Perhaps they felt so. I'm sure there's others that have kept quiet and won't say anything. Personally I would keep my trap shit as it's embarrassing but I totally get them wanting to say their peace to the masses. I'd be bitter as hell that the sick bastard had no remorse trying to ruin my life.
Television Leaving Neverland....Harrowing Michael Jackson Documentary
- Thread starter simonhch
- Start date
Why not make it a general rule to provide links when you're making claims about stats, instead of expecting the reader to look it up for you. Never understood why people get offended when they're asked to document something they've claimed.
In the US, FBI reports from 1995, 1996, and 1997 consistently put the number of "unfounded" forcible rape accusations around 8%. In contrast, the average rate of unfounded reports for all "index crimes" (murder, aggravated assault, forcible rape, robbery, arson, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft) tracked by the FBI is 2%.[29][30][31] This estimate, however, does not appear in subsequent FBI reports.[32][33][34] This estimate was criticised by academic Bruce Gross as almost meaningless as many jurisdictions from which FBI collects data use different definition of "unfounded", which, he wrote, includes cases where the victim did not physically fight off the suspect or the suspect did not use a weapon, and cases where the victim had a prior relationship to the suspect.[9]
Which isn't a surprise, given the ratios.
Part of the problem is the variation in definition, not only in the states but also for the rest of the world. If the proven number is around 8%, then the actual number is obviously higher, just as it is with actual rapes that aren't proven due to lack of evidence. Conviction rate is insanely low
What's embarrassing exactly?
I'm fairly sure the "proven" number isn't 8% though, as per that page you're quoting? That's the estimate extrapolated from the much lower "proven" number.
I remember that show. Even at 13 years of age I thought it was truly absurd of him up a tree proclaiming he was Peter Pan. His head was melted - I kind of feel sorry for what his life must have been like.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Finished episode 1 tonight. Holy shit, if these kids are lying they are doing an incredible job of it.
This personally pushes me towards the "he's innocent" bracket.
I'm guessing the 'loving' experiences did happen the way he describes them, but it also doesn't mean other unlucky kids didn't experience the opposite. I think the video highlights a case of him creating plausible denial for others and himself.
You are probably right, he didn't mention the anal licking of a 10 year old to Martin Bashir on TV so he must be innocent.
It honestly looks like he was grooming kids now, but back then for some reason we all bought into this concept of his wacky persona and this idea that he didn't have a childhood so thats why he liked hanging around kids (I definitely remember this being a thing, but have no idea how that came about). If he sincerely just wanted to befriend them innocently, though, then why did he move onto a younger kid from time to time and start ignoring the previous ones? The kids seem to be a similar type as well.
I'm not buying that these parents didn't have at least some suspicions, but damn I feel so sorry for them all now.
I'm not buying that these parents didn't have at least some suspicions, but damn I feel so sorry for them all now.
When children are being groomed to be sexually abused or exploited they are often told that the acts the most natural thing in the world and it's a sign of love. Pedophiles don't molest every child they see. They target children and families who are susceptible, they can then manipulate and create situations that give them time with a victim. It's very rarely an act of opportunity especially with long periods of abuse.
People are often very blind to a situation like this, especially family which Jackson was to the Safechucks. His mother certainly has no doubts now.
Wade's mother is different, she was willfully negligent as a mother and still is. She was living her life through her son and his relationship to Jackson and you could see that she still doesn't really get it but at the very least he has had a successful career that he can be proud of. His sister and brother seemed very genuine in their emotions and you get the feeling that they think the sacrafice made by the family for Wade was kind of for their mother.
I hope both of them find some peace after this.
Not sure how this could push towards innocence. If anything it tells me that Michael had some severe psychological issues that swayed his moral and ethical values in such a way that he decided it was perfectly healthy and normal for a 44 year old to sleep in a bed with a children other than his own.
If anything, while he doesn't comes across in the same way a traditional paedophile is perceived by your average person (ie: predator like), by no means does his behaviour suggest that he wasn't potentially abusing children, whether he was aware in his head at the time that it was right or wrong.
Michael is not here to defend himself so more or less people will generally side with the idea that he is innocent, but who knows how many people might have come forward in the last 10 years to make a claim against him.
If he did do it, it is unfortunate that his victims will never have the opportunity to get justice for his crimes against them. If he didnt then I hope his reputation isnt destroyed, but I cant help feel people arent lying.
Either way, Joe Jackson has alot to answer for, for exploiting his children the way he did.
Wtf
pretty sure that was a joke?
I'm not, I'm saying if a paedophile feels such an urge that they think they will act upon it thus ruining the life of an innocent child, they could choose to chemically castrate instead.
Yes they'll practise their routine innocently, giving them a chance to prey on vunerable kids while also creating an alibi.
The Jackson situation mirrors Barry bennell, he also had a similiar grotto for kids in his house.
And of those 25+ years he was heavily investigated by the FBI for 10 of them plus media smear campaigns that still continue to this day and absolutely feck all was found against him. Nothing. Nada.
What would you expect them to find, other than the 5 boys claiming he abused them?
"That's what the world needs now."
Jesus Christ...
You could argue that it doesn't prove he is guilty of course, but I don't see how this in anyway would make him innocent. He's admitting to a behaviour that most would consider extremely inappropriate.
If they are lying then they are fantastic at it. Watched both episodes and their interviews come across as harrowingly real. Someone makes note of this in the doc and i am of the same frame of mind- i just don't see how having that many kids in his bed over such a long period of time that he didn't do anything with them. I never bought the whole surpressed background spiel. In the R Kelly series they note it is common for someone abused to become an abuser. Guilty is my personal verdict.
Look I'm fully aware that any defense of a man that spoke and behaved the way he did is shaky. I'm honestly not even a big fan of his music, guess all I'm really saying is there's thousands upon thousands of documentaries out there that are deemed absolute horseshit. Also it is a fact that one of the guys, Wade spoke highly of Jackson for years, even contributing and attending some of his tribute shows after his death with his sister, wearing the actual gloves that Jackson wore among other clothing. That is suspicious to me.come on, what you're doing is worse than that, you're defending him on instinct while not fully committing to that defence because you know it's on shaky grounds
However I haven't watched the documentary yet so will make my actual judgement after that. If it's all true, his legacy should be totally erased.
Is Brett Barnes suing HBO after this documentary claimed he was also molested?
Also the Safechuck and Victor Gutiérrez link is a bit strange to say the least.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1085620426536112129.html
Also the Safechuck and Victor Gutiérrez link is a bit strange to say the least.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1085620426536112129.html
Last edited:
I just meant in that case he's providing an alibi.
Just like I don't know he's innocent, you don't know he's guilty for sure.
There is more of this online :
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684
https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/public...p_or_a_chasm_Attrition_in_reported_rape_cases
http://kunskapsbanken.nck.uu.se/nckkb/nck/publik/fil/visa/197/different
Also interesting
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system
There is nothing I wrote that doesnt fit into what is stated in studies. What I find most shocking is that 3/4 sex crimes (rapes) go unreported to the Police and that is understandable as out of 1000 rapes only 5 will get jail time for their crimes.
I don´t know how this could be spun out of context? The evidence is pretty clear to me.
What is it you feel i've spun out of context ?
Yea I'd understand that. Maybe someone with more experience of the actual situation might be better to comment here but I thought that the road to recovery involved making peace with it, as in understanding that 1. its not their fault and 2. holding onto it will not make their life any better. It makes it no less a sick act and I think everyone's opinion is universally the same on that. The sexual exploitation of children is probably the most serious crime IMO.
I just don't understand what they are after. Is it money? Do they expect to take this to court and then seek damages? If they do, doing a documentary for the court of public opinion probably isn't the right way to go about it. All very strange in my opinion. If it's just to "tarnish" his image, then I think they're only piling more shit on top of an already existing mountain of shit...
I probably won't watch the documentary because I don't need any more proof.
That is really fecking tedious to read. I made it about half way and had to skim the rest. Broad similarities between made up abuse and real abuse isn't much of a link in my uneducated view. ( for example and sorry for being crude but I would imagine that sodomy with a finger is probably one of the most common forms of serious child sexual abuse, when it comes to men abusing young boys.)
Is there any places where this info exists that isn't saturated with banalities, bad reasoning and spitefulness?
I'm happy to read the counter arguments but I have better things to do than wade through the hysterical shrieks of a Michael Jackson cheer team.
Both filed lawsuits, both were dismissed, Robson wanted $1.62 billion if i'm not mistaken.
He filed a lawsuit claiming he was sexually abused by Jackson over a seven-year period. Safechuck filed a similar lawsuit a year later.
A court ruled in 2015 that Robson had filed his lawsuit too late to get any of Jackson’s estate, leaving two remaining defendants: MJJ Productions, Inc., and MJJ Ventures, Inc. Two years later, a judge found that MJJ Productions, Inc., and MJJ Ventures, Inc., both Jackson-owned corporations, were not liable for Robson’s exposure to Jackson. The judge did not rule on the credibility of Robson’s allegations.
As far as i'm aware they've lodged an appeal.
In terms of money, Robson has set up his family up with a non profit fund where they are asking for donations, they aren't obligated under law to disclose who donates money.
Unless someone in here stumbles over actual evidence it's not like anyone can prove anything related to this case when it comes to guilt / innocence.
I'm not sure why people find it difficult to discuss the subject in a normal matter.
Did you quote the wrong post? Doesn't seem to relate to anything I've said...at all
I don't see any problem in them attempting to sue the Jackson estate. They have no other official channels through which to achieve any kind of justice. Its understandable that they'd want to destroy his reputation.
Are you saying that Robson has founded a charity for abuse survivors and it is open to donations?
Tbh, you probably won’t find many counter arguments where there’s not a lot of bias. A post I can recommend to read if you want to see a counter argument is from the same guy who wrote the article I linked on the first page. Whether it’s more cheerleading is up to the reader. I don’t think it will change any minds but here you go
OK, let's start with the director, Dan Reed. He's most well known for a documentary called "The Paedophile Hunter". It's about a literal gang that pose as underage girls to trap paedophiles. The main issue with this is that they sometimes got it wrong, and the wrongfully accused people literally killed themselves. As far as I know, neither Reed or the gang were ever held to justice for this. So after this documentary was successful, of course, these general themes become his modus operandi. Regardless of truth. Reed wonders how he can boost his own career.
So #MeToo happens and the climate changes. Whilst it's undoubtedly created a better climate for actual victims to tell their story, it also provides the perfect environment for false accusations. Reed spots this, and spots the opportunity to make his name from the biggest false accusation of all time.
Here's some facts, that regardless of how anyone spins anything, remain true.
Michael Jackson was found innocent by a jury in a criminal trial. The jury all agreed that the "accusers" were lying, their stories were inconsistent, they lacked credibility, and what they were saying had no elements of truth to it. The corrupt District Attorney, who had vowed to take Michael down, went as far as planting false evidence at Neverland, and was caught red-handed doing so.
Michael Jackson was also investigated by the FBI for TEN YEARS. How much credible evidence did the FBI find in that timeframe? None. Zero. Zip, Zilch, Nada. Nothing.
Third point - defamation laws only apply to the living. Representatives of the deceased can not file defamation laws on behalf of the deceased, at least not in the UK where this "documentary" has been made. What this means is that if @ dropped dead tomorrow, I'd be perfectly within my legal rights to make a documentary about how he touched kids, truth be damned.
Let's move on to the two "stars" of this documentary, Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck.
Wade, first of all, testified in the 2005 trial that Michael never did anything to him. He was a star witness, who was thoroughly cross examined, and credibly maintained that Michael never did anything to him. He had no reason to lie at this time. He was not under employ of Michael or involved in any business dealings with him, and in fact his own career at this time was doing OK, he'd done choreography work for the likes of Britney Spears.
Fast forward to after Michael dies. Wade has been offered a big directing gig to direct one of the "Step Up" movies and he blows it. Falls apart under the pressure and loses the gig. The work dries up. His career is gone. He hears about the Michael Jackson Cirque De Soleil show in Vegas and he begs to be involved. He literally petitions the Estate. He goes on TMZ acting as if he's got the gig. But he didn't have it. He was never offered it. They didn't consider him qualified enough for the job. In fact he was never even seriously considered.
Wade has a breakdown. He has a wife and a kid and no income. He could get a normal job, but why work when you can sue Michael Jackson? After all - people sued Michael in the past alleging things who never even met Michael, and their cases were heard. He comes up with a scheme, and he files a lawsuit saying that Michael abused him. What is he asking for in damages? $1.6 BILLION dollars.
Oh, one another thing. Before he filed the lawsuit, he wrote a book and hired an agent. Because, obviously, if you've been abused, the first thing you do is hire an agent. Duh. Shopped the book around - not one bite.
Wade's story is so full of inconsistencies that it just doesn't make any sense to anyone. At one point, he thinks he repressed the memories. At another point, he's always remembered but he never understood that it was wrong. What? You didn't know something was wrong when you testified at one of the biggest criminal trials OF ALL TIME?
The court asked for all relevant emails. Wade redacted all emails between him and his family under "attorney-client privilege"..... despite the fact that his family are not attorneys.
Predictably, his case was laughed out of court.
Now let's talk about Safechuck. He only files his lawsuit after he finds out about Wade's lawsuit, because free money for everyone who knew Michael Jackson! Zero evidence, again. Oh, and his story? It's almost word-for-word the plot of a fictional novel by a pro-pedophilia author named Victor Gutierrez, who wrote his fiction novel about Michael Jackson, was sued by Michael, lost, and then fled the country to avoid paying damages. Safechuck's case was also thrown out of court.
Both men used the same legal firm. The speciality of that legal firm? Public mud-slinging to try and get the accused to back down and pay out. Perhaps worth pointing out they've been trying to appeal their cases ever since they were originally thrown out.
This isn't a documentary, it's a fictional hit job to support a bullshit legal case.
A REAL documentary must endeavour to tell both sides of a story. That doesn't, however, fit their narrative, because there were plenty of other young people around at the times when both Wade and Jimmy were around, and they've all spoken out in support of Michael. These include Brett Barnes, Macaulay Culkin, Sean Lennon, Brandon Adams, Kelly Parker, Talun Zeitoun and many more.
Tellingly, this is what Brett Barnes tweetedwhen Wade first made his allegation.
"I wish people would realise, in your last moments on this earth, all the money in the world will be of no comfort. My clear conscience will."
and when the "documentary" premiered at Sundance last month:
"So people are getting their facts from a movie now? I wonder how they feel about the documentary showing the great alien invasion of ‘96. I think it was called Independence Day."
Also, worth mentioning this written by Roger Friedman from Showbiz411.
"Meanwhile, Robson has started a not for profit foundation and is soliciting donations. There can be no transparency, as he’s parked his 501 c3 very cleverly under something called the Hawaii Community Foundation. That way, Robson doesn’t have to file a form 990. We’ll never know if the makers of “Leaving Neverland” have donated money to it, for example. This was done on purpose. Leonardo DiCaprio does the same thing with his Foundation. It’s hidden."
So #MeToo happens and the climate changes. Whilst it's undoubtedly created a better climate for actual victims to tell their story, it also provides the perfect environment for false accusations. Reed spots this, and spots the opportunity to make his name from the biggest false accusation of all time.
Here's some facts, that regardless of how anyone spins anything, remain true.
Michael Jackson was found innocent by a jury in a criminal trial. The jury all agreed that the "accusers" were lying, their stories were inconsistent, they lacked credibility, and what they were saying had no elements of truth to it. The corrupt District Attorney, who had vowed to take Michael down, went as far as planting false evidence at Neverland, and was caught red-handed doing so.
Michael Jackson was also investigated by the FBI for TEN YEARS. How much credible evidence did the FBI find in that timeframe? None. Zero. Zip, Zilch, Nada. Nothing.
Third point - defamation laws only apply to the living. Representatives of the deceased can not file defamation laws on behalf of the deceased, at least not in the UK where this "documentary" has been made. What this means is that if @ dropped dead tomorrow, I'd be perfectly within my legal rights to make a documentary about how he touched kids, truth be damned.
Let's move on to the two "stars" of this documentary, Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck.
Wade, first of all, testified in the 2005 trial that Michael never did anything to him. He was a star witness, who was thoroughly cross examined, and credibly maintained that Michael never did anything to him. He had no reason to lie at this time. He was not under employ of Michael or involved in any business dealings with him, and in fact his own career at this time was doing OK, he'd done choreography work for the likes of Britney Spears.
Fast forward to after Michael dies. Wade has been offered a big directing gig to direct one of the "Step Up" movies and he blows it. Falls apart under the pressure and loses the gig. The work dries up. His career is gone. He hears about the Michael Jackson Cirque De Soleil show in Vegas and he begs to be involved. He literally petitions the Estate. He goes on TMZ acting as if he's got the gig. But he didn't have it. He was never offered it. They didn't consider him qualified enough for the job. In fact he was never even seriously considered.
Wade has a breakdown. He has a wife and a kid and no income. He could get a normal job, but why work when you can sue Michael Jackson? After all - people sued Michael in the past alleging things who never even met Michael, and their cases were heard. He comes up with a scheme, and he files a lawsuit saying that Michael abused him. What is he asking for in damages? $1.6 BILLION dollars.
Oh, one another thing. Before he filed the lawsuit, he wrote a book and hired an agent. Because, obviously, if you've been abused, the first thing you do is hire an agent. Duh. Shopped the book around - not one bite.
Wade's story is so full of inconsistencies that it just doesn't make any sense to anyone. At one point, he thinks he repressed the memories. At another point, he's always remembered but he never understood that it was wrong. What? You didn't know something was wrong when you testified at one of the biggest criminal trials OF ALL TIME?
The court asked for all relevant emails. Wade redacted all emails between him and his family under "attorney-client privilege"..... despite the fact that his family are not attorneys.
Predictably, his case was laughed out of court.
Now let's talk about Safechuck. He only files his lawsuit after he finds out about Wade's lawsuit, because free money for everyone who knew Michael Jackson! Zero evidence, again. Oh, and his story? It's almost word-for-word the plot of a fictional novel by a pro-pedophilia author named Victor Gutierrez, who wrote his fiction novel about Michael Jackson, was sued by Michael, lost, and then fled the country to avoid paying damages. Safechuck's case was also thrown out of court.
Both men used the same legal firm. The speciality of that legal firm? Public mud-slinging to try and get the accused to back down and pay out. Perhaps worth pointing out they've been trying to appeal their cases ever since they were originally thrown out.
This isn't a documentary, it's a fictional hit job to support a bullshit legal case.
A REAL documentary must endeavour to tell both sides of a story. That doesn't, however, fit their narrative, because there were plenty of other young people around at the times when both Wade and Jimmy were around, and they've all spoken out in support of Michael. These include Brett Barnes, Macaulay Culkin, Sean Lennon, Brandon Adams, Kelly Parker, Talun Zeitoun and many more.
Tellingly, this is what Brett Barnes tweetedwhen Wade first made his allegation.
"I wish people would realise, in your last moments on this earth, all the money in the world will be of no comfort. My clear conscience will."
and when the "documentary" premiered at Sundance last month:
"So people are getting their facts from a movie now? I wonder how they feel about the documentary showing the great alien invasion of ‘96. I think it was called Independence Day."
Also, worth mentioning this written by Roger Friedman from Showbiz411.
"Meanwhile, Robson has started a not for profit foundation and is soliciting donations. There can be no transparency, as he’s parked his 501 c3 very cleverly under something called the Hawaii Community Foundation. That way, Robson doesn’t have to file a form 990. We’ll never know if the makers of “Leaving Neverland” have donated money to it, for example. This was done on purpose. Leonardo DiCaprio does the same thing with his Foundation. It’s hidden."
Hold on a minute...
I didn't claim that there is a problem, I just stated that they've already filed one.
No, initially it was called the "Robson Family Fund": The recently established fund, set up through Hawaii Community Foundation, was originally named “Robson Family Fund,”
Obviously that didn't sound very good, so they've changed the name now to "“Robson Child Abuse Healing and Prevention Fund.”"
People can then have a look at how Denise Brown used money from the Nicole Brown Simpson fund, names and definitions means nothing.
In terms of Wade Robson, people should really look at the timeline of events.
Nothing you said.
Just the crap that is being spewed regarding these types of crimes without even bothering looking into facts.
I'm honestly not sure what the facts are. I read an interview with a prosecutor in Norway, there were large complaints in the public after stats revealed that the vast majority of rape claims were dismissed due to lack of evidence (84%) and that a large amount were found not guilty (36%), and he wanted to explain why it's difficult. The subject of false claims were brought up, and he referred to quite a few cases, like one case where a young woman was pissed off because a friend didn't want to give her a ride in his car to a party, that she claimed he raped her behind a gas station, obviously they brought him in and did all the standard tests (like scraping his penis for DNA) and they checked the video recordings from the gas station which revealed that they were only out of sight for only a few seconds. She lied about being raped, because he didn't want to give her a ride in his car..It wasn't filed as a false accusation, only in 2012 were the police told to clamp down on false accusations by prosecution. There's the one that lied about being raped because it sounded better than admitting she cheated on her boyfriend.
The issue is that it's difficult to handle things correctly, in a lot of cases you're talking he said vs she said, nobody wants to create a situation where you scare people from reporting crimes because they feel it's unlikely anyone will believe them.
In terms of the Jackson case, given that people are happy to lie in low profile cases just to hurt someone else on the basis of being pissed off, I'm happy to believe that there are people that will lie about abuse in high profile cases where money, and lots of it, is involved.
My problem with the documentary, is that there's attempts of providing evidence of anything, it's their story and that's it. I find it difficult to believe, from a personal point of view, that given what Robson claims in the documentary about the 2005 trial, he manages to get though cross examinations and testify without anyone picking up on it. The timeline, for me, just doesn't make sense. So he didn't want to testify and he says he worked up the courage to tell Michael but he was convinced to testify, yet he keeps praising Michael in the years to come. Robson says it all started to come down after he became a father in 2010, his realization that he was abused by Michael etc and him finally confronting the truth. Yet in 2011 he's begging for a part in the Cirque du Soleil in Vegas, wanting to make the show fantastic in memory of Michael, and in 2012 he's interviewed talking about his love for Michael Jackson, still dancing to his music etc, praising him as a person, the same year that he's trying to find someone willing to publish a book about him being sexually abused by Michael Jackson, in 2013, a month before the premiere of the Cirque du Soleil show, he launches a lawsuit where he wants $1.3-1.6 billion.
Show this thread - read the fragments from the lawsuit
It's interesting to read the timeline surrounding the lawsuit, and not to mention the stuff about how he's redacted a shitload of emails between him and his family.
https://www.scribd.com/document/341877298/Order-on-MJ-Estate-Motion-to-Compel-Robson
I just find it insanely difficult to have faith in Robson telling the truth.
Last edited:
I have the first part of this Sky +'d to watch with the second part scheduled.
The thing that bothers me most about MJ is the seemingly easy ride he's had. I read an article earlier (I can't remember where it was but I'm sure it's been linked to at some point in this thread) which made a good point. It compares the allegations to those faced by Kevin Spacey & Harvey Weinstein. As soon as the allegations came out they were vilified, their films were pulled and they were public enemy number one.
MJ has faced multiple allegations and as has been mentioned on here already openly admits sharing his bed with children.
Now when I see people on social media who I know are parents sticking up for him, knowing that fact I just want to ask them how they would react if a neighbour asked to do the same. I'm pretty sure most would either punch him or call the Police, or both.
If MJ has done the things that it seems likely (though not definite) then his music and legacy should fade in to obscurity in the same way that others have.
The thing that bothers me most about MJ is the seemingly easy ride he's had. I read an article earlier (I can't remember where it was but I'm sure it's been linked to at some point in this thread) which made a good point. It compares the allegations to those faced by Kevin Spacey & Harvey Weinstein. As soon as the allegations came out they were vilified, their films were pulled and they were public enemy number one.
MJ has faced multiple allegations and as has been mentioned on here already openly admits sharing his bed with children.
Now when I see people on social media who I know are parents sticking up for him, knowing that fact I just want to ask them how they would react if a neighbour asked to do the same. I'm pretty sure most would either punch him or call the Police, or both.
If MJ has done the things that it seems likely (though not definite) then his music and legacy should fade in to obscurity in the same way that others have.
Weinstein is just a director and Spacey is just an actor, both pretty easily replaced. Jackson is a massive massive icon, he has a borderline **** following. It's more similar to the Ronaldo rape allegations.