Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

PART 2 Leaving Neverland 'LIES' exposed: 'Wade Robson lied about more than Michael Jackson abuse'

LEAVING NEVERLAND accuser Wade Robson "lied about more than the Michael Jackson abuse" and here is the proof. The two-part HBO documentary has divided opinions. 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. UK journalist Mike Smallcombe is the author of the biography Making Michael and spoke exclusively to Express Online. He said: "Unless you are in the Michael Jackson fan community, or a journalist who has researched the subject, you aren’t going to know about the publicly available information which would have formed part of Jackson’s defence. Viewers of the documentary are essentially the jury – but Leaving Neverland only gave them the prosecution’s side. In 2012, Robson had a nervous breakdown, triggered, he said, by an obsessive quest for success. His career, in his own words, began to “crumble.” "That same year, Robson began shopping a book that claimed he was sexually abused by Michael Jackson. No publisher picked it up. In the draft version of the book, Robson called himself a 'master of deception.'" "Robson filed a $1.5 billion civil lawsuit/creditor’s claim in 2013. He first filed it under seal (a procedure allowing sensitive or confidential information to be filed with a court without becoming a matter of public record), in the hope of reaching a financial settlement with the Jackson Estate. "To be clear, the judge ruled that Jackson’s companies were not liable for any possible actions by Jackson; he did not rule on the credibility of the men’s allegations. But the trial judge in Robson’s initial case against the Estate disregarded his sworn statements on a summary judgment motion. "Jackson estate attorney Howard Weitzman said Robson was “caught lying repeatedly” in the dismissed litigations. "Weitzman added: 'The trial judge found one of Robson’s lies so incredible that the trial judge disregarded Robson’s sworn declaration and found that no rational trier of fact could possibly believe Robson’s sworn statements.'" During his lawsuit against Jackson’s Estate, Robson was ordered by the trial court to produce all documents about written communications with anyone about his supposed abuse. "In one email, he listed over 20 different questions to his mother asking her about the specific details of his interactions with Jackson. Some of these included: 'Can you explain all that you remember of that first night at Neverland? What happened when we drove in what did we do? And that first weekend at Neverland?' "Despite telling the detailed story of his first night at Neverland in the documentary as if it is his own memory, at his deposition, Robson admitted that he 'did not know' if his memory of that night 'came from (his) own recollection or it was told to (him) by someone else." Another email showed that Robson found one particular story from the early 1990s which specifically named him and his mother. He emailed it to his mother and asked whether it was true. She replied, ‘Wow, none of that is true.’ "Weitzman said Robson was also trying to hide evidence before his cases were dismissed. "Weitzman said: 'Robson lied under oath and stated that, other than one brief email in late 2012, he had had “no written communications” with anyone (other than his attorneys) about his newly-concocted allegations that he was abused by Jackson. This turned out to be a complete and utter lie. Robson had actually shopped a book about his allegations in the year prior to filing his lawsuit—a book he tried to hide from the Estate.'

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 27April 20, 2019 2:02 PM

Wade Robson is a liar and a scumbag, Tried to get a book deal after years of leeching of the Jackson’s for jobs, money, and credibility.

by Anonymousreply 1March 19, 2019 6:45 AM

Team WADE!!!

Viva SAFECHUCK!!!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 2March 19, 2019 6:52 AM

OP, are you on the Jacksons’ payroll?

Enough with this shit. You’ve proven nothing.

by Anonymousreply 3March 19, 2019 6:57 AM

So someone who is an adult and is aware and is aware of what the appearances are (because he has a career built on appearances), finds it so important to sleep in the same bed as a bunch of boys (but not girls) because he never had a childhood.

Why would anyone have trouble believing that?

by Anonymousreply 4March 19, 2019 11:29 AM

[quote]Wade Robson is a liar and a scumbag, Tried to get a book deal after years of leeching of the Jackson’s for jobs, money, and credibility.

GOOD. He deserves something for being rimmed by that mummy.

by Anonymousreply 5March 19, 2019 12:15 PM

Doing this again?

The last thread got shut down prematurely because of the freaks who couldn't play nice, and mostly because of that crazy bitch from the Spacey and Woody Allen threads, who thinks everyone thinks critically, and who isn't her, is either pedo or pervert or apologist.

Is a Part 2 thread really necessary?

by Anonymousreply 6March 19, 2019 12:37 PM

Uh...why notR6? How many fucking "What do you think of (insert straight, gay-pandering Instaho)" threads do we have?

by Anonymousreply 7March 19, 2019 12:42 PM

Yeah, every one of those need to die fiery deaths, as well. But that they exist in no way justifies the existence of crazy-bait thread Part 2.

by Anonymousreply 8March 19, 2019 12:46 PM

No news here. He’s a liar. Something bad did happen,but I don’t think he was raped.

by Anonymousreply 9March 19, 2019 12:47 PM

I see "Proof" and "Opinion" are interchangable these days.

by Anonymousreply 10March 19, 2019 12:52 PM

I love the idiots like R9. “Something bad did happen,” just not with that grown man who took him to bed at age seven. Cuz R9 just kinda sorta knows.

by Anonymousreply 11March 19, 2019 12:56 PM

On the Joe Rogan show they discussed the rumor that Michael’s dad turned him into a castrato. If that’s the case that would make penetrative sex a bit hard.

by Anonymousreply 12March 19, 2019 1:02 PM

R12 not necessarily. It would depend on the age he started using hormones, what hormones etc. Even genuine castratos could sometimes still get an erection.

by Anonymousreply 13March 19, 2019 3:32 PM

FFS That's just a crazy rumor, it does not have to be taken into consideration.

by Anonymousreply 14March 19, 2019 5:43 PM

r6 A lot of people think there is something seriously wrong with you, if you haven't noticed. But I for one am happy to learn you are at least not a racist! You support rapists of all colours, sexual orientations and age preference. Do you, I guess.

by Anonymousreply 15March 19, 2019 5:49 PM

Robson comes across as phony, rehearsed and in inauthentic. Safechuck seems haunted and damaged. He grew up to be a nice looking guy.

by Anonymousreply 16April 19, 2019 4:06 AM

And yet Jackson molested them both, R16.

by Anonymousreply 17April 19, 2019 4:16 AM

One of the things I love about this film is how it exposes the “perfect victim” myth, because if one believes Safechuck (which is very easy to do) then Robson’s story is validated by association. I wonder how the film would have been received if it had only been Robson and his family interviewed.

by Anonymousreply 18April 19, 2019 5:05 AM

What is wrong with their mothers? Especially the down under dipwad who left her husband and other son.

by Anonymousreply 19April 19, 2019 12:37 PM

Well, we have to remember she was a Michael Jackson fan. Self-selection for looniness

by Anonymousreply 20April 20, 2019 2:17 AM

I believe James. You can see he's haunted. I don't believe Wade. His story seems like a bad monologue from an acting class.

by Anonymousreply 21April 20, 2019 3:25 AM

JUST BECAUSE THE WITNESSES WERE NOT CROSS-EXAMINED DOESN'T MEAN THEIR STORIES ARE UNTRUE.

[quote]The fact that they fail to do the small amount of research it takes to prove these are lies, by choice or not, makes it even worse."

Yet Brett Barnes provides NO SUCH "SMALL AMOUNT OF RESEARCH" TO PROVE ANY LIE WAS TOLD!

Barnes denies he had a sexual relationship with Jackson. Robson only said he strongly believed Barnes and all the other "12-month, primary husboys" were the object of Jackson's sexual advances in the documentary. Robson never said he had proof -- it was clear in the movie he was just speculating.

So what, other "lies" does Barnes say were told and where's the "small research" to prove it? HE DOESN'T SPECIFY! BARNES IS FULL OF SHIT!!

This will always be a "He-said," "She-said" case where conclusive proof is impossible. But the circumstantial evidence still shows Michael Jackson settling lawsuits with outraged parents for TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS plus several, independent witnesses both claiming to be victims and witnesses to the pedophilia.

How does Barnes explain that? How is that Joe Blow, has-been entertainer smarter than the dozens of lawyers and journalists who have poured over these allegations for decades?

HE'S NOT! THIS IS JUST ANOTHER DESPERATE NOTHINGBURGER FROM LOVE-MOTIVATED DEVOTEES, NOT THE TRUTH!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 22April 20, 2019 6:04 AM

And about the "one-sidedness" of LEAVING NEVERLAND:

It's not true. The documentary shows clips of Jackson's lawyers trashing Robson and Safechuck for flipping their stories and suing for money.

But even if the documentary was COMPLETELY ONE-SIDED, it's still valid because the testimony can be true and the many years of cross examination and criticism of Robson and Safechuck are COURT RECORD and WIDELY PUBLICLY AVAILABLE.

The explanation of the alleged victims' sides already occupied 4 hours of material. There's no time or need to explain every angle, especially when it's a widely publicized case that's already been poured over. And it's a "He-said," "She-said" case; where you can't prove all the claims of either side, so why bother? It's very obvious to the viewer it's mostly one side's point of view and they take it with a grain of salt.

Truth is, the Jackson estate showed no compassion, curiosity or concern for Robson and Safechuck when they presented their problems to the estate since Michael is now dead.

The Jackson Estate completely shut them down out of greed and pride, with a lot less regard for the truth than FINDING NEVERLAND. By not offering a penny, a word or gesture of sympathy, THE JACKSON MOTHERFUCKERS BROUGHT THIS 'ONE-SIDED' DOCUMENTARY ON THEMSELVES.

Fuck 'em. They don't deserve more from the alleged victims and everybody knows the media will pour over all that's said. If the greedy Jacksons, whose family shit could never stink, want a cross examination, THEY CAN DO IT THEMSELVES.

I'm happy it's now costing Paris Jackson money to investigate the claims.

by Anonymousreply 23April 20, 2019 6:21 AM

Jackson was a total Pedo. It is sad, terrible he was abused and exploited as a child. However there is no disputing Michael perpetrated the sins of his childhood on many young boys. That is the real crime here. These men will Break the cycle and help many other victims with this story.

by Anonymousreply 24April 20, 2019 6:44 AM

So is Michael telling the boys to be distrustful of women relate to his hatred toward Katherine for not protecting him against Joe?

by Anonymousreply 25April 20, 2019 12:28 PM

But what is the other side of the story, exactly? He was a child-like eccentric who loved little boys so much he had them sleep over?

by Anonymousreply 26April 20, 2019 12:49 PM

There were witnesses and other victims but they were paid off. A maid testified about what she saw.

What about the other kids for whom the LA DA brought criminal cases against MJ? Release them from their secrecy agreements if you think nothing happened.

by Anonymousreply 27April 20, 2019 2:02 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!