunce the Pervert.

R161 Sounds like once again the pedo defender is focusing all his efforts on Wade. Did he forget there are TWO accusers?! But that would have to mean he would have to attack James, who doesn't have credibility issues. The fact that he won't go after James says it all. If James is credible, chances are Wade is too.

R162 = "Just one of them is lying, stop talking about that guy!"

There's plenty with Safechuck also, who has absolutely no evidence and a timeline that makes no sense.

I'd love to discuss his MESS of a civil suit again.

An excellent read for anyone who encounters someone like R162--who suggests Wade's MASSIVE credibility issues are somehow a cover for James Safechuck's completely unbelievable and bizarre timeline.

R101 From the article by a black woman:

"Sometimes when it comes down to it, we have to use common sense. Every fan in the mirror has to ask him or herself: 'What do I believe?' Not merely, what do I want to believe? Yes, this is a dismantling, a reckoning. But you know full-well, there are times when all the arguments against a thing just don’t square at your core. If you say you actually saw Leaving Neverland and came away with, 'Every single disgusting detail these two men claimed Michael did to them when they were as young as 7 and 10 is a wholesale lie,' then I don’t believe you."

Mic dropped. That is the FINAL word to the MJ defenders.

The writer of the article in r164 writes insane.

VinndicatingMichael. True journalism at it's finest.

R267 Safechuck has not credibility issues you claimed? Nope, massive ones--just not as bad as Robson. See link at R164 everyone else and decide for yourself. Now you know.

R165 So completely subjective reasoning is undeniable proof now? Anyone who believes Wade was protecting Michael in 2005, and that Michael allowed someone who he raped hundreds of times, to be the key witness in his defense is lacking common sense. Likewise, Safechuck not realizing the extent of his abuse 8 years after telling his mother all the while receiving psychiatric treatment from professionals is also quite ludicrous. Finally, books can be written about false claims written about Michael Jackson. Final word my ass.

[quote] If you say you actually saw Leaving Neverland and came away with, 'Every single disgusting detail these two men claimed Michael did to them when they were as young as 7 and 10 is a wholesale lie,' then I don’t believe you."

A stinging rebuke. "I don't believe you." Yes, that's all that's needed. No fact checking, no corroboration, no other perspective. Belief is all that matters. That's what you call insane.

Dude at R60's link pretty much sums up the utter insanity of Jacko-defenders:

[quote]However, in actuality, a lot of the interaction between Michael Jackson and his “fans” can easily be explained by a disorder called “Celebrity Worship Syndrome” (CWS). It's an obsessive-addictive disorder and if you think about it, Michael Jackson was the biggest celebrity so it makes sense that he has the most extreme “fans” with this disorder. A link has also been scientifically proven between poor mental health and people with “CWS”. Sufferers have a higher level of mental illness, anxiety and depression. It's also clear that, in my opinion, Michael Jackson was probably the most blatant example of a narcissist since Narcissus himself gazed at his own reflection and I do think that Michael Jackson fanatics emulate him and project their own narcissism and psychopathy onto Jackson (like he is a blank canvas … an idea that he propagated with the “I could live on stage” idea), so that if you criticize Michael Jackson, they actually feel a physical reaction and physical pain, as if you are criticizing THEM. That is because the fanatics often do not have a fully formed personality of their own and it is intertwined with that of a Pop Star that they do not know and have not met. It’s inherently unstable and a very sensitive unhealthy obsession for them.

[quote]It generates toxicity which elicits rage, anger and aggression, which combined with the obsessive-addictive disorder is a recipe for disaster in the “fans” own life and anybody around them. I have unfortunately been around them since I was that small child. They have no insight and are so blinded in their idols reflected glory that they have no qualms about defending child abusers and promoting child abuse and adults sleeping in a bed with unrelated children. I also suspect that many have low or non-existent levels of fear and empathy. I have seen (with my own eyes) the fans attack police and security, run into busy roads and put their own lives and the lives of others around them in danger to chase Jackson’s vehicle. They are none the wiser because they don’t exhibit normal reasonable self-reflection and judgement.

[quote]This toxicity surrounded Michael Jackson like an aura, which infected everything in its orbit. He was “untouchable” and thus in his fans minds, they too, in their heads, after mental gymnastics including psychological projection, are too, untouchable. He empowers them. They are still infected. He is their life and the reason they live and don’t have to face “real life”. Those enraged and moved to physical anger by criticism of Michael Jackson's behaviour recently, very possibly suffer from “CWS”. It is unhealthy and these people need medical help, in my opinion. However, if they break the law and abuse and harass, they should also be prosecuted. I have had to explain in a very methodically kindergarten standard level way, that they do not have to attack victims and alleged victims of child abuse to defend their idol. That is discouraging legitimate victims of child abuse coming forward and has a very detrimental impact on child well fare. They can defend without attacking and victim shaming. I have seen that this concept is like explaining Quantum Mechanics to a toddler. They literally can’t comprehend what I'm saying. I mean that literally. They cannot comprehend it. You need empathy and intelligence to understand it, which they just do not have. These are the people that Michael Jackson always attracted and they have always disgusted me.

Jackson's fans haven't, and won't, watch "Leaving Neverland" because they're terrified of facing a truth that they can't bear. That's why their only course is attacking one of the abuse victims, and repetitively posting the same articles and selling it as some kind of undisputed "evidence".

Jackson's legacy as a superstar pop idol is done. Because in the ethical and logical minds of the majority, hurt children will always trump a hit song and dance.

I live in Indiana and everyone in the store and at the checkout this morning was talking about the MJ stuff being taken out of the Children's Museum. It got big play on the all the local news channels last night and today.

This is a BIG thing, folks. This is THE destination for families and groups of school kids from all over the state....MJ's home state....

He's done.

R170 Every single time you post, you expose yourself as someone using rhetorical devices to obfuscate the truth.

Begone. Your 8th grade debate club tactics have no power here.

R173 Great news!

This exactly - Jackson's fans haven't, and won't, watch "Leaving Neverland" because they're terrified of facing a truth that they can't bear. That's why their only course is attacking one of the abuse victims, and repetitively posting the same articles and selling it as some kind of undisputed "evidence".

Dan Reed spent three years working on this. He stated he actually doesn't mind debating the truthers because they have false info & zero facts. I'll take the journalists at Vanity Fair over "VindicateMJ.com.

[quote] Every single time you post, you expose yourself as someone using rhetorical devices to obfuscate the truth.

You mean logic?

It is R173 but it shouldn't be a surprise. Jackson has lost his power, the goodwill he created was based in part on the child-like, child friendly persona he promoted, he's been found out as a massive con artist and a hugely cynical one. He manufactured an asexual Peter Pan lifestyle to assuage the world's suspicions so he could romance little boys in plain sight. It was outrageously daring but ,like Jimmy Savile, he got away with it in his lifetime thanks to his celebrity power. Everybody without an agenda accepts his pedolphilia, even in the Mail article from earlier they have dropped the 'alleged'. The only people defending Jackson now have a vested financial interest like the ghastly family and greed merchants Sony or fans ,still drunk on Jesus Juice, who feel so emotionally connected to Jackson they can't accept the truth ( or grow up in other words ). The description of the fans at R171 is chillingly accurate, you only have to look at the non stop posters here ( 'But Wade cheated on his 10 yr old girlfriend! He said he loved St Michael! He's a fraud!!!!! ) to see many examples of their madness. Sucks for them to have a tarnished hero, but it will be healthier for them to live in the real world and step away from fandom if they can manage it.

[quote] Jackson's fans haven't, and won't, watch "Leaving Neverland" because they're terrified of facing a truth that they can't bear. That's why their only course is attacking one of the abuse victims, and repetitively posting the same articles and selling it as some kind of undisputed "evidence".

We have watched it and have been debunking all the lies and half truths. Not that hard to do since their suits are public record. And yes, Safechuck's story is being heavily scrutinized as well.

But you don't matter R179 'debunk' away it is to no avail, your scrutiny is pointless.

I wonder if Marge and Homer regret leaving him alone with Bart to write that song together.

R181m Probably, and I bet MJ had a yellow dick afterwards.

Robson and Safechuck are less credible than Jussie Smollett, at least he had evidence before he started making stuff up.

Pedo Jacko looooved the ladies. The Jackson family is really working overtime with this shite.

One interesting consideration is the extent Safechuck and Robson's lawyers (and Dan Reed) were willing to go to in order to create a perception of victims who do not exist.

Jackson's critics know that much unlike the other famous serial abuser of adults or children, there is not a long list of people making claims against the pop star (credible or not). They can revert back to "there were two others" but this still harms the perception they need in order to prove that he must be a serial abuser --his behavior points to it they tell us, and so there have to be dozens (maybe hundreds) of other victims with similar stories. Yet, they fall short because there aren't--so they have to convince us these people do exist, but are just complicit in the sham to protect him also.

They continually speculate about and name the "others," who must be too corrupt/ashamed/evil to admit it, but the problem is that these people have desperately made it clear to them and the rest of the world that he was not abusive and did not act inappropriately with them. Spence, Culkin, Lennon, and the other boys are all victims and they are all lying they tell us. It's ironic that they push "believe accusers" at all costs, but do not believe the people who say they were never victimized despite having the same experiences with Jackson.

Link to lawyer's harassment of Spence is below.

I highly suggest reading the emails Wade Robson turned over in his case, especially those between him and his mother as they plotted this out. It is clear that there is duplicity and deception as work in their interactions. We already know from the motion to compel that Wade Robson was shopping a book in late 2012-early 2013, before he filed his lawsuit in May 2013. The emails also give significant insight on that process and his lack of success before filing this lawsuit

PEDO & everybody knew it. Rot in hell Jackson's.

Michael Jackson's second-worst nightmare has happened: His former trusted PR man, Bob Jones, is about to publish a memoir of his years with the singer.

Jones was dismissed unceremoniously one year ago by Michael's brother Randy after nearly 30 years with the singer. His book, "Michael Jackson: The Man Behind the Mask," will devastate Jackson.

Here we go:

"Michael had a sinister gift for identifying these boys; it was as if he had some sort of radar. I was continually amazed by how he could determine which of the many children he came into contact with might be 'woo-able,' whose parents could be bought off and counted on to keep quiet about what was going on. I came to understand that Michael manipulated people and events with a great deal of finesse."

Jones details Jackson's trips abroad in the late '80s and early '90s, before the famous Chandler family settlement, with boys who were essentially his dates.

"One kid [name changed], with whom Michael managed to carry on a clandestine relationship for years … Michael and [the boy] spent nearly all of their time together." Jones recalls that while traveling, the boy stayed in Michael's room while his parents were treated to chauffeur-driven cars that would take them on shopping sprees and sightseeing tours all day long.

Another boy — many are described — is Brett Barnes, who testified on Jackson's behalf at his trial. It was Barnes' sister, Karlee, who said during cross-examination that her brother slept in Jackson's bed a total of 365 nights over a two-year period. Jones, calling Barnes "Damon," writes that during a 1992 world tour he often tucked him under luggage so the press wouldn't see the boy.

"All of us, including the State Department official and Jet magazine Publisher Bob Johnson, saw the boy enter Michael's private bedroom numerous times and remain for a long time. Characteristically, Michael did whatever he wanted to — hang the risk."

Jones wrote the book with journalist Stacy Brown, another longtime Jackson family friend who testified for the prosecution. And while Jones' book may be discounted by Jackson's current PR people as the work of a disgruntled employee, I got this reaction today from an insider who took a look at Jones' copy: "He's telling the truth," my source said, shaking their head.

There's more — lots more — with many stories of Michael and boys — enough to send someone to jail for a long time if true. But there's another aspect to the book that I don't want to skip here. That's Michael's attitude toward his siblings.

Jones writes, perhaps even more shockingly, that Michael has purposefully campaigned to kill the careers of his brothers and sisters. Jones writes that Michael would pay off A&R and radio people not to play their records, while at the same time dig up dirt on the siblings presumably to blackmail them with.

"Michael often inquired about what Rebbie [his eldest sister] and Jermaine were trying to do musically … Janet was the exception. Michael didn't have a clue as to what little sis was doing. He thought she was interested in an acting career. He was both stunned and dismayed when she slipped through the cracks and became a musical force on her own."

"Wade Robson's Lawyers Harass Jonathan Spence" -^^^^^Sad, creating more victims as their narrative falls apart. This is quickly becoming another Jussie Smollett situation.

They're going to try and bully the people who say Jackson was innocent--anything to support the idea that a sneaky, underhanded Jackson abused all these children. Yet, the victims don't exist. Wade and James are alone with this nonsense. Look at Weinstein, Savile, Sandusky--dozens of victims who all had a fraction of access to children that Jackson did. Yet, they're scraping for crumbs sharing decades old articles about fired ex-employees.

Funny that R188 mentions Brett Barnes, who threatened to sue HBO and LN for insinuating he was abused when he keeps telling them he wasn't. Sad.

'Threatened' being the operative word R190, let's see if it happens, here's a clue, it won't.. Don't take this as me engaging with you, I'm afraid you have bored me and everyone else to tears with your incessant wailing about how awful Wade, is etc etc and after days of constant posting all you have achieved is , well, absolutely nothing, other than to give us a prime example of Jackson Fanitis . Take a look at R171 , it's you and your fan ilk to a 'T'. Again, don't take this as me having interest in what you have to say, as your hero would have said if he hadn't overdosed before the concerts he couldn't manage 'This is it' You have been awarded the lowest troll mark on DL but I'll be generous and give you 0 /10 .

So good it bears reposting:

Wade Robson’s Emails: ‘A (self-described) MASTER OF DECEPTION’ What Wade Robson doesn’t understand is that the version he is currently promoting (“I always remembered the ‘abuse’, but didn’t see it as such and thought it was consensual love”) is a totally impossible one.

This theory is devised by real pedophiles, and Robson is unfortunately giving it certain veracity by passing it off as truth – and the worst that could happen to all of us would be believing that this is indeed possible.

If applied to 14-year old teenagers the theory could at least look more or less plausible because of the teenagers’ own stormy sexual issues, confusion and turmoil of emotions. They can imagine that they are in love when it is only curiosity and the adventurous spirit that is driving them into some dubious relationships. At their awkward age adolescents don’t often understand what they themselves want and certainly don’t realize what their escapades into the luring world of adults may result in.

But what may be confusion for a teenager is no longer confusion for a 23-year old man, who is grown up enough to realize that a heinous thing like ‘anal penetration’ of a child, for example, cannot be ‘consensual love’ and can be nothing else but abuse. In fact thinking different at so mature an age is actually another way of supporting pedophilia, only from the opposite end of the spectrum.

In other words if the 23-year old Robson who testified in the defense of Jackson at the 2005 trial had really been a victim, he had the option to say that he hated or loved it, or choose not to testify at all, but the option of defending the alleged perpetrator thinking that there could be ‘consensual love’ between a seven-year old boy and a grown up man was simply not open to him. When you are an adult, believing theories like that is not only ridiculous but is actually a crime.

Katt Williams said it best... “When did you ever hear anyone say oh MJ is fucking the shit out of that bitch?

Not Never”

The irony of R171 is that the more people look into the allegations, the more likely they will be convinced by Jackson's innocence.

"Hacked"

R189 Wade is a monster

R195 Lisa Marie Presley hasn't officially released a statement yet, but based on her reaction, it looks like she's firmly in Jackson's corner.

R197, what other choice does she have? The marriage by itself made her look like a complete fool. To admit she knew about the abuse and turned a blind eye would make her a villain. There were rumors at the time that she wouldn't let her own children around him alone and I don't know that I saw many, if any, pictures of him with them.

Jimmy Safechuck, Wade Robson, and Jussie Smollett should all get a reality show to talk about their mental health.

R198 should be the psychiatrist who analyses Jimmy, Wade, and Jussie’s compulsive lying and inventing of victims.

Jussie Smollet is on his way to becoming a verb.

I keep laughing when I hear Jimmy Safechuck teaching Jackson how to french kiss. I wonder if he also served him breakfast in bed and chanted sweet nothing in his ear.

R201

“The attack was largely considered a Jussie” “How are you gonna Robson me like that, pal” “The thief Safechuck’d when an officer confronted him on the street.”

I hope he didn’t take Michael’s virginity R202 😂

Looks like the Jackson clan is going to make tons more cash when they settle with HBO on the non-disparagement clause, plus streams are up on the music platforms which = $$$.

Hopefully Wade and James can pick up a few shifts at Dollar General and start making payments back on what they already owe the family so far. Maybe $100 a month? Like every other thing they’ve gotten, I suspect they’ll mention how much they loved Jackson to try to get favorable terms.

I too think it is pretty amazing that the Indiana Museum took MJ merchandise out, his home town. The museum must have found the documentary damming, the two persons who tell their stories believable in order to risk the backlash, the loss of revenue. All of these companies must have considered all the negatives about cutting ties with the King of Pop over these two survivors telling their horrible stories. Why has my local radio station stopped playing Jackson music. Again it comes down to the credibility of these two. Everyone must decide for themselves what they believe. I am choosing to support the museum in Indiana. But those of us who grew up with Jackson and saw the odd facial destruction, the need to be around this young boys, the dancing a baby over a balcony, Jackson destroyed himself. What normal explanation can you give for wanting to sleep with these children.

You know who I feel sorry for? Peter Pan. He's had his good name dragged through the mud.

Haha!

the Jackson fanatics simply dont want to believe their beloved could ever be the monster he was. WE have more important problems in the world to deal with at this point. I recently saw a utube video of Jacksons main house on the neverland location. The camera zoomed in on his master bedroom door and there had to be at least 4 or 5 different locks and deadbolts on the door. Additionally on some of the light switch plates in the m bedroom were pictures of little boy cherubs..................what 50 year old, other than an avowed child molestor, would have such a thing? He was a truly twisted fuck.

New pathetic statement from Jacko's estate :

The Estate of Michael Jackson:

We want to start by again thanking all of Michael’s fans and acknowledge and thank Michael’s nephew, Taj, his niece, Brandi, and his brothers, Jackie, Marlon and Tito, Grace Rwaramba, Aaron Carter, Brett Barnes, Stephanie Mills and all of the other individuals around the world who have spoken out on his behalf. We also want to acknowledge those in the media who have done their job as journalists by reviewing the facts, noting how they were ignored in Leaving Neverland because it didn’t fit into the filmmaker’s one-sided agenda of denigrating Michael’s legacy.

We also want to provide a brief update on our efforts, as well as share some thoughts with you from the past two weeks. We share your frustration and anger that a man who was found innocent in a court of law in life is being attacked, financially exploited and smeared by corporations and individuals who are only making claims now because he is no longer here to defend himself.

In addition to our public statements regarding our position on Leaving Neverland, our legal efforts continue. While it would not be prudent to publicly divulge our strategy and list our efforts, rest assured we are committed to holding HBO and Channel 4 accountable for their egregious, uncorroborated smear of Michael’s legacy. Many of you have asked why we are seeking open arbitration. The answer is simple: we believe the public deserves to know how Leaving Neverland really came about, why no counter opinion was ever sought, why so many facts were ignored and why individuals were smeared who should have at a minimum been contacted to get the other side of the story. It is outrageous that such a one-sided smear was ever allowed on the air without challenge. We all know that if Michael was still alive it would never have been aired.

We also have other non-legal initiatives that we will disclose at the appropriate time. What is important for us, and always has been, is that we continue to take the long view as we have over the last decade. That means not doing anything rash that would give HBO, Channel 4, the film’s director and, especially, the subjects of the film, what they most crave now. They want to engage in a way that focuses more attention on a film that has no doubt underperformed given that the media did everything in its power to sell this film to viewers. But given the enormous attention and free publicity the media gave this film, the numbers have clearly not matched the hype in the markets where it has aired, with many viewers opting to stop watching after the first part.

We recognize that the press often magnifies each affront related to this film. But from our view the actual impact of this documentary on the public and their behavior has not been as significant as the media want people to think. While some would like you to think otherwise, we can confirm that the consumption of Michael’s music has not declined and his streaming numbers have not decreased in the wake of this documentary. This tells us that in addition to those of us who know the truth about Michael, those who may not understand Michael’s eccentricities and the way he chose to live his life outside of society’s norms are still choosing to appreciate and enjoy the art he created. We have licensees worldwide who are proudly selling Michael Jackson merchandise. We have insight into a significant amount of data that the fans do not see and we are working 24/7 behind the scenes to synthesize all that information and act accordingly.

We are also seeing a sharp disconnect between the reception of the film by everyday viewers and the mainstream media. Despite being outright propaganda, many viewers see through the one-sidedness, the over-the-top salacious claims, the staged dialogue and other dramatizations. They see that what Leaving Neverland boils down to is a sales job aimed at convincing viewers Michael Jackson isn’t the man millions of people know and love, including the two subjects of the film and their families until they chose to sue for hundreds of millions of dollars. As people have had time to digest Leaving Neverland and review the facts, many are recognizing they can’t take it at face value. We are especially proud of Michael’s fans and those who continue to stand up for him by pointing out the numerous inconsistencies and flaws in the film. Numerous individuals who have studied every facet of these cases has poked numerous holes in the stories of the two subjects. Some critics and individuals are now courageously admitting publicly that, having studied the facts, their view of the film changed 180 degrees.

Michael Jackson cannot be silenced, and neither can his fans, whether it is those who proudly play his music in public squares to show their support, the coffee shop owner in New Zealand who played his songs all day long in protest of Leaving Neverland or those who put posters and signs around cities proclaiming his innocence. As Michael predicted 25 years ago, the truth will be his salvation.

The Estate of Michael Jackson

SOURCE: The Official Online Team of The Michael Jackson Estate™

Again, R185, Michael Jackson watching pornography with Sean Lennon and Mark Ronson IS acting “inappropriately”. Why do you keep lying that Lennon has given only glowing accounts of his time with Jackson? Anyone can watch ‘Bubbles Burst’ and understand that he is NOT fêting Jackson.

If Jackson had really been into women and not little boys, he would've knocked up that hot piece Lisa Marie. Know that.

LOL what a stupid statement.......rot in hell.

R206 it was the Children's Museum of Indianapolis, a very specific organization.

I meant stupid statement from the Estate! Sorry if someone else thought I was talking to them.

R213 I fucked MJ but he was still a pedophile into little boys.

R215 What's stupid about it?

“Listen here James bro, I had a ‘novel’ idea!

Well, no publisher would take my Michael Jackson biography you know, and the family wouldn’t give your boy another job; so I invented a few sections about him licking my anus and now I’m in a movie!” -FBI FOIA REQUEST FROM 2086

Any station that won’t play MJ but still plays Ted Nugent can go fuck themselves in Hell.

What kind of fuckwits are on here defending Wacko?

MJ haters are less stable than his fans. People constantly talking about things they hate very rarely are balanced.

So your Wade hatred should get you committed R221

His delicate tongue pierced the thin pink veil of my young brown anus. I couldn’t help myself but laugh and squeal that Michael had chosen me to be his special boy after our secret wedding ceremony.

“Hee-he. -hee” exclaimed Michael, and at that moment I knew we were husband and wife”—Letter from James Safechuck featured in 2020 Pulitzer Prize Winning Novel: MJ Kissed My Anus

Your attempt at humor is a failure R223, it was poor at R218 and full marks for sticking with it at R223 but it's just not in you.

R224 I can't stop laughing

That's just a symptom of your obsession with Jackson R225, it should fade when you grow up.

Peter Pan was written by a likely pedo, R207. Read up on the author and boys.

The family are greedy AF but the estate just got $250M from Sony, and $ from H&M and LV. I imagine the retail stores thought that the Broadway show would do well. I think that Sony is the one with real exposure, they need that NY show to happen. I think they are spending heavily through Sunshine Sachs to try to push back.

The thing is, while they try to discredit Wade, so what? A pedo only needs ONE VICTIM to be the scum of the earth. They try to capitalize on the discomfort people have with the topic and get those emotions shifted to Wade, in a good/bad dichotomy, that makes Jacko good and people do not have to wrestle with uncomfortable feelings. It is an attempted mind fuck that Jackson himself might have attempted. The harm to csa victims could be vast. Happily, it does not seem to be working whatsoever.

Given what they just spent, they expected to make it all back and then some. The PR assault is chump change in comparison. I do not expect it to let up soon. Again, it does not seem to be working. Oprah helped.

I was a happier person before I learned that, R227. I knew Lewis Carroll is believed to be a nonce, but JM fucking Barrie?

It seems anybody who has a deep interest in children and is keen to create situations where they can be alone with them, particularly of one sex is up for re-evaluation R229. I think we have been naive ( to be kind to us ). As R228 says the whole subject gives us uncomfortable feelings, so we haven't really gone there. There needs to be gone into.

Sure R230 , let's get rid of all big brothers, private tutors, athletic coaches, even aunts and uncles. Everyone is a pedophile.

They have the potential R231, in fact all of those categories you mention are typical , more peophilia occurs within families than anywhere else and athletic coaches...Sandusky. Your desire to absolve Jackson of his guilt is so strong you wish to deny pedophilia itself.

Pedophiles are drawn to careers where they have power over children. People in those industries don't want to be profiled, but it's the most effective way to locate child predators.

Teachers, coaches, priests, etc need to be more understanding that if they are going to work in those kinds of jobs, they will need to under more scrutiny that will check for signs of being a potential pedophile.

Roald Dahl was a member of PIE. Google it and UK if you are not familiar. He used to correspond with young fans, just like Woody Allen did. So many of these pervs out there. The ones who use entertainment to create a world with a sad or lonely kid and 1 adult (think Pepsi commercial or Matilda) are just giving cover and grooming for other freaks. Jacko clearly favored the works of both Barrie and Dahl.

Sandusky recruited for other as well, R232, as did Larry King in NE/DC. Both also dealt in images, now easier to create without a darkroom or pro photographer. They all like their trophies, as did Jacko with his Polaroids.

The judge squinted his hazel colored eyes and looked down at my childlike, forty year old frame. This was my last chance to get at the posthumous estate of my estranged lover, Michael Jackson.

“Mr. Safechuck,” (I blushed as he looked at me longingly, just as Michael had so many years ago.)

“Tell me the name of the secret witness who officiated your wedding in 1995?”

I thought for a long, hard few minutes while I considered the implication of involving Michael’s best friend in this bitter battle for his money. “His name is Bubbles” I screamed in tears. And the courtroom went silent.

R149, I've got about ten posts on these MJ threads so fuck off. You are ugly and a pedo who should be banned from the board.

It’s hilarious how everyone here keeps comparing Michael Jackson to serial abusers when he 1. was never convicted of any crime or abuse 2. the many kids around him say nothing illegal ever happened and 3. the middle-aged men accusing him after his death have less credibility (combined) than Kellyanne Conway

'Help me I'm so lonely!' screamed the fan, but internally, if Michael had shown him anything it was to keep a secret . But Michael was dead, it couldn't be true what they said about him, it couldn't! It isn't! The fan cracked his knuckles over the keyboard to begin his nightly online defense of Michael , he'd show those 7 year old slutboys who tricked trusting, innocent, childhood-less Michael into bed. But the loneliness, the loneliness. The fan dabbed at a teary eye with a threadbare bedazzled glove and hammered at the keys, his pain lost momentarily in whirl of frenzied posting as to why a middle aged man would spend all his time with pretty young boys. 'Oh Michael! why did you have to leave me??!?!?'

Has this been posted?

His film Ghosts is disturbing and manipulative. I think it used to be shown on tv around Halloween? Grooming post court case dressed up as a fable. It actually reminds me of some Roald Dahl themes, the weird adult that only the kids love, etc.

I knew that I only had one chance to get this right. After my financial problems began mounting, my health insurance benefits were cut and my other quickly therapist dropped me.

That was when I met a grifter named Wade Robson. Wade and his cunning lawyer paired me with the cheapest counselor they could find in the Yellow Pages, and told me exactly what to say in order to get the young woman to corroborate a potential lawsuit against the King of Pop. “Look, you’re almost 40 dude, the time to profit from a white lie now or never.”

So I entered the counselor’s office with nervous energy and began talking at once. “I....I think I may have been abused by Michael Jackson.” I uttered softly, “33 years ago that is.” The therapist looked at me strangely and began taking notes. “What happened?” she asked with no of skepticism. I knew we had made the right choice.

I shed a tear, thinking about my deceased dog, as the lawyer had coached me so aptly. “If a man licked you anus, a couple hundred times,” I began softly, “do you think it’s possible that he could be a sexual predator?” She clocked her eyes to one side, and said “I don’t know James, do you?”

'I have no life'

Why is the pedophile loved not banned yet? I've blocked him but Jesus.

I still haven't heard a plausible for why he settled with the Chandlers out of court. Wasn't he basically painting a target on his back by doing that? Why would you want to show people that if they accuse you of child molestation, you'll pay them $23m? It's just opening yourself up to false allegations. Why didn't he go to court to clear his name? I can only think of one explanation...

Listen up, gays and gals. Let’s be honest here.

Michael Jackson MUST have been pretty damn good at rimming to have the guy saying he didn’t know in his 30s that it even qualified as child abuse.

Either he’s bullshitting or Michael Jackson died with two secrets.

R245 it’s been explained multiple times that his insurance company pressured him to settle, and the agreement didn’t bring any restrictions on them pursuing criminal action. Of course. After they got the money we never heard from them again.

The dad’s voicemail transcripts plotting the whole scheme are an interesting read. The link is on his Wikipedia page (suicide victim like Wade’s dad).

Why did the insurance company pressure him to settle, R247?

There is no evidence that the insurance company pressured him to settle. MJ wasn't depending on them for funds to defend himself, he could have done whatever he wanted. The insurance company didn't pay the settlement either, he did. The only pressure on him to settle was fear of what was going to come out during discovery in the civil action. He settled right before he was scheduled to be deposed.

Exactly 249 - the stans always lie about this

The insurance pressuring him to settle us bullshit peddled by his fans. He also settled with Gavins family and Francia. And those are the families he settled with. No one knows how many other families he settled with.

Didn't Latoya say there were tons of checks including a million to the garbage man (James) dad? I know the patents claim it was a loan for their house which he then forgave after the mom testified in the Jordan Chandler case.

R249 R250 R251 Lies, but I appreciate your confidence in telling them.

"Jackson's insurance company "negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr. Jackson and his personal legal counsel" and was "the source of the settlement amounts", as noted in a 2005 memorandum in People v. Jackson." -Thomas Mesereau, Jackson's legal counsel

And, for what it's worth, it was believed at the time that the practical effect of the 1993 settlement was to stop Jordan Chandler from cooperating in the ongoing criminal investigation, even though there might not have been an express agreement to that effect.

R253, your lie was debunked in R252. Try again.

Also, I haven't seen any evidence Jackson settled with Gavin after the not guilty verdict.In fact, I'm almost certain this is also untrue. Can you source that claim?

R253 or anyone who knows-

Let's say Jordie Chandler's agreed not to talk about MJ with anyone ever again. Or lose their 20 million. What would have happened if the DA subpoenaed Chandler? Would he have been forced to testify? And if he did, would he lose the $20 million?

R256 Still pushing lies, see R253

Then R252 next.

Also R256, there isn't an enforceable contract that can prevent someone from reporting criminal activity, especially child abuse.

R256, I believe that, under the law at the time, because Jorden Chandler was a minor and the charge concerned sexual abuse, he could not have been forced by the DA to testify.

Many of the MJ stans seem to feel he was asexual, or was even perhaps a castrato. No evidence in court documents claim that he was de-balled. An adult man with even low testosterone has a sex drive. MJ apologists, what did he do with that drive?

On January 3, 2014, Tom Mesereau stated that, on a radio program, that MJ's insurance company did not pay the Chandler settlement and that any statement to the contrary was incorrect.

R262 --See R252, the source is cited at Footnote 87 on the Wikipedia page. What is your source?

Also R260, in case you don't understand--the court can compel anyone to testify by way of a subpoena. If i am not mistaken, Gavin testified by video that was later shown to the jury.

This whole thread is bonkers because all it is is people yelling at each other that he IS guilty or he ISN'T guilty. Nothing is settled and nothing is proven, one way or the other. It all boils down to who do you believe? You either believe the accusers or you don't believe them. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that does prove MJ had an obvious obsession with boys and it all points toward him being guilty yet there is no hard evidence, no concrete proof. All I'm saying is this will go round and round forever and nothing will ever be conclusively proven. However, my own personal opinion is that yes, of course MJ was guilty of what Jimmy and Wade accuse him of. I've known that for 25 years at least. But this now is all just whatever people want to believe. Nothing will ever be conclusively proven. In the meantime MJ's legacy is destroyed and his music banished from public playing, which I feel is stupid. No art by any artist should ever be erased from history. His music never abused a kid. It's two separate things. But yes, he did it I am positive but obsessing about it isn't going to change anything.

This is getting a tad sicko in here, no?

There’s no question he did it. It’s time to let go.

R265 MJ's legacy is not "destroyed," Leaving Neverland did not do a fraction of the damage to his reputation as his 2005 trial, and he recovered several years later when "This Is It" came out. Furthermore, his music is not banished from public playing. We hear it all the time--and fans are streaming it on revenue-generating platforms from Bucharest to the U.K. in higher numbers since this one-sided documentary was released. There's a fallout drop in radio play, sure, but It's obvious to anyone with a brain that Michael Jackson's songs will forever be played on radio stations around the world.

I am interested in seeing the follow-up documentary on prime time television, and trust that the Jackson estate, SONY, and whichever professional director is in charge of producing it will set the record straight on the timelines, emails, actions and misstatements of the accusers. As Michael Jackson sang in The Wiz, "you can't win."

R265, people only say "we'll never know" in connection with sexual crimes. With every other category of crime, witness testimony and circumstantial evidence is perfectly fine; finality can be achieved. Yet when sexual abuse is involved, suddenly that's not good enough. Nothing is good enough. I wonder why.

And R266 His hundreds of millions of fans would disagree with the 2 million or so people who watched the documentary.

People say "we'll never know" because these "totally believable" accusers have engaged in nonsensical, unexplainable behavior (during the alleged abuse) and many years after it that points to a complete lack of truth. Yet, they still think they sound like they could be telling the truth.

"So we'll never know" is good enough.

I just can't get past the fact that Jackson wanted to get in bed with these boys. Every time I hear his music I think of these poor innocent kids he manipulated. What a sick fuck and so out in the open about it.

R271 A number of children did the same things Wade/James did, including have sleepovers with him. Yet, they say nothing illegal happened, and Wade/James said the same thing. Even as adults they said the same thing. They are the only ones who have changed their stories, one to publish a book and make money; the other because he is likely mental ill and attention-starved.

There is no reason for a grown ass man to have boys sleep over.

If you want to have a slumber party then keep it in your damn family. He had plenty of nephews to sleep with. Why pick on these random young boy? Makes zero fucking sense. And makes him a pervert

I was shocked and I was wondering if anyone remembers a skit that the show In Living Color did where a young boy played Macully Culkin and he was of course home alone fending off an amorous Michael Jackson. It was such it bad taste but so true

Again R272 re: sleepovers.

Was it weird? yes

Was anyone abused? No

How do you know?

Ask Sean Lennon, the two Culkin boys, Jonathan Spence, Brett Barnes, the 3 Casico kids, the German kid (Anton something), and many others who participated in the sleepovers and later deny abuse

It's clear that Sean and Wade, as much as they want to be the only deviations, are lying.

Sorry I am done with the pedo defender I have blocked him. Jackson molested those children. What a sick duck. The world is better without him and his bleached skin and collapsing nose

Jackson never admitted to sharing his bed with only boys. He was talking about sharing your bed with anyone you trust or who consider like family. It's still weird, but more understandable given that Jackson grew up sharing his bed with his brothers. It's also well established that Jackson trusted people too easily.

[quote] people only say "we'll never know" in connection with sexual crimes. With every other category of crime, witness testimony and circumstantial evidence is perfectly fine; finality can be achieved. Yet when sexual abuse is involved, suddenly that's not good enough. Nothing is good enough. I wonder why.

If we're going by circumstantial evidence, then Jackson becomes just as credible, given that there are more people who have come forward or testified in Jackson's defense. There are also many details and timeline deviations that would make one doubt James and Wade's story. If you guys can question Michael's motivations, then James and Wade are fair game.

Here you go, R275... :)

You also have to establish consistent pattern of behavior, in this case, has Jackson showed a propensity for harming other children. The answer is clearly no given the accounts of other alleged victims, including past testimonies from Wade and James, as well as children who visited Neverland for extended periods of time. This is where the Ted Bundy argument falls flat on its face.

There was a criminal investigation in 94 which concluded that there was no evidence to indict Michael Jackson. That said, Jordan Chandler could have still testified in the 2005 trial but refused. The prosecution never entered Chandler's description of Jackson's penis into evidence.

[quote]I was shocked and I was wondering if anyone remembers a skit that the show In Living Color did where a young boy played Macully Culkin and he was of course home alone fending off an amorous Michael Jackson. It was such it bad taste but so true

You nailed it, R275...

I am an elder Millenial, roughly the same age as Wade, and remember him doing his thing as a child dancer when his mother would cart him around to all the TV shows.

Footage is shown in Leaving Neverland from one of his appearances one of Derryn Hinch’s shows. Hinch is a native Kiwi and larger than life TV journalist and radio shock jock turned politician and current Australian Senator and two-time husband of actress Jacki Weaver. His motto is “NAME AND SHAME!” and he has been imprisoned 3 times for naming high profile convicted paedophiles.

If there wasn’t enough drama currently raging in Australian and New Sealand politics I am sure he would hav shad some sort of comment about Leaving Neverland.

(In bad taste, but so true.)

R281 R282 So true!

Link to Part 2 of Discussion

To the brave defender of the truth:

I had the last anti-Wade Robson thread open in another window before it closed. So I created a reply with a link to Part 2. Let’s make sure the truth comes up whenever anyone searches his name on the internet.

Gimme a W-A-D-E!

"Little Dexter"

Brilliant, R290...

[quote]This is like robbing two stores and asking the owner of the first one to defend you in the second trial. More accurately, it's like robbing eight stores, having the nerve to show your face in them again, and then asking the owners to comp your groceries.

Total false equivalency. The owners of the stores and their families were not showered with gifts and made to feel special. The owners of the stores dis not hold the thief in the highest of regards. The owners of the stores did not mistakenly feel they were attracted to orbin love with the thief. The owners of the stores were not jetted all over the world in aware inspiring tours and shopping sprees.

Awe-inspiring

What are the Jimmy and Wade haters mad about?

That they are lying NOW that Michael Jackson groomed and raped them?

Or that they lied 15 years ago that he didn’t groom and rape them?

Michael Jackson was so fucking ugly. He has a complexion like decaying meat. Just the creepiest possible Joker style features. His black evil soul showed on his face in the end.

Grotesque Jacko was a modern day Macbeth whose atrocities murdered sleep. He could only sleep if he was hooked up to a general anaesthetic drip. Just repulsive.

Robson and Safechuck should be in jail for their little white lies. Anyone who defends them defends racism.

If Emmanuel Lewis or Alfonso Ribiero cried rape, then I might believe them.

I didn’t believe the rumors about Cosby were true until black women started speaking out against him saying he raped them too.

Whites are liars. Even Walt Disney, the de facto King Of White People, admitted it by bringing [italic]Pinocchio[/italic], a story about a lying little white boy whose little white lies almost cost his father his life, to the screen.

Whites instigate rape and abuse all the time. See also: Emmett Till and the entire history of the Catholic Church.

And speaking of Ribiero, if you really want to stop rape, you would throw Ricky Schroder’s ex-wife in jail for raping him at least four times. Heterosexuality is a crime of which men are often victimized.

That JABBA fuck argues that “only” five boys accused him so therefore that pedo freak MJ is innocent.

How many should he have fucked before people should believe it, JABBA?

Note how bigoted the MJ haters are. Note the repeated and repetitive use of ableist hate speech. Note the constant attempts to DARVO a dead man. Note the insistence that this isn’t 100% rooted in racism and 0% rooted in stopping present-day child rapes before they start. My last two boyfriends were abused, so I know what to look for. One of them was also described as a pathological liar by his own ex-roommates, so I know what to look for there, too.

These two little backstabbing honkies are liars.

If they’re going to mute MJ they should also mute every musician who considers themselves a Catholic.

#MuteCatholicismNotMichael

While you were busy attacking a dead man, live pedos are still out there hiding behind their hate groups.

And who was Vice President the day MJ died?

Little white lies

Love is all around

No need to waste it...

Wade and James are no different from any of these lying white liars:

You seriously expect me to take a white person’s word over a black person’s after this?

Matt the loon is back, nobody wants you defending them Matt , with your 'albeist' bullshit. Fuck knows where your head is, but you are not black , or have you done a Rachel Dolezal? I suppose Jackson wasn't black either. Anyway you are the death knell to any argument and your support is like gangrene, you are an archetypal 'fan'.

Fast Times at Neverland Ranch

Like attracts LIKE.

Pussy grabbers and child rapists, soulmates together.

Charlie Sheen's encounter with Wacko Jacko...

He got the face he deserved.

Michael Jackson was evil incarnate!

Oprah interviews MJ...

"Am I Black Or White"...?!

Jamie Lee Curtis posted a tweet in support of Dan Reed and the victims but then deleted it merely hours later after being schooled by her Twitter followers.

Another young man who was invited to Neverland not only claim that nothing happened to him, but is now fighting for his innocence. This also debunks the other lie that MJ was antisemitic.

Lest we forget...

R309 has more white sheets in his closet than Bed, Bath, and Beyond.

Jamie Lee Curtis wrote a tweet defending MJ's victims Wade and Jimmy, She got harassed by Jacko's crazy fans tweets, She deleted her tweet!

Wade’s message: be careful who you worship and why.

R321 He doesn't want to answer his critics directly. Everything that comes out of his mouth sounds like it's coming from a lawyer.

That’s because he owes “critics” nothing.

Does Wade teach at a local studio in Hawaii now?

R312 "I didn't touch here I swear!! Please for God's sake she's a girl!!!" LMAO

her*

Wade is a hoax

R320 good, the people are her fans. If she wants to work again she’ll listen to them.

It’s a good thing James and Wade won’t get a dime from the estate. They don’t deserve a dime, if that rehearsed Oprah interview and their somehow shadier than they are wives are the best they can do, then nope.

Bet they’re having a fun time paying the estate back for attorney fees and court costs.

Claiming you were abused by Michael Jackson as a teen when you’re in your 40s is a real dirtbag retirement strategy.

Glad the judge saw through their bullshit

And James Safechuck is the most pathetic person I’ve ever seen in my life. He needed to go to a therapist before he filed his lawsuit because he didn’t know MJ licking his anus was even abuse? He thought it was love? Despite not having talked to the man in years and having that ugly wife?

Their shared lawyer did an awful job setting up these stories and they need to sue him next since the Jackson’s ain’t paying sweetheart. Next victim!

Look at Sandusky, Savile, Weinstein—dozens/hundreds of victims. Easy to find, credible as hell. Yet MJ had much more access to kids and his haters have to find crackpots like Safechuck and Robson to come out.

5 people have accused Michael. That includes these two middle-aged losers who have no credibility so it’s really 3. One of the guys couldn’t even get an indictment, he was found not guilty on the other; and the insurance company paid of the paid off the last one (least credible of all no less—father made him son confess under dental drugs and voicemails of him planning the extortion exist) at the strong objection of Jackson’s lawyer. See R257

The three or four anti-MJ old white eldergays here think that these cowardly white men MUST have been victimized by MJ just because they say so. Good think their lawsuits got thrown out. Wonder if they get a payment plan to start paying the estate’s attorney fees back. I’m gonna guess with their serious financial issues (that likely influenced their current lies) they’ll need one.

You're not black R332 and it's 'good thing' not 'good think'. Michael Jackson was an impressive performer, he was also a sleazy pedophile, who deformed himself to an horrific degree and was so wrecked that he ended his strange life as a ghoul spun out on hospital grade drugs, dying during his bedtime habit of being anaesthetised. I suppose his life was his punishment, he was clearly miserable and he deserved to be. You fans are certainly passionate, it's tragically misguided and you may never admit the truth, I only hope you have as much passion for the reality of your lives and aren't spunking it away on this dead freak.

R333 I’ve never told you my race, and don’t care to enlighten you on it now. Neither were you asked for a spell check on my post. In fact, I didn’t ask you anything. Yet you commented on my reply.

However, I can assure you I am not an elderly white hater such as yourself, who is incensed that these two young white guys are claiming someone you see as a bad black man did something wrong to them. You are the only person who doesn’t see they are lying. Michael Jackson’s hundreds of millions of fans do, and are streaming his music in higher numbers since this documentary watched by several million other elderwhite gays such as yourself, who the Jackson estate could not give a shit about in terms of market priority, was released. I

So the old Pepsi Kid thread was closed...

R335, that (harmless) thread was likely downvoted to hell by the sick fuck who wrote posts 327-332 including the following at r331:

[quote]And James Safechuck is the most pathetic person I’ve ever seen in my life. He needed to go to a therapist before he filed his lawsuit because he didn’t know MJ licking his anus was even abuse? He thought it was love?

Yes, that’s what happens when a 10 year-old is groomed by a paedophile, you utter moron. You know James’ psychological state doesn’t reflect well on the freakish monster you worship, right?

What a sick fuck r331 is. “If they ask why? Why? Tell them that it’s human nature. I like living this way. I like loving this way...”

Some of the older comments on that thread, made prior to the making of Leaving Neverland, are quite telling. MJ was fooling no one.

R280 That's Jonathan Taylor Thomas (Randy on 'Home Improvement') playing Macaulay Culkin.

TJ dropping FACTS

Bet Wade Robson shit himself when the court finally forced him turn over his book proposals/drafts and damning emails praising Jackson and conspiring with his mom (they tried to black those out at first LOL) in the discovery phase of his frivolous lawsuit. Funny none of that was in the Reed’s doc.

Wonder if he’ll risk a GoFundMe to pay back the Estate’s legal fees, probably won’t raise a quarter of what the Jackson fans did for the billboards. Hope Oprah left a car under their seat they can sell off!

LOL at TJ at r339! The Jacksons are so pathetic. Just 2 of them had any vocal real talent and yet their legions of talentless offspring are still out with begging bowls. Remember the We Are The World Haiti version a bunch of them turned up and they all had the same carved up noses.

Has TJ even gotten laid since Kim Kardashian dumped him his ass at 16?

I can’t wait for Prince, Paris and Blanket to cut them off without a dime!

How about TJ drops some pounds?

What a porker.

wtf ,the pedo's tomb depicts a naked Little kid fellating a man, far right

Wow. That stonemason trolled them big time.

LOTS of holes poked in the Wade/James accusations by TJ in that video. Credible holes.

Robson claimed in his court documents that he now associates the entertainment industry with the abuse and is unable to perform, direct, make music in any capacity whatosever. But at the same time he was teaching his son to dance with MJ's philosophy.

Poor TJ must be raking in every penny he has until Grandma Katherine dies and Wacko’s heirs blow through their millions on drugs, rehab and vanity projects.

After Robson accused MJ his sister tried to sell his signed picture on ebay. Not only did Robson’s family keep this picture after he accused MJ, but they basically said OK he is a molester BUT please buy his picture because we need money. Wade and the Robson's exploited their connection to MJ in any possible. So many examples, emails, and contradictory actions.

More power to HBO for standing up to the Jacksons’ legal charletons.

R348 But he burned the replicas at the end of the documentary.

R276, watching pornography with a child IS abuse and it is a crime. Quit lying.

Robson's sister, who otherwise says he believes MJ did molest her brother, also advertised MJ memorabilia on her Facebook page after Robson accused MJ. The media and producers of course look the other way when it comes to the cynical actions of this greedy family

In his blog and lawsuit, Robson wrote the could no longer bear to dance, make music, watch or make films. Yet...that was the biggest lie of all.

Michael Jackson truly is America’s Jimmy Savile.

Eccentricity masking sophisticated child rape and abuse by hiding in plain sight.

[quote] Yes, that’s what happens when a 10 year-old is groomed by a paedophile, you utter moron. You know James’ psychological state doesn’t reflect well on the freakish monster you worship, right?

I will refer you again to this excellent article by Stereo Williams.

[quote] It would seem, then, that as common as disassociation is, it’s just as common that outside stimuli should/would trigger an abuse survivor. When both Robson and Safechuck indicate that they only regained awareness/full acceptance of their childhood traumas around 2013, I found myself wondering how such repression could withstand being bombarded with constant outside stimuli — i.e. two media-heavy legal battles; constant reminders of Jackson and abuse in virtually every facet of said media; in the case of Robson, being in virtually the same field as your abuser and working with professionals (Justin Timberlake, Britney Spears, etc.), whose very careers evoke your abuser. It would seem that all of those things would likely be triggers for past trauma. But they weren’t for these men. I kept waiting for something to explain this in a more specific way than “it doesn’t always look how you think.” I am still waiting.

This thread proves that Jackson was being parodied in hundreds of tv shows, commercials, movies, and more.

That too was a lie. In reality he continued to direct short films in Hawaii and participated in several dance projects between his alleged realization of sexual abuse in 2012 and March 2017.

Forgot the link. The whole article is worth reading. The author's original review of LN was one of the most damning. He has since reversed course.

[quote]I still haven't heard a plausible for why he settled with the Chandlers out of court.

He couldn't go to court because he was touring - and he needed the millions from touring to pay off his abuse victims.

In 2015, he advertised a dance session with him on his Facebook.

Here’s hoping the ROBSON and SAFECHUCK families wring all they can out of Jacko’s loser fan base by gouging then for every penny they can.

In 2016 he directed another dance video entitled “Life in Color”

Remember in his complaint he says he should be compensated as he cannot direct in any capacity whatsoever.

R360 Not going to happen. But you're welcome to contribute to their inevitable gofundme Page.

Wade also posted “making of” footage of it where he is heard and seen dancing, directing, choreographing, laughing and – far from seeming traumatized by dancing or “unable to continue directing in any manner or capacity whatsoever” – having a lot of fun with the project

R358 still pushing that lie. Jackson ended the Dangerous Tour in November 1993. He settled with the Chandlers in January 1994.

R364 see R252. I’m not OP but addressed Jackson’s insurance payout to the Chandlers, at his and lawyer’s objection.

In 2016, while Robson still maintained in his complaints he was unable to direct— Blake McGarth announced on IG he was working on his first music video with Wade Robson as the director/choreographer.

r364, I was actually making fun of the stans - I thought the last part of the post made that clear. Of course the "he was touring and had to settle" excuse is bullshit.

R365, The tour was OVER. The tour was not the reason for the settlement. The settlement came 1 month after Jackson was strip searched and photographed, and before Jackson was scheduled for deposition. Those 2 factors likely impacted the settlement, but the tour did not because it was OVER.

“Stereo” Williams is a LSA fave. You know, no one is stopping him and other stans from streaming the music and enjoying it.

[quote]When I wrote about Leaving Neverland, I was convinced of only one thing: that we as a culture had to face the ridiculousness of our celebrity worship.

Just as Wade Robson said he wanted. The documentary is a success.

[quote] It would seem that all of those things would likely be triggers for past trauma. But they weren’t for these men. I kept waiting for something to explain this in a more specific way than “it doesn’t always look how you think.” I am still waiting.

And this is an example of sticking one’s head in the sand. Their responses are very reasonable to anyone familiar with trauma. Stereo is admitting in the face of common sense applied to human nature, no explanation short of SnapChat footage of Jackson rimming these poor innocents will convince him.

[quote]But there would be significant journalistic value in talking to former Jackson employees or people who knew Safechuck and Robson at the time. Who else could corroborate, for instance, driving Jackson and Safechuck to a jewelry shop to purchase wedding rings

He’ll be no doubt glad to know paparazzi footage did the rounds on YouTube and TMZ.

Stereo, you is cancelled, gurl.

Even the Thriller music video needs to be reconsidered in the light of this confirmation that MJ was a pedophile. He lures a very young girl into accompanying him into a graveyard and then turns into a monster. I guess he had experience.

R362 I would not be surprised if fans even crazier than yourself banded together to buy the Robson photoes to use as makeshift voodoo dolls.

The Robsons should at least get their electricity bills paid in beautiful Hawaii thanks to the sales!

I love how the Jackaloons keep citing Wikipedia as undisputed proof, when literally anyone can edit the entries...and fuck knows the pedo defenders have the time on their hands to keep changing the page(s).

R372 Conspiracy theorist spotted.

I think Jackson was a pedo, R370, but what young girl are you talking about??

R374, the girl in the Thriller video was only 17 and looked even younger. I know he didn't abuse girls but the whole thing about him appearing harmless and cute and then transmogrifying into a predatory beast is prescient.

R357 thanks for sharing that blog post. Amazing how a staunch advocate for the film can change course when he sees clear evidence they are lying.

Just like the obvious, repeated lies about his inability to direct starting at R346.

No, R375, if you're talking about Ola Ray, she was more like 23 or 24, only a couple of years younger than Jacko himself.

[quote]He needed to go to a therapist before he filed his lawsuit because he didn’t know MJ licking his anus was even abuse? He thought it was love?

Gotta love it when a stan - in a desperate attempt to victim shame - literally admits that their idol DID in fact lick a little boy's anus.

You pedo defenders are fucking dumber than dirt.

R378 I’m pretty sure the implication there is that it’s so implausible the he didn’t know that was abuse (in his late 30 or early 40s) that the story is probably untrue. Kinda like Wade claiming he couldn’t direct in any capacity over and over while giving lessons/directing/performing/acting/dancing in several performances.

But what do I know.

His legacy is ruined, the baby ass-licking freak. No Broadway show, radio stations dumping him, Neverland worse than a toxic dump site.

Post here all you want Jackson stans. People hear his music now and think that's the guy who forced little boys to suck in his titties while he jacked off. Vile.

So the Wikipedia entry that claims Jackson was "forced" to settle in 1993 by his insurance company is based on a motion filed by Jackson's attorneys in the 2005 case in which they claimed his insurance company "negotiated and paid" the settlement. See page 3 of the link.

First of all, an insurance company can't "force" a defendant to settle unless the defendant wants the insurance company to indemnify them. If Jackson had said, fuck it, I'm not settling, the insurance company could say OK, fine, but we're not paying if you're held liable. So Jackson absolutely had the choice to go trial if he was willing to cover any award if he lost.

And it turns out he paid the money anyway. Tom Mesereau, one of Jackson's 2005 attorneys about 10 years later admitted that was not true that the insurance company paid (link in the next post). Mesereau claimed it was all a misunderstanding, that the settlement agreement was written so that an insurance company could pay, but ultimately Jackson paid himself. If Jackson was paying with his own money, no one could "force" him to settle.

Radio program where Mesereau admits Jackson paid the settlement, not the insurance company:

"My understanding was that the settlement agreement was written to, um, permit the possibility that an insurance company would step in and pay, but I was also told that an insurance company did not pay. ... And that’s why there were some people running around saying an insurance company paid it, and that’s why it was settled, and uh, my understanding is that’s not correct."

R381 Again, the document that you shared asserts that it was Jackson’s insurance company who paid the settlement, at the objection of his attorneys.

You posted the source of a document that proves my claim, not yours. Yet you say the opposite. What is your source of the document showing the insurance company did not pay but Jackson himself did? Because it would seem as if Jackson’s attorneys would know better than anyone else, especially in the sworn legal document you posted.

Is there any reason - besides MJ being a child molester - that Neverland wasn’t turned into a Graceland style shrine?

Jackson was cash poor before his death, could the estate not be trusted to raise the capital for renovations and run it?

R382 I will listen to that radio interview tonight, and reply back to you; I remain skeptical however that it disproves the sworn memorandum submitted to the court and Wikipedia (which contrary to your assertion tends to source information on popular subjects very well).

R383, are you playing stupid or are you stupid? The source for the claim that the insurance company forced the 1993 settlement was Jackson's 2005 attorney--no documentary evidence, just their word. 9 years later one of those attorneys admits that was inaccurate.

1993 settlement agreement signed by Jackson, his attorneys, plaintiff and their attorneys. No insurance agency representative.

Again, no one could "force" Jackson to settle (absent something like a conservatorship or guardianship). If Jackson didn't want to settle, he would just have to risk paying out-of-pocket, which he apparently did anyway.

[quote]Even the Thriller music video needs to be reconsidered in the light of this confirmation that MJ was a pedophile. He lures a very young girl into accompanying him into a graveyard and then turns into a monster.

Keep reaching, doll. Ola Ray is only a mere two years younger than Michael.

R385 Wikipedia's only source for that was that single court document, which was only the representation of his attorneys with no documentary evidence, so stop trying to falsely bolster the claim.

R388 How am I trying to “bolster my claim.” Not only is the source court document considerably more credible than your radio interview, but Jackson’s attorney appears to admit in the interview that he has no idea what the terms of the settlement agreement were or who paid—only providing his “understanding” of what he thinks happens. I suspect this is why Wikipedia has not updated their site also.

R375 what the hell are you talking about? The only woman in the "Thriller" video (other than the zombies) is Ola Ray--she played both the maybe teenage girl in the horror movie and MJ's girlfriend. Ola Ray was about the same age as MJ and had already posed in Playboy by the time they made the video. She definitely didn't look younger, even playing the "teenager."

R389, you're trying to suggest there's more than one source--the court document + Wikipedia. That's all one source.

And it's asinine to accept the mere word of his attorney that the insurance company forced a settlement and paid (even though legally that isn't really what could have happened and the settlement was not signed by any insurance personnel and there's zero documentary evidence that's what happened), but don't accept his attorney's word later that oops, that was a "misunderstanding."

By the way, in all his complaining about how unfair it all was, Jackson himself never claimed he was forced to settle by anyone.

Don't kiss me with your mouth! I know where it's been.

R385, memoranda of law are not "sworn" legal documents. They cannot be proof of facts; they are only the arguments of attorneys. The Wikipedia article, therefore, does not cite any proof for the claim that Jackson was "forced" to settle.

^ And again, legally no one could "force" Jackson to settle. No one could grab his hand and make him to sign that document at R386. If an insurance company was pushing for him to settle and he refused, all they could do was refuse to indemnify him.

He may not have wanted to settle, he may have been pissed off about it, but whether he listened to his attorneys who told him he could lose big time, or perhaps expected the insurance company to cover the settlement and didn't want to risk paying damages out of pocket, or for some other reason, he agreed to settle.

R391 There you go again.

"you're trying to suggest there's more than one source--the court document + Wikipedia."

------>No, I am suggesting that the court document is a highly credible source, especially since it was released closer to after the settlement occurred, and it's unlikely that counsel would lie about such blatant historical facts. Moreover, I only referenced Wikipedia to make it clear that the ardent fact-checkers on that controversial article did not see fit to remove the claim.

"And it's asinine to accept the mere word of his attorney that the insurance company forced a settlement and paid (even though legally that isn't really what could have happened and the settlement was not signed by any insurance personnel and there's zero documentary evidence that's what happened), but don't accept his attorney's word later that oops, that was a "misunderstanding."

-------> No, I am calling out the fact that his attorney seems to not know or remember, and since it was 25 years earlier that the settlement occurred, I do not expect him to.

By the way, in all his complaining about how unfair it all was, Jackson himself never claimed he was forced to settle by anyone.

------->Unsure of your point here, the nature of settlement agreements tend to be confidential.

So you think Tom Mesereau knew for sure in 2005 that Jackson's insurance company paid the 1993 settlement and just forgot 9 years later?

OK, sure.

R396 I think the public can evaluate the legal document that says one thing, and the quote from the radio interview with the lawyer and make their own determination about which is more likely to be true.

Did he do anal (or try) with any of the boys besides Wade?

MJ in 1995 to Diane Sawyer on why he settled:

Diane Sawyer: Why did you settle the case then?

Michael: The whole thing is a lie.

Diane Sawyer: Why did you settle the case? And, it looks to everyone as if you paid a huge amount of money….

Michael: That’s…that’s, most of that’s folklore. I talked to my lawyers, and I said, “can you guarantee me, that justice will prevail?” And they said: “Michael, we cannot guarantee you that a judge, or a jury will do anything.” And with that I was like catatonic, I was outraged!

Diane Sawyer: How much money…..

Michael: Totally outraged. So, I said…I have got to do something to get out from under this nightmare. All these lies and all these people coming forth to get paid and all these tabloid shows, just lies, lies, lies, lies. So what I did, we got together again with my advisors and they advised me. It was a hands down, unanimous decision – resolve the case. This could be something that could go on for seven years!….

I'm so glad he died before the year before the 1 direction boys came on the scene. He would have definitely grabbed at the young Zayn Malik and Niall Horan if he'd got the chance.

Oh, and this snippet is too funny. In 1994 the press was reporting (it turned out quite accurately) that the settlement was in the $20 million range:

Diane Sawyer: How much money was….

Michael: We said, let’s get it behind us.

Diane Sawyer: Can you say how much?

Michael: It’s not what the tabloids have printed. It’s not all this crazy outlandish money, no, it’s not at all. I mean, the terms of the agreement are very confidential.

[quote] Michael: That’s…that’s, most of that’s folklore. I talked to my lawyers, and I said, “can you guarantee me, that justice will prevail?” And they said: “Michael, we cannot guarantee you that a judge, or a jury will do anything.” And with that I was like catatonic, I was outraged!

Of course his lawyers couldn't guarantee that he would be found not guilty. No lawyer in the world can guarantee that.

MJ would not have gotten a fair trial. That much is obvious.

There was lots of negative coverage of MJ in 93 that could have prejudiced a jury. He was trying to put an end to it. Several years later, he admitted that it was a mistake.

R398 no, if I remember correctly either James or Wade spun some tail about him trying to fuck them unsuccessfully, then conveniently finding the blood after Michael called about it (does that even sound believable?)

The other three kids never claimed he tried to fuck them, which is odd because you’d think according to these two Michael would be progressing—not regressing in his boldness. For all these victims that must have existed in LN, Michael was the most incompetent pedophile in America. I guess he just liked licking anuses more than anything. 🤨

R397, so his lawyer claims one thing in court in 2005 and then 9 years later says oops, that wasn't true, and people can make up their mind about which version is accurate?

OK, then they can do that with Wade Robson as well.

R406 You’re conveniently forgetting that Wade reasserted the same thing repeatedly, and unlike Jackson’s lawyer, did not use the Jackson family to obtain money and personal benefit for most of his natural life before remembering he was abused after no one would publish his book.

[quote][R375] what the hell are you talking about? The only woman in the "Thriller" video (other than the zombies) is Ola Ray--she played both the maybe teenage girl in the horror movie and MJ's girlfriend. Ola Ray was about the same age as MJ and had already posed in Playboy by the time they made the video. She definitely didn't look younger, even playing the "teenager."

Yes, R375 was reaching beyond belief.

There was an article in the paper today in which Uri Geller (the Israeli "psychic") insisted that he could help England win the World Cup. This reminded me that he was I'm a Celebrity! in 2002, he banged on about how Michael Jackson was best man at his vow renewal, what good friends they were, etc. There was a bizarre moment in which he claimed he was telepathically wishing Jackson happy birthday (even though he'd got the date wrong). Anyway, I checked his Twitter and he doesn't seem to have commented on Leaving Neverland one way or the other.

BTW here's a pic of an 18 year old James Safechuck working for MJ and his wife at the time - in Leaving Neverland he claimed MJ 'dumped him when he hit puberty'. Doesn't really fit the narrative huh? MJ must have been confident having him around his wife, not worried he might talk.

Wade actually never was a "favorite" when you look deep into his story, no matter how much they try to sell you that story in LN. The supposed height of the "relationship" was when Wade was 7-9, a time they lived in Australia. When they moved to the USA Joy had to chase MJ around.

The Mad TV sketch was hilarious.

Uri Geller was on the Louis Theroux documentary.

My ex-trolly dolly neighbour once served Uri Geller in First Class. He apparently was very friendly, came to the galley to hang and bent a bunch of cutlery and signed it for him!

James Safechuk more like Lame Fakechuk

wade and James were in longer term relationships with MJ. Jordan Chander and Gavin were molested for shorter periods of time so their abuse didn't progress to anal. Remember wade and James described the progression and it was much later when they were older (than jordy and Gavin) did MJ attempt anal sex. If Omar was victimized he would have a similar progression to wade and james.

James said that he did short films etc and MJ convinced his parents to take him out of advanced math classes so he stated he interacted with MJ during high school. That pic was him at 16 or so. If the idiots watched LN they would realize the timeline and understand. During the last trial was the last time he spoke to MJ (he was 26/27 in 2005) and hadnt spoken to him a few years. His family visited Neverland while he was in high school. Pay attention to rhe timeline moron.

R406, I'm sure I'm telling you something you already know, but Mesereau did not sign the 2005 memorandum that falsely claimed that Jackson had been forced to settle the Chandler case. It was written by another attorney, Brian Oxman, who Mesereau subsequently fired.

Even on LSA they've said that the stans need to throw in the towel on the whole "forced to settle" claim. It isn't true.

Wade was one of a select few boys to appear in multiple music videos for MJ, but yeah, sure he wasn't a "favorite."

R416, I know, but attorneys acting as a team are acting in concert. If Mesereau knew that to be inaccurate in 2005 or learned that in the course of the trial, he had an obligation to correct the record.

He's been dinged in another case for unethical behavior, so I put nothing past him.

MJ Haters: “He kept cameras everywhere over Neverland and a creepy alarm system in his bedroom. He was a master sleuth at careful abuse.”

Also MJ Haters “Blood in the underwear. Sex in the bedroom, sex in the pool, sex in the attic, sex in the home theater, sex in the teepee, and finally a ‘wedding’ ... He was the boldest pedo I’ve ever seen!.”

Note this also. James claims he told his Mother he had been abused in 2005. Yet also wants to claim he didn't realise until therapy in May 2013 that he'd been abused. He has also said on Oprah seeing Wade on TV is when he realised.

Strange, huh? And if we believe the documentary and lawsuit both:

Safechuck's Mom says she "danced when Michael Jackson died, because she knew 'he would never hurt another child' in 2009.

Even though her son didn't 'realize' he was abused until 2013.

Conclusion: We should believe the accusers. Because they're Time Travelers.

R241 Hope they've travelled to the future and seen their massive FAILURE.

james told his mothrr that Micheal was "a bad man". He never told her openly that he was abused. The mother understood the comment "bad man" not "pedophile". Obviously it took him years to accept that he was abused. The mother undersyood but james was only willing yo go as far ad 'bad man'. Once again watch the fucking documentary to figure out what James ACTUALLY said.

R423 if that’s true—the why did she claim to dance when Michael died because he “couldn’t hurt anymore children?”

Moreover, how could she have known if Safechuck didn’t “realize” he was abused until 2013. See R420.

Wade Robson’s logic-

I defended Michael Jackson voluntarily in court and on talk shows because I had no idea I was abused and that it was wrong even though I was fully grown by then, but I was also terrified that I would go to jail if I revealed. Even after he died I feared jail.

R423, don't bother. What Safechuck actually said has been addressed repeatedly in prior threads. They keep misconstruing what he said, and refuse to acknowledge it's a common experience for child abuse victims to take years to fully accept and understand what happened to them.

The MJ defenders are too stupid for words. It's been described to death. James was in denial and couldn't admit to himself that his experience was CSA. He could only say bad man. The mother understood the implication that her son was abused. James on the other hand wasn't ready to see it clearly as abuse yet.

He was conflicted and realized he was used but he was not ready to admit to himself that he was sexually abused bc for years MJ made him feel it was normal. Point is, victims of child abuse have conflicted feelings and may only understand and ACCEm60PT that they were abused after much self reflection. So no, for years he didn't realize that what happened was abused. It was when he had a kid that he realized, understood and accepted that his experience was sexual abuse.

R426 R427 that’s an interesting explanation but it doesn’t cover that there are 3 or 4 major discrepancies in his lawsuit, documentary, and actions. Well laid out in the previous posts before yours.

R427 That doesn't make sense because by then James had no contact with Jackson. He was undergoing a very public media trial that was biased against Jackson. That would have been the perfect time to nail him. Safechuck's story about being threatened by Jackson is also likely false. Jackson couldn't have called him and threatened him to testify because at the time James alleges, the trial was already underway and nearly wrapping up. Witnesses are chosen way in advance. Second, threatening a witness is a felony, and MJ just calling him up on the phone would be incredibly reckless considering that Safechuck could have recorded the conversation. In fact, asking your victims to testify in your defense is one thing, but threatening a victim who doesn't want to testify when you have dozens of other witnesses who can testify in your defense would be extremely baffling.

Stephanie knowing or suspecting James being abused as early as 2009 and doing nothing, telling no other family members, is incredibly unbelievable as well, especially since she would have felt complicit having trusted Jackson.

Also in between 2005-2013, James underwent therapy. The fact that he didn't come to the realization of his abuse until 2013 when Wade appeared on TV is incredibly coincidental.

No matter how unpalatable the accusations are to Jackson fans. These boys had EVERY right to come forward and tell their story. They won’t be arrested because they gave an interview to Oprah. Oprah has done thousands of these interviews were people have come forward. She’s an expert on it, and I’m sure her team thoroughly examine all the facets of material before it goes on air.

Given these factors on top of the extremely twisted nature of how he was groomed since a five year old, Wade has believability as an accuser. The seduction started before Michael Jackson got Wade alone in his bed at night, crying his salty crocodile tears of pedo agony. It was all part of Jacksons method operandi to warp these boys perception of what was real in the world.

Also MJ threatened Safechuck with perjury. In other words, Safechuck had previously defended Jackson, yet Jackson's lawyers were going to nail him for lying. That makes sense.

Well explained, R429.

Wade has been discredited so heavily and often that MJ haters have stopped spinning CSA as a catch-22 for the numerous lies, deceptive behavior, and contradictions in abuse/documentary narratives and his professional life.

Their new favorite claim is “what about James,” when it is now clear that becoming apparent that Safechuck’s timeline indicated in his lawsuit and abuse narrative in the docu point to serious duplicity at work and credibility problems as well.

This has gone well beyond “they both lied on the stand.”

[quote]Stephanie knowing or suspecting James being abused as early as 2009 and doing nothing, telling no other family members, is incredibly unbelievable as well, especially since she would have felt complicit having trusted Jackson.

Yeah. Because mother’s who newly realise they actively enabled their 10 year old son to be raped by one of the world’s notorious men is dying to invite her parents, cousins, neighbours, co-workers and pastor to brunch and share all the gory details over mimosas. There’s no way she’d be confused, angry or ashamed in any way and would want to process her son’s trauma before sending out a mass email.

The idiot MJ stand have no idea how ridiculous they look - muddying the waters with “facts” that were never in dispute. This so-called parsing of Safechuck’s timeline would be obvious to anyone who actually saw the film. It’s clear most of them (if there is more than one), both here and in other forums, haven’t even seen the documentary - or just refuse to. That they think they can disprove anything is ridiculous.

In my opinion at least 90% of what Wade says is the truth. These is no outlandish or unbelievable claim been made by him. Everything fits pragmatically with what we have all seen with the behaviour of Jackson over the years: that he groomed young boys for sexual purposes.

Uri Geller's Wikipedia entry is quite something.

[quote] In a 1989 interview with a Japanese newspaper, James Randi was quoted as saying that Geller had driven a scientist to "shoot himself in the head" after finding out that Geller had fooled him. Randi afterwards claimed it was a metaphor lost in translation.[83] The story was also repeated in a Canadian newspaper, which quoted Randi as saying essentially the same thing: "One scientist, a metallurgist, wrote a paper backing Geller's claims that he could bend metal. The scientist shot himself after I showed him how the key bending trick was done."[84] In 1990, Geller sued Randi in a Japanese court over the statements published in the Japanese newspaper.

[quote] In 1997 he tried to help the Second Division football club Exeter City win a crucial end of season game by placing "energy-infused" crystals behind the goals at Exeter's ground (Exeter lost the game 5–1); he was appointed co-chairman of the club in 2002. The club was relegated to the Football Conference in May 2003, where it remained for five years.

[quote] In November 2000, Geller sued video game company Nintendo for £60 million over the Pokémon species "Yungerer", localized in English as "Kadabra", which he claimed was an unauthorized appropriation of his identity.[95][96] The Pokémon in question has psychic abilities and carries a bent spoon. Geller also claimed that the star on Kadabra's forehead and the lightning patterns on its abdomen are symbolisms popular with the Waffen SS of Nazi Germany.[96] The katakana for the character's name, ユンゲラー, is visually similar to the transliteration of Geller's own name into Japanese (ユリゲラー). He is quoted as saying: "Nintendo turned me into an evil, occult Pokémon character. Nintendo stole my identity by using my name and my signature image."[96]

[quote]Second, threatening a witness is a felony, and MJ just calling him up on the phone would be incredibly reckless

😂😂😂

Michael Jackson? Being incredibly reckless and committing a felony? Nevah!

I think it's necessary for Safechuck and Robson to come out and admit that they lied in their lawsuits and accept the backlash. Just like Jussie Smollett, the gig is up. They suits were already dismissed and they aren't likely to be successful on appeal anyway. It only harmed them on LN to come out with different narratives and timelines, only for detractors to point to major discrepancies in their lawsuits and actions.

Even if they don't fess up that they invented the abuse, it still makes them look awful that there are such clear and unexplainable discrepancies.

Otherwise, there will always be an implausible, questionable nature to their timelines and stories, which changed by way of repeatedly amended complaints in order to try and stay within the statute of limitations--which I suspect they would assume people would think they (correctly) did so for money.

When you read Robson's deposition, it sounds a little bit overboard, how he tries to sneak an abuse story into almost any and every interaction that he had with Jackson for 7 years.

R440 Cont.

From the previous image, he portrays Jackson as a totally insatiable, reckless abuser who would abuse him even with other people being in the next room, able to walk in on them any time. For example

But this totally contradicts James Safechuck's portrayal of MJ as this extremely cautious, paranoid abuser who would go extreme lengths to avoid being detected, like this.

R438 Yes, we're supposed to believe that Jackson was incredibly reckless but also the greatest pedo mastermind of all time. An evil genius as someone on these threads like to proclaim.

R441 Cont.

And this

R443 Cont.

And this

R444 Cont.

Safechuck needed this type of portayal for his own purposes as often family and friend went with him to his Neverland trips and no one ever has seen anything suspicious. So he need an explanation for that.

R443 James Safechuck contradicts himself. He said they had sex everywhere and the danger of being caught made it more thrilling.

R445 Cont.

This, however, resulted in totally contradictory portayal by these men as to how MJ supposedly was as a "molester."

Robson portrays him as a reckless abuser who couldn't resist molesting him whenever they stayed alone just for a couple of minutes, even if other people were dangerously close to detecting them.

Safechuck, on the other hand, portrays him as very, very cautious almost to the point of paranoia.

So which one is it? Probably neither, because both are lying.

Another addition to how Robson portrays MJ as a totally reckless abuser in contrary to Safechuck's portrayal as an extremely cautious one Leaving Neverland.

(Image 1 of 4)

It’s so fitting that these boys will get the final say in the Jackson saga. He’s off the radio. He’s out of the stores. No reputable organisation will touch him for fear of getting their hands dirty.

[quote]Just like Jussie Smollett, the gig is up.

On the contrary, people believe them than ever. Oprah for one. Judd Apatow and Ava DuVernay as well. .

[quote]They suits were already dismissed

“They suits” were dismissed because of the amount of time that had passed, not because the judge decided they are haters who suck.

Re R448 Cont

(Image 2 of 4)

RE R451 Cont.

Image 3 of 4

Re R452 Cont

(Image 4 of 4)

R450 “They suits” were dismissed because of the amount of time that had passed, not because the judge decided they are haters who suck.

Wrong, they specifically amended their complains to get around SOL.

[quote] On the contrary, people believe them than ever. Oprah for one. Judd Apatow and Ava DuVernay as well. .

That's so "woke" of them. They will never turn down the chance to speak up for a social justice cause, even if it means ignoring all available evidence.

[quote]James Safechuck contradicts himself. He said they had sex everywhere and the danger of being caught made it more thrilling.

Stop lying. He didn’t contradict himself. There was one dangerous location he mentioned, in the movie theatre.

The other places he described them having sex were in little bedrooms with twin beds that Jackson had hidden in all the buildings. Presumably to have all that consenting adult sex with Lisa Marie and Debbie.

R454 And this is one major source of the problem. Do we believe the claims made under oath (one who was 23), their lawsuits, or Leaving Neverland? Because no two of those can be true.

Everyone with an IQ over 85 believes Leaving Neverland.

R458 Everyone with an IQ over 86 disagrees with that claim.

R456 You forgot the teepee and jacuzzi

Robson and Safechuck's portrayal of MJ as a "molester" also differ in that Safechuck describes a many months long "grooming" period, whereas Robson says MJ couldn't wait to molest him right on the first occasion they were alone in a room. No grooming period, nothing.

Mind you, Robson's story changed even since its first telling. For example, in a book draft that he shopped late 2012-early 2013, he wrote that MJ did not molest him right away the first weekend they spent together, but only the next week when his parents weren't around.

By the time he filed his complaint the story changed to MJ molesting him right away. It even prompted the lawyers for MJ's side to ask him if his memories have "evolved"? That is it to put it euphemistically that his story has changed

More: Safechuck, taking a cue from the Arvizo's story, claims MJ gave him alcohol when he was a child.

Robson, on the other hand, expressed surprise about MJ drinking alcohol when he desribed their last meeting in 2008 in Las Vegas (when both of them were adults, of course). He said it was new to him even then that MJ wanted alcohol!

MJ's companies are a central part of his story. In his lawsuit he portrays them as "the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization[s] the world has known" that knowingly and deliberately “facilitated” his alleged abuse. Proof:

RE R465 Cont.

More proof.

RE R466 CONT.

However, the 2016 deposition of Wade’s mother, Joy Robson inadvertently proves that this is a lie.

The Robsons, who are originally from Brisbane, Australia, first met Jackson in 1987 when he was on tour in Australia and Wade, who was 5 year old then, won a dance competition at Target store where the prize was to meet Michael Jackson.Wade alleged in his lawsuit:

R467 CONT. This portrayal is massively contradicted by his mother's deposition. She testified that the meet-and-greet was not organized by MJ's companies but by Target, Pepsi and CBS. It was an event where a lot of people were present and they only had a couple of minutes with MJ.

re R468 Cont.

Even Wade himself testified that when he was on stage with MJ at the concert he did not spend any time with the star off stage, their only interaction was on the stage.

Re R469 Cont

Their encounter would have ended there, if it was for MJ or his companies. It was Joy Robson who then made further efforts to contact MJ again. She, with her son, delivered a “thank you” note to Jackson’s hotel room and had another meeting with the star, for about 1.5 hours.

Again, this would have been the end of their encounters if for Jackson or his companies. Over the next few years Joy Robson sent Jackson letters and videos about Wade’s progress as a dancer, but they never heard back from the star.

Proof:

Anyone with an IQ under 85 is a Jackson fan

Re R471 More proof.

The next time they met or even talked to Jackson again was more than two years later, in 1990, when, once again, it were the Robsons who sought contact with the star, not the other way around.

But let's see first what Wade alleges in his lawsuit about that meeting 2 years later in 1990.

Michael Jackson was a very, very sick individual with a twisted and sick morality. That he died is a good thing, because he can no longer ruin a person's life, as in the case of James, or severely compromise it, as in the case of Wade.

The documentary took great pains to show exactly why men who were molested as children often take a very long time, well into adulthood, to come to teems with and admit what was done to them as children. This phenomenon has been studied and proven time and time again. That, along with MJ's very careful and deliberate grooming and threats to the children explain exactly why Jimmy and Wade took a long time to come forward. I suspect the MJ defenders know this, but feel MJ was entitled to molest these boys because he bought them things.

Sick, sick stuff.

Re R474 Cont.

And

R461 Wade first met Jackson when he was five years old. He barely looked like a toddler at the time. Jackson managed restrain himself for a full two years before he placed his hands to sexually gratify himself.

Norma Staikos was Jackson's personal assistant at the time. Robson accuses her of being "a "madam" or "procurer" of child sexual abuse victims for Michael Jackson", but as we have seen above Joy says in her deposition that between 1987-1990, she sent Jackson several letters about Wade and videos of him, hoping to get in touch with the star again, but all of those remained unanswered.

Before the Robson family traveled to the USA in January 1990, Joy already tried to obtain contact information for MJ, by calling Australian television channels and asking if they had any sort of contact for him. She eventually managed to obtain the phone number of MJJ Productions.

Beyond the fact that Jackson was a vile, disgusting pedophile, he was hardly the artist of the century. After Thriller every song and dance was derivative, if not laughable. His stuff is SO dated now. His work was vastly overrated.

It is absolutely disingenuous from Wade to portray this 1990 meeting in his lawsuit as some sort of plot by Staikos and MJ's companies to acquire him as a victim for MJ.

He knows damn well that it was them, the Robson's, who sought contact with MJ again, not the other way around. In an interview several years before his turnaround he even talked about it!

So why does he accuse Norma Staikos of being a "madame" and "procurer of child sexual abuse victims for Michael Jackson" when it was her mother who sought contact with MJ, and it was not Staikos who sought contact with them?

Simple. Because this is the way he could ask for a monetary compensation in his lawsuit. For someone who claims that his allegations aren't about money, but about "the truth", he sure lies a lot in his lawsuit just to try to get to that money.

It is clear that it was Joy Robson who “purposely orchestrated” the meeting, not Staikos, MJJ Productions or MJJ Ventures. That Wade claims otherwise in his lawsuit is a deliberate lie to implicate the MJ companies and Staikos, because that is the way he could sue for money.

Both Wade and James were so little when that freak started abusing them. I hope his estate is brought to the ground. I hope Neverland burns with the Jackson's in it.

The role of MJ's companies in all this was that when Joy eventually decided to immigrate in September 1991, the Robsons needed a sponsor and an employer in the USA to be able to stay. Joy asked MJ to help them with that, and MJ instructed his office to do it.

This goes against Wade's narrative that MJ and his companies brought him to the USA "for the explicit purpose of allowing Michael Jackson access to [Robson] for sexual abuse".

Jackson and his companies reacted to the expressed desire of the Robson family to have a career for Wade in dancing and choreography, which could be better pursued in the USA than in Australia.

And as we have already discussed in this thread, when the Robsons moved to the US, MJ did not even spend much time with Wade, Joy rather complained that Wade felt pushed aside.

So the narrative that Jackson moved the Robsons to the USA "for the explicit purpose of allowing Michael Jackson access to [Robson] for sexual abuse" makes little sense when he then hardly wanted to spend time with Wade.

The allegation that MJ's companies were "the most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization(s) the world has known" is also risiculous because if that was the case it should have been a regularity for these companies to employ children...but Wade's employment was a one-off, and specifically in answer to Joy Robson’s request to help them with their immigration.

In his desperation to implicate the companies (ie. to be able to sue for money) at one point Wade went as far in his deposition as to blame Staikos and MJ's next personal assistant Evvy Tavasci even more than MJ himself!

Taj has his work cut out for him in his upcoming documentary. 6 hours wouldn't be enough time to dismantle Wade or James contradictory claims. Jesus.

So on the one hand Michael Jackson was supposed to be this helpless child, on the other hand, however, he was also supposed to be the shrewd mafia boss of the “most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization the world has known”.

In his deposition Wade even makes absurd claims like that Staikos should have called the authorities when the Robsons contacted Jackson in January/February 1990.

Re R448 Cont.

And this.

Great interview with Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed at the Daily Beast

He also blames Staikos because "[Jackson] didn't know about me again until [Staikos] made the connection”, once again "forgetting" that it was his mother who initiated that connection, not Staikos!

That Norma Staikos is made out to be the main "facilitator" of Wade's alleged abuse instead of his mother, is a big red flag regarding what this case really is about. It has all to do with the fact that this is the way Wade could try to sue Jackson's companies for money.

And the demonstrable lies about the companies are also very problematic for Wade’s credibility, because he claims his coming forward is all about getting out “the truth”. But how are you fighting for "the truth" when your complaint is full of lies?

Some more lies by Robson: Besides the civil lawsuit against MJ's companies Robson also filed a creditor's claim against MJ's Estate - for monetary compensation of course.

A claimant has to file his creditor’s claim no later than 60 days from the date when he first has knowledge of the facts reasonably giving rise to the existence of the claim and the administration of the Estate.

In this case it meant that Robson should have filed his creditor’s claim within 60 days of when he knew both of the following: 1. that he was allegedly sexually abused as a child by Michael Jackson, 2. that Michael Jackson had an Estate.

Robson claimed that he did not understand that he was sexually abused by Michael Jackson as a child until May 8, 2012.

R492 Cont.

The Court dismissed this argument. Its ruling stated that at least by the time of Jackson’s death, Robson was well aware of both that a sexual relationship between an adult and a minor was a crime and also that a victim does not go to jail for such alleged acts.

In his declaration (also under oath) Robson also claimed that he did not know about the administration of the MJ Estate before March 4, 2013 when he first met his lawyers Gradstein & Marzano.

R442, it's possible for a predator to be reckless in some respects and shrewd in others. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Jimmy Savile told a story in his autobiography about how he spent the night with an underage girl, but was never charged because he had dirt on so many police officers. He told Louis Theroux on TV that he was paranoid about "salacious taboid people" accusing him of being a paedophile. He even told a reporter in 2001 that he didn't care what stories might come out after his death, it wouldn't affect him because he'd be gone - that's basically a public admission of guilt. He was, in retrospect, brazen about his tendencies. Yet he still managed to create the persona of an eccentric who, under his brash exterior, had a heart of gold. He was forever doing charity work. One of his colleagues at the BBC, Tony Blackburn, described him as an unpleasant man behind the scenes but a master at manipulating the press.

Jackson's behaviour was similar. He was absolutely brazen about his obsessive interest in young boys: he took them on tour with him, publicly held their hands and cuddled them at an age when most boys would be embarrassed by that sort of thing, talked on TV about sharing his bed with them AFTER being accused of child molestation. His entire home was designed to entice ten-year-old boys. Yet somehow he hoodwinked people into thinking this was all perfectly innocent, that he simply loved children and just wanted to make the world a better place.

If this was true it would put Wade within the 60 days requirement, as he filed his creditor's claim on May 1, 2013, within 60 days of obtaining knowledge about the administration of Jackson's Estate.

But this was a lie to get around those statutes of limitations. As it was revealed by Jackson's Estate during discovery, Wade was not only very much aware of the administration of Jackson's Estate years before he filed his creditor's claim, but he even negotiated with them!

In 2011 Wade was eager to work on Cirque du Soleil's Michael Jackson Las Vegas show "ONE", and to discuss it, in early 2011 he made a visit to the office of John Branca, one of the executors of the Michael Jackson Estate.

In other words, Wade, again, lied in his declaration - so under oath. That to get around statutes of limitations. Because this is all about "the truth" and not money, you know.

Moreover, Wade's longtime lawyer and family friend, Helen Yu, who helped him in shopping around his book in 2012-2013, discussed the Michael Jackson Estate in an interview on her law firm's website in 2009.

She mentioned the Estate's executors, John Branca and John McClain, and she talked about how Jackson "will most likely earn more dead than alive" through his Estate.

R494 You're doing a great service. It must be tedious going through all those transcripts but it has to be done. What a fucking embarrassment that these guys were given a platform.

Wade also tried to twist the requirement and besides claiming that he was not aware of the Estate's administration at all, he also claimed that he was not aware that he could seek a claim.

However, the MJ Estate discovered, that on Sept. 7, 2012 Wade sent out an e-mail in which he shared his allegations with over 30 people. Asking his recipients for discretion, he refers to his allegations as an "extremely sensitive legal matter". From Joy's deposition: (Image 1 of 2)

Re R 498 Image 2 of 2

It shows that long before March 4, 2013, at the very least by September 7, 2012, he understood that he had a legal cause of action.

In a ruling by Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff, the Court dismissed Wade Robson's creditor's claim on May 26, 2015. Although immediately after the ruling Wade’s lawyer, Maryann Marzano vowed to appeal, they eventually never did. This documentary spent a significant amount of time on trying to psychologically explain Wade Robson's deceptive behavior as a result of childhood sexual abuse. They know that many people would instinctively have a huge problem with someone who until not so long ago defended or even praised MJ, testified for him, asked for a job with his Estate, but then turned around and claimed abuse while asking for a monetary compensation when the guy is not here to defend himself.

So we hear about how it is not rare at all for abuse victims to come out many years, even decades later. We also hear about how abuse victims sometimes are conflicted and even feel love for their abuser.

We hear about how shame, the fear of not being believed, thinking they are alone with this problem and other factors may also play a role in keeping their secret for so long.

That is all true and we certainly do not deny the experience of those genuine abuse victims who go through this process. However, in this case there are many reasons to think that we are talking about posers who not only take advantage of MJ, but also of genuine abuse victims.

Some of those reasons I mentioned above. Here is another: Wade's explanation of why he did not come out earlier and why he did not tell "his truth" in 2005 is all over the place. Here is one example:

According to his mother's deposition, when her mother asked him why he didn't tell "his truth" in 2005, he told her because of shame:

[quote] In Part Two of Leaving Neverland, famed victims’ rights attorney Gloria Allred asks the simple question that undoubtedly penetrated my consciousness many years ago but still wouldn’t stick: “Why is Michael Jackson, an adult, repeatedly sleeping in the same bed with a young boy?” It was an impossible question to answer sensibly without drawing an obvious conclusion, yet it was easy to reason then — like many reason now — that Michael had no childhood. Michael just loved kids. We infantilized him as though the man wasn’t essentially omnipotent. The thing about cognitive dissonance is that, when fully employed, you can rationalize or dismiss anything. Before you know it, you’re a damn fool.

However, when Wade was very specifically asked in his deposition if shame played a factor, he denied it did. There he was on his story that until 2012 he didn't know it was wrong, so he "didn't have any perspective on it". (He does mention shame but only in everyday situations)

To further highlight his flip-flopping (ie. lying), here is something he wrote on his blog in July 2018. This is in direct contradiction with what he said in his deposition!

In his depo he specifically denies shame being a factor and the fear of being labelled gay being a factor, but in a blog post where he lectures his audience on misguided definitions of masculinity, he is suddenly again on his initial story that he told his mother about shame.

So which one is it? I assumed the shame version, because that's more relatable. Saying shit like "I didn't have any perspective on it until 2012 when I suddenly realized I was abused" is a much less relatable.

Ultimately this just shows him once again as a liar, who will shamelessly say anything he needs to say in any given situation. In court, for legal reasons, he had to be on on the version of not knowing it was abuse until 2012, so he said that.

But he must have he realized himself that the shame angle doesn't work well with it, so that's not what he claimed in court. In public, however, "I didn't have any perspective on it until 2012" would be difficult to sell, so in public he is on his shame version.

Make no mistake, Wade is well prepared of child abuse stories. He admitted to have read lots of literature about the topic before he filed his lawsuit. So those familiar descriptions of sexual abuse, do not prove he is telling the truth, it just proves he is well read on the topic.

Shame and the fear of being labelled gay is a familiar story in male victims. But as we seen, Wade just uses this story, to explain his turnaround - and he will use a completely contradictory explanation when that is what is required. Doesn't that sound like a cynical liar?

Re. Wade Robson claiming on Inside Edition: "there was no night that [MJ] didn't sexually abuse me". It is an interesting phenomenon how his "memories" evolve.

Former collaborator says “Michael was a con”.

R505 Well done, that was an awesome summation of his and his mother's deposition. That needs to be read by as many people as possible. Could it be made into a pdf, with applicable links for those who want to dig deeper?

From R502's article

[quote] Well, I believe survivors. All survivors.

[quote] I don’t care to convince the unconvinced of anything — neither the ignorant nor the well-informed

[quote] Still, when Oprah gave Safechuck and Robson an extended platform and an audience of sympathetic survivors, her starting place — like the starting place for anyone who believes survivors — was not one of questioning the documentary’s truthfulness. The bold assumption was that it was.

[quote] Sometimes when it comes down to it, we have to use common sense. Every fan in the mirror has to ask him or herself: “What do I believe?” Not merely, what do I want to believe? Yes, this is a dismantling, a reckoning. But you know full-well, there are times when all the arguments against a thing just don’t square at your core. If you say you actually saw Leaving Neverland and came away with, “Every single disgusting detail these two men claimed Michael did to them when they were as young as 7 and 10 is a wholesale lie,” then I don’t believe you.

[quote] In reality, the documentary reveals an impressive amount of research. There contains a significant amount of never-before-seen images and footage, and a credible timeline.

Umm...no

[quote] We must ask ourselves, how many victims’ stories does it take to create credibility?

Just one with a credible story.

[quote] What I am suggesting is that our commitment to abuse survivors — and our own humanity — must be greater.

I say our commitment to the truth is more important, especially for genuine abuse survivors.

Talk about congnitive dissonance. This is one of those articles that makes me think that wokeness is a mental illness.

That pedo freak MJ burns in hell and Robson and Safechuck are finding peace.

They won. Even with the advantages of money the Jackson fucks will continue to fail.

Uber fraus and Michael truthers Brenda Jenkyns and Catherine Von.

Brenda Jenkyns and Catherine Van Tighem.

R507 Almost all of the information concerning the lawsuits is available on PACER/the internet, and Jackson's companies and the Estate's responses to almost every one of their legal filings show that they are well aware of all the major issues in his testimony and have little respect for either of their credibility. It leads me to believe that Dan Reed is also well aware if he did an iota of research on these two's dubious pasts.

Reed acts clueless in the interviews, but he is also complicit in putting these known liars and perjurers on television. It's shocking that whenever anyone questions him on any of this (such as in the Piers Morgan) interview, his refusal/inability to form coherent answers is seen as an attack by the anti-MJ haters.

If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend watching him stumble to answer some of Morgan's' questions.

We can rest confidently that the rebuttal documentary will include enough information to set the record straight on these two.

Thanks to the posters who had the funny MJ stuff cued up for us. I needed a laugh after watching this film. It's creepy how on target it was too ("I sent your parents to the Bahamas!").

Not only did they not "win," but Robson owes the Estate almost seventy thousand dollars in court costs (for reasons well explained above), and Safechuck owes the Estate several thousand dollars as well.

[quote] That pedo freak MJ burns in hell and Robson and Safechuck are finding peace.

They won. Even with the advantages of money the Jackson fucks will continue to fail.

^R514 The second sentence was also from R509

It's telling that every witness who claimed Michael did something wrong was laid off and sued Michael for money long before they made any allegations. These people were Blanca Francia, Charlie Michaels (whose story is refuted by Wade's own mother), Orietta Murdock, Donald Stark and Leroy Thomas (of Hayvenhurst 5). All of these people were paid by tabloid media and in his deposition Donald Stark even said that Diane Dimond’s Hard Copy wanted them to fabricate stories.

R490 That link was posted in another thread. Pathetic interview where Dan Reed says that If James Safechuck wouldn't know what to do with the money if he got it, and that Wade, who had suffered many career setbacks, is doing just fine financially.

Interesting thread on videos of Wade Robson defending/praising/dancing to Michael Jackson.

"Smooth Criminal" by Michael Jackson has reached 200 MILLION views on YouTube. This is his twelfth video to achieve this.

R511 Like Annie Wilkes in Misery, these deluded cockroaches who call themselves Michael fans continue to deluded themselves and project their most deluded and paranoid fantasies back to the victims.

Emmy-award nominated filmmaker Larry Nimmer posted a one hour rebuttal documentary to YouTube which totally destroys the claims made in Leaving Neverland.

GREAT news. Glad to see more of the kids coming out to speak about their positive experiences with MJ.

Aaron Carter has firmly declared what he believes in the Michael Jackson controversy.

The singer is slamming Wade Robson and James Safechuck for the child sex abuse allegations they made against Jackson in the HBO documentary, “Leaving Neverland.”

Carter appeared on TMZ Live on Monday and defended the musical icon, opening up about his own personal experiences with Jackson.

Wade also dated MJ's cousin, Brandi Jackson, for 7 years. MJ hooked them up. This was during the period he was supposedly bleeding from the backside bcos of MJ.

Dan Reed's loony explanation: "The fact that he was boyfriend and girlfriend with Brandi at the age of 12 or 13 doesn't mean he wasn't seeing Jackson too so I don't really follow the logic." -The 54-year-old filmmaker

^Meant niece, not cousin in R523

There's no "narrative." There is truth (what Wade and Jimmy said) and there are lies (what MJ supporters believe)

Not hard.

Michael Jackson was too good for this world.

Katt Williams had it right

R527 Haha that's amazing. Love Katt. Can't WW this enough.

Brandi Jackson also alleges that Joy Robson called her after Michael's death and claimed to be godmother for Jackson's children. I believe Brandi.

Good Slate article:

"Leaving Neverland could have helped viewers understand that complexity by asking Robson and Safechuck a few pointed questions about why they’ve tried multiple times to get money from the Jackson estate. Instead, we’re left with the sense that Reed has elided material that might make Jackson’s accusers look less trustworthy."

"How much distance is there between a parent who ignores clear warning signs of sexual abuse in exchange for money and fame, and a parent who goads her child to lie about sexual abuse in exchange for money and fame?"

Thread from Taj Jackson on one clip from Leaving Neverland that is an outright lie.

Well, there you go. If Joy Robson called Brandi to say she’s the godmother to MJ’s children, you know MJ didn’t molest any of the little boys he slept with. Perfectly logical.

Taj Jackson retweets Piers Morgan so... fuck him.

[quote]Reed acts clueless in the interviews, but he is also complicit in putting these known liars and perjurers on television.

And once again, MJ stan at R512... when referring to both Wade and James as "known liars and perjurers" you are in fact admitting that Jacko did indeed molest them, and so your logic is... well, somewhat flawed...

R534 I was not referring to their perjury on the stand, but in their numerous court documents as so eloquently laid out in R461 and on. I suggest you and others go back and read a fraction of the emails and testimony that make no sense at all from that post and so on.

[quote]"How much distance is there between a parent who ignores clear warning signs of sexual abuse in exchange for money and fame, and a parent who goads her child to lie about sexual abuse in exchange for money and fame?

So the low-life scum at Slate are actually now implying that they deserved to be molested for the sins of the parents? Fucking pedo apologist shit rag. They were seduced and abused because Michael Jackson was sick pervert who was prepared to have sex with children no matter what the price was.

This fucking diabolical mindset coming from the Jackson camp is simply emboldening pedophiles to believe that victims can be either hushed with money or threatened with legal action or having their names dishonoured by vigilantes.

The number one weapon in the pedos arsenal (stigmatisation) now being used gleefully by pedophillic Jackson supporters.

R536 Go back and read the article. The implication is that Dan Reed wrote such a one-sided documentary, in order to hide the major credibility problems of the defenders (again well laid out starting at R461), that he did them a disservice by failing to provide a defense to these major issues that are leaving people all over social media baffled.

Arguably, the apex of MJ's brilliant artistry...

And this comes in a close second, of course...

R537 Dan Reed explained clearly in the Oprah interview that his documentary was not meant to be a piece about Michael Jackson one way or the other.

It’s a chronicle of words from two victims to give them a voice that yes, they were sexually assaulted by a person who a segment of society worships and has been portrayed in the media as being something of a saint while it happened.

They clearly have the right to free speech, and every right to present this in documentary the way they see fit.

Reality Check with MJ...

More MJ antics...

Ugh, more Jacko "moments"...

Okay, he's a little off-key here (but his heart is in the right place, LOL)...

The damning posts/screenshots beginning at R440 should be enough to convince anybody that they're lying.

Jesus.

I’ve seen no compelling evidence coming from Jackson supporters yet. Not a scrap of tangible proof to dissuade me that every word in the documentary was spoken as anything other than the hand-on-heart truth.

As usual they apply the same Jackson guilt-denying techniques like creating word salads, smoke screening, straw-manning, gaslighting...... They have been singing the same broken down tune old since 1993, and every year their voice gets more strained under the burden of proof.

Nothing they say is concrete compared to extremely credible and persuasive information that has come directly from the deepest part of Jackson’s inner circle.... from the young boys that spent more time alone with M Jackson (including in his own bedroom) than his own blood relations ever did.

[quote] Contributing to this belief is that every bit of evidence that is in any way ambiguous is easily explained without a big logical leap. I think that Safechuck and Robson are telling the truth—it’s all over their faces, in their words, in the details, and in the supporting evidence. It’s also all in keeping with what we know about child molestation, the dynamics of abuse, and the legal system. [....]

[quote]In addition to the lawyers, thousands of people are eager to defend their hero. In some cases, these people are related to the Jackson family, like Taj Jackson, son of Michael’s brother, Tito. Taj told Sky News in an interview: “I can tell you I’ve been around people where I’ve just gotten that energy and it’s an energy that you’re like, ‘That’s a bad person, I’ll stay away from them,’ and I think if I ever felt that way about my uncle, just one hint of it, I wouldn’t be here defending him, I wouldn’t.”

I have no reason to believe that Taj’s motives are about anything but the sincere belief that his dead uncle is innocent. But he neatly elides the fact that his fortunes—as well as his father’s—are tied to the reputation of Michael Jackson. Taj and Tito are recording artists and entertainers. To the extent that the public has any interest in their output, it is certainly due to their association with beloved musical superstar Michael Jackson. Once that association becomes connected to reviled child molester Michael Jackson, their earning potential will plummet, too. It doesn’t disqualify them from making an argument, but it informs the argument.

[quote] I’ve seen no compelling evidence coming from Jackson supporters yet. Not a scrap of tangible proof to dissuade me that every word in the documentary was spoken as anything other than the hand-on-heart truth.

That's your takeaway after reviewing nearly a hundred transcripts? Not even a shred? Can you just be honest and say you haven't read anything that may disprove what you already believe?

I didn’t need to go through “hundreds of documents” to know that he was guilty. I felt it in my heart the minute I heard on the radio in 1993 that Michael Jackson had been raided by the FBI in a child abuse inquiry that he was as guilty as sin. Because this fit in with the model of the world I knew around me. Some people, due to life experience or just intuition are in a better position to judge the character of others than many are.

I can remember exactly where I was, and what I was doing when I heard about the FBI raid. The thought had certainly never crossed my mind before, I just saw him as a harmless but eccentric, and increasingly weird person. But right at that moment, I knew.

Just because Robson’s and Safechuck’s stories about MJ’s behavior differ on details (rash v. cautious, alcoholized v. sober) doesn’t mean they can’t both be true. Certainly this would not be the first time sex is approached in a different manner by the same person/ predator. Many factors play a part, including the kids’/preys’ different personalities.

And by the time MJ died, there were plenty of stories as well as circumstantial evidence against Michael for Stephanie Safechuck to celebrate his demise without having to wait for her own heterosexual, adult son to confirm he was abused as well.

MJ stans love to pick apart the victims’ abuse scenarios to fabricate contradictions and implausibilities where none exist. It IS possible for the victims’ abuse stories to have variances, the same way that it IS possible for the majority of kids MJ came in contact with not to have been abused by him, just as it IS possible for the parents to come to the realization that MJ was a pedophile before their own kids do.

Not every story and timeline has to be identical for each to be true. Just as it IS possible for kids at a certain age to state they weren’t abused because they associate the word “abuse” with violence, when their experience with the adult in question has in contrast been very pleasant (albeit very damaging).

Asking a kid if he’s been abused by a loved one is a big mistake. The questions need to address the actual act. “Did he touch you here?” “Did he want you to touch him there?”

[quote]So on the one hand Michael Jackson was supposed to be this helpless child, on the other hand, however, he was also supposed to be the shrewd mafia boss of the “most sophisticated public child sexual abuse procurement and facilitation organization the world has known”.

Again, someone seeking contradiction where there isn’t any. The people who depicted MJ as a helpless child are not the same people who portrayed him as a shrewd predator. And even if they were, one of those characterizations can be an act! Finally it is also possible to be shrewd for certain matters and completely naive for others.

Stop digging for holes where there aren’t any!!

[quote]Glad to see more of the kids coming out to speak about their positive experiences with MJ.

And guess what? Many more will speak about their great experiences with Michael. It still doesn’t mean that he had his chosen few preys. Sayville and Sandusky also had dozens of children who spoke highly of them and felt enormous gratitude for their help and mentoring.

Pedophiles don’t abuse every single child they come in contact with, the same way a heterosexual man doesn’t try to seduce every woman he meets, etc.

Stop fabricating! Evidence of good behavior does not mean bad behavior did not take place.

I’m sorry- It still doesn’t mean that he DIDN’T HAVE his chosen few preys.

[quote]So which one is it? I assumed the shame version, because that's more relatable. Saying shit like "I didn't have any perspective on it until 2012 when I suddenly realized I was abused" is a much less relatable.

Both can coexist, you fool. Especially at different stages in one’s life.

I was molested as a 10-year old, and when I told an adult about it then, I felt no shame about the act. I did feel shame about the fact that as a curious homosexual kid, I had initiated the act. In plain words, I made a pass at my gym teacher (a fact I did not disclose due to said shame), and it was reciprocated. Of course, that’s when the abuse actually takes place, something that took me decades to realize - that I wasn’t guilty, that a predator took advantage of my curiosity, vulnerability and not yet mature sexual urge.

So it is possible to see it as a harmless act but also be ashamed of how it evolved. It’s the mind of a ten-year-old we’re talking about!!

Look at Jackson’s outspoken fans.

Aaron Carter. Corey Feldman. One-time child performers and unsuccessful adult ones. International white frauen. Upwardly mobile Asians. Aspiring black dancers and music critics.

They are to a person people who have all drunk the Kool-Aid. They are all taken in by glitz, by narrative, by PR, to aspire to the the kind of lifestyle and artistic style Jackson flaunted. They love to dance! They love his profligate spending and costumed styling! They love children! They wish for World Peace! They are the kind of person who worshipped Angelina Jolie for her “charity awoke” all the while ignoring the bleeding obvious.

And as some have abundantly shown in this thread they lack the critical skills to hold two thoughts in their heads at the same time.

I see a new piece of bullshit the Jackson freaks are peddling is the fact Jackson only has a handful of accusers whereas Sandusky and Savile had many. The latter two didn't have the luxury of dating their prey long term and in public as MJ could. In the year or so his 'relationships' lasted those other guys would have had to find many more passing victims to get the same amount of pedophile sex Jackson got. Jackson was able to work on the quality not quantity principle . Pedophiles think of their actions as loving and the fact children sexually excite them as a natural part of that, Jackson worked very hard to normalizing pedophilia ,it's sick that the demented fans are continuing his work now he's thankfully dead.

R551 True, also didn't Safechuck say that Jackson introduced porn when he was a teen? Maybe he realized he was "losing" Safechuck because Safechuck was getting older and started to get attracted to women? I don't think their first encounters, or even their first couple of years, involved porn or alcohol. That came later on.

[quote] MJ stans love to pick apart the victims’ abuse scenarios to fabricate contradictions and implausibilities where none exist. It IS possible for the victims’ abuse stories to have variances, the same way that it IS possible for the majority of kids MJ came in contact with not to have been abused by him, just as it IS possible for the parents to come to the realization that MJ was a pedophile before their own kids do.

It's not definitive proof, just another piece that sheds doubt on their story. When Jimmy says that Michael took great lengths to cover his tracks, but then had sex with him all around Neverland and that the danger of being caught made it more exciting, one has to at least wonder. As far as not abusing every kid he came across, what makes it so hard to believe is how almost every kid interviewed has the exact same account as Wade and Jimmy of staying in Neverland, sleeping in MJ's bedroom, but not being abused. To say that their testimony doesn't matter in this case is disingenuous. It's absolutely relevant when your trying to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[quote] Not every story and timeline has to be identical for each to be true. Just as it IS possible for kids at a certain age to state they weren’t abused because they associate the word “abuse” with violence, when their experience with the adult in question has in contrast been very pleasant (albeit very damaging).

Raping someone until they bleed is not something that can be rationalized as loving type of behavior, especially at 14. And it's also strange that both Wade or Jimmy weren't triggered when MJ was accused, stood trial, constantly parodied on tv, etc. They continued to support Michael even when most of the country thought he was 100% guilty.

[quote] Asking a kid if he’s been abused by a loved one is a big mistake. The questions need to address the actual act. “Did he touch you here?” “Did he want you to touch him there?”

Robson was asked that repeatedly, as a child and as an adult. He was grilled on court and even on Jimmy Kimmel. His denials were very believable then.

^Two little boys v. the Jackson legal juggernaut. ^

How did you expect it to go, pedo apologist?

Prince and Blanket are still living in the Jackson compound. The family is going all out to get Paris to move back in too. If you think that anybody in that family is doing this to protect the memory of the pedophile corpse you're mistaken. It's all $$$$$$$$$$$$

Until the kids recognize the their dad was a pedophile they're going to suffer. There's no healing through delusion.

Maybe he touched some little children down there, but come on, he’s Michael Jackson! MICHAEL JACKSON!

Jackson also had everybody sign NDA's and paid off accusers. Why do you think Culkin had money after his father robbed him blind? There's a reason Jackson died in debt. His dying was actually the best thing that happened for the estate (and seven year old boys everywhere)

HOLY SHIT! The proof is right in front of us. The Jacksons are gonna have a fucking field day tearing these guys apart.

Everyone should go back and read the posts starting at R440 AND ON. These guys are fucking con artists. None of what they put in their lawsuits matches what they said on Leaving Neverland and the RECEIPTS are there.

GO BACK TO R440 AND START READING IF YOU THINK THESE GUYS ARE BEING TRUTHFUL

After the posts after R440 it picks back up at R462

Jacko on Queer Eye...

I'm surprised that they let the Jackson stan post from prison. He must be doing at least 10-20 for pedophilia related charges himself.

Watching 'This is It' on Netflix about Jackson's last tour before he passed. It's a great movie (I saw it in theaters when I was 10) and a good way to lend support if you can't donate to one of the GoFundMe campaigns.

Can someone explain why Jackson threatened Safechuck with perjury if he didn't testify on his behalf? Safechuck defended Jackson during the initial allegations.

Ed Bradley interviews MJ...

R570

Start reading at R440 and on. Then keep going at R462.

Also, Safechuck very likely wasn't called to testify by Jackson.

Wade and James had not been in contact for years by the time of the trial. Robson plays an audio message of Jackson needing a favor, but nowhere in that recording does Michael even mention the allegations against him. For a documentary that's already proven to deceptively edit certain sequences (the interview with James on the plane is selectively edited, the birthday message for Wade is a non specific message, notice the edit after Michael says "Hello Wade", the Garagos footage was taken out of context) who knows if Wade if Michael even called. It's already highly unlikely that Jackson would call James at the end of his trial and commit a felony by threatening a potential witness.

G.I. Jackson, coming soon to a theater near you...

R574 0/10

Excellent piece from The Atlantic

Look Who's Talking This Time: Honey, I Touched The Kids!

Great video

R577 Love MadTV but that's the worst MJ impersonator I've ever seen.

R578 is further proof that those with IQs below 75 are Michael Jackson supporters. His arguments are too stupid to even respond to.

Among other edited depositions filed Monday in connection with the lawsuit is one taken from Jolie Levine, who worked as Jackson's secretary for two years starting in 1987. Levine told the lawyers that she called Jackson a "chicken hawk," a slang term for a pedophile, when police interviewed her about the allegations against her former boss.

[quote]I have no reason to believe that Taj’s motives are about anything but the sincere belief that his dead uncle is innocent. But he neatly elides the fact that his fortunes—as well as his father’s—are tied to the reputation of Michael Jackson. Taj and Tito are recording artists and entertainers. To the extent that the public has any interest in their output, it is certainly due to their association with beloved musical superstar Michael Jackson. Once that association becomes connected to reviled child molester Michael Jackson, their earning potential will plummet, too. It doesn’t disqualify them from making an argument, but it informs the argument.

Thanks for that, R547. Here's a humorous take on the grifting Jackson clan...

Jacko's cameo in "Date Movie"...

Nobody in the US gave a shit about Jimmy SaVILE when he was alive, not even dyed-in-the-wool Anglophiles such as myself.

And this one just fuckin' cracks me up, y'know, just because... ;)

MJ grooming MC... enjoy(?!)

Jackson has surpassed 1.3 billion streams this week.

^Yes!!!

Since the ban I still don’t get what’s so great about his music. Only two, perhaps three songs are radio classics, and only one of them is really that good. It’s not like there aren’t tonnes of other classic songs to play from that era.

Message to the haters.

R589 is living in one hell of a bubble of ignorance.

Banning Michael Jackson is just silly. It’s MICHAEL JACKSON. You might as well ban The Beatles and Elvis.

Agreed R589. It's soooooo outdated. even if it wasn't though, I'd rather download Nickelback than a revolting pedophile monster like Jackson.

R576 That Atlantic piece is so damning. It’s interesting that the mainstream press have moved from almost ambiguous condemnation of Jackson prior to the documentary, to in the past two weeks “he’s 100% guilty”.

R584 Jackson was without question in the same league of creepers as Saville. Both are the stuff nightmares are made of.

Who are the losers who spend all day in these LN threads discussing MJ and the two greedy liars accusing him? Get lives, girls.

the poor bots who post for pedo jacko only make 9 bucks an hour.....they mus be mongoloids....

Not worth supporting a pedo for the few mediocre tunes Jackson managed to crank out during his bizarre lifetime.

R558, a while ago I read the book “In Plain Sight” by Dan Davies, which is about Jimmy Savile. My memory could well be imperfect, but outside of some of his victims at the school for troubled girls (on the island of Jersey, maybe?), he didn’t bother to cultivate ‘relationships’ with his victims. Savile was more wham-bam, whereas Jackson seems to have been a seducer (at least until the discard phase).

I think Jackson viewed these boys as his romantic partners - until they aged out. Also why he didn't see anything wrong with it.