Leaving Neverland, HBO documentary on Michael Jackson's alleged child sexual assaults, review thread: Currently 98% on Rotten Tomatoes (READ OP)

[Brian McDoogle]

Thread rebooted. This topic is especially hard to adjudicate given the long and tortured history of the cases, the outcome of previous trials, and the fact that Michael Jackson is deceased. That said, we've actioned a large number of members who attacked the accusers as liars etc and will continue to do so. If this thread is going to go better than the last one it will need to remain strictly on topic. For this purpose please observe these rules of engagement:

• You are free to presume MJ's guilt and address him accordingly.
• You can reference inconsistencies in testimony and past acquittals.
• You CANNOT label the accusers as liars or frauds or similar.
• Metacommentary derails will be banned. This is a thread about a documentary, not a launchpad to hurl invective at other threads, members, or staff.

If you can't observe these rules or can't accept them, do not participate. We will be enforcing these guidelines as strictly as necessary to keep the discussion on course.

Rotten Tomatoes.

Wesley Morris, NYT:

I've seen Wade Robson, a doll-faced Michael Jackson impersonator from Brisbane, Australia, say he was 7 when Michael began abusing him, describing a grim scenario in which he was naked on all fours at the edge of the bed, poised — trapped — between his idol, who was masturbating to him, and a cutout of Peter Pan.

I've heard all of this — and a distressing deal more — by the time the documentary gets to the part where Jackson allegedly takes Safechuck shopping for a ring. But there's something about the way the filmmakers reserve this scene for the back end of Part 1 that ices your bones, something about the way an adult Safechuck doesn't seem to want to go back there. But here he is, talking in a TV documentary about the vows he says that he and Jackson exchanged. Here he is, forlorn, holding the ring that he's kept, all this time, in a handsome box.

The story of the ring and the vows feels as graphic as the memories of masturbation and French kissing and nipple tweaking. If you happen to be the sort of person who'd try to balance, say, the multiple counts of child molestation Jackson was charged with in 2003 and acquitted of later with extenuating details from Jackson's biography (Wasn't heabused and too famous too soon and prematurely sexualized? He never had a childhood! He's still a child!), if you partook in the steady diet of fluffy news stories about Jackson and some little boy (often identified as "Jackson's friend") and thought mostly that they were cute or banal and that Jackson just related to kids as kids — like, platonically — if you thought that he couldn't know there was a real difference between adult passion and child's play, then perhaps you'll find Safechuck's memory of the ring particularly shattering. I did. It's so private and wrong, not just to us but clearly to Jackson, who makes up a story at the jewelry store that the ring is for a woman, even though Safechuck is there by his side.

He knew.

Click to shrink...

Richard Roeper, Chicago Sun Times:

Having seen the devastating and undeniably persuasive film, I can't say with 100 percent certainty Jackson molested the alleged victims — but at the very least, the VERY least, we're reminded of how bizarre it was for this man to have cultivated such close relationships with a number of boys, even as his legions of fans and his supporters rationalized it by saying Jackson was just like Peter Pan and he had the soul of a child and he was an innocent who didn't want to grow up.

What a load of … nonsense.

Click to shrink...

Inkoo Kang, Slate:

The first half of Leaving Neverland is propelled by dread, as Robson and Safechuck, then child performers and Jackson impersonators, near the orbit of the singer and are subsequently groomed and trained for sex acts. (The details are unsparing; prepare yourself.) The latter half of the documentary is spurred by anticipation, as we learn how the victims extricate themselves from Jackson's influence and gradually recognize their abuse for what it was. In their 20s, Robson and Safechuck suffered from panic attacks and turned to drug use without comprehending the role that sexual assault played in their then-inexplicable distress. (Their stories, about both Jackson's M.O. and the aftereffects thereof, are remarkably similar.) Leaving Neverland also benefits from Robson's extreme candor. He attributes his resolve to defend Jackson in court to a multitude of factors, including his sympathy for the singer's young children, lingering loyalty to the man who had inspired and boosted his dancing career, and fear that his life might be ruined too in the process. And though the documentary doesn't explore this possibility, it's plausible that Robson and Safechuck's gender played a role in their reluctance to speak out against Jackson too, given that male victims are generally afforded much less support than female ones. It wasn't until Robson and Safechuck became fathers themselves that the last traces of their one-time affection for Jackson completely disappeared.

Click to shrink...

Matt Zoller Seitz, via New York Magazine:

We never see the acts that James Safechuck and Wade Robson say they endured as minors while visiting Jackson's Neverland Ranch and Century City apartment, but these are described in such detail that viewers may be seized by a new impulse: to look away from what they're hearing. Mutual masturbation; oral sex; penetration; regular exposure to orgies and porn; emotional abuse characterized as special attention: Jackson is accused of all this and more. Safechuck and Robson were children when Jackson "discovered" them — Robson in Brisbane, Australia, where the boy had been performing with a kids' dance troupe; Safechuck in Los Angeles, on the set of a beloved Pepsi ad about a small boy exploring Jackson's backstage dressing room and doting on his gloves and hat. Safechuck was 9. Robson was 7. As these now-adult men speak of what they saw and did in in the late 1980s and early '90s — the era when they say Jackson groomed them — they talk slowly and softly, doubling back to add details or amend descriptions. Years ago, Robson testified in court and Safechuck publicly supported the singer, both countering other protégés who'd accused Jackson of crimes. They know full well that a lot of people watching Leaving Neverland will reflexively disbelieve them because their new testimony contradicts what came before (and because they each unsuccessfully sued Jackson's estate in the years after his death). They know that people who have never experienced abuse won't understand how kids can love their tormentors and wish to protect them.

Click to shrink...

How Leaving Neverland Does a Disservice to Michael Jackson's Accusers vis Slate

It is worth noting, though, that Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed never sought comment from the Jackson estate on the devastating claims made by the film's two subjects, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who both allege that Jackson sexually abused them as children. Reed says the film's narrow scope—a tightly framed look at the lives of two boys and their families as they are seduced into Jackson's bizarre, rarefied, possibly predatory orbit—was a creative decision.

Click to shrink...

That one-sidedness has less to do with the absence of Jackson's family than with the film's lack of candor regarding complicating information about Robson, Safechuck, and two of Jackson's previous accusers. Viewers inclined to regard the allegations against Jackson with skepticism will find these holes leave room for their misgivings to grow. In glossing over, and sometimes entirely excluding, elements of the factual record, the documentary hobbles its chances to convince skeptics that these men are telling the truth. This misstep—one that presumably stems from a desire to protect Robson and Safechuck—actually does a grave disservice to both men, whose stories I believe.

Click to shrink...

I didn't see a review thread. Documentary premiers on HBO March 3rd, and it's two parts.

 

[Hecht]

All right let's try this again.

 

[Kyuuji]

Before this gets congested I just want to remind people that hand-waving abuse victims or criticising them for when they come out about their abuse/abuser as if there's a time limit on it being useful, or it being up to anyone else to decide they should be ready, directly contributes toward the silencing of abuse victims. For many it takes a long time to even realise their past experiences were abusive and predatory in nature.

Regardless of your love for MJ or his work please try and consider the above and show at least the minimum amount of respect for the victims of the abuse he inflicted.

He may be dead but his victims aren't, think about them before you hand-wave this as being unnecessary.

 

[It’s Time To Go]

The documentary proves Jackson's guilt beyond doubt. Harrowing stuff, but necessary.

 

[Deleted member 12790]

Worth noting that the people who try to defame the victims coordinate on websites like "MichaelJacksonInnocent.com" where they spam threads with pre-made infographics full of misinformation from said sites, and the people who say it's just them coming forward feeling better are like normal ass posters who watched the documentary.

The "shady" shit they've come up with about these guys include things like that they're "perjurers" and "liars"... the perjury and lies in question being a court trial where they testified that Michael Jackson didn't molest them. They're liars... because they lied about MJ not molesting them. They committed perjury, by lying in court, when they were asked if MJ molested them and they said no.

They post graphics that say shit like "THE FACTS THE LEAVING NEVERLAND DOCUMENTARY WON'T GO OVER" which are aimed at those who didn't watch the documentary to try and sway them with misinformation, because the majority of the shit on that infographic are covered in depth in the documentary.

The "defense" of MJ is intrinsicly linked to coordinated harassment against the victims, from huge organized websites.

Regarding Other Kids who say nothing sexual happened:
Context absolutely matters. So let's add some context from a boy who A) Has never sued the Jackson estate nor intends to, and B) Claims there was never any explicitly sexual encounter with Jackson:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/michael-jackson-called-rubba-rubba-13912812

"When I slept in his bed, we wore just boxer shorts and he would put his arm around me and push his body to my body, like you would with a girlfriend.

"He would put our bodies on each other and kiss me on the head and cheek. I woke many times and his hands were on me... one hand on the top of my legs and one hand around me.

"When he was high on his medication he would get closer in the same way as when a man gets drunk. It disinhibited him.

"He'd pull me closer and be grabbing me more and kissing me more on the head and on the cheek, He would also stroke my hair.

"He never carried out an explicit sexual act on me, but there were sexual intentions.

"He must have been getting something out of it sexually. I feel now like he was testing me, seeing how far he could go."

It is EXACTLY this kind of context, within the last several months, that has turned the conversation on Michael Jackson. The above is from January of this year. That is literally the purpose of the documentary, to add context to everything regarding Jackson. It's why it's turned so many minds.

Regarding the FBI and Michael Jackson:
the FBI didn't investigate him for 12 years. It's a lie that MJ defenders frequently bring up, a claim that is specious. The FBI investigated MJ for 12 years, in the same way that if you got drive through McDonalds twice in a 10 year period, once in 2009 once again in 2019, that you could claim you'd "been eating at McDonalds for 10 years."

The FBI never launched a proper investigation into MJ. Rather, the Santa Barbra Police Department would occasionally ask them to perform services that only a federal agency can, like check to see if a restraining order was filed on someone or not. In other words, they worked fact verification for the police, in 2 specific years, not actually investigated themselves. They weren't building evidence for a purpose, there was no investigation. Which is why they can point out a 600-page """report""" but when you read it, it's just a bunch of random search print outs.

As to why these men waited so long to come forth:
think something a lot of people don't quite get is that the allegation isn't that Michael Jackson just molested children. Like, I think that puts images into peoples minds of someone who hates children, that children reflexively fear, where they hate themselves and the abuse instant.

The claims against Michael Jackson is that he groomed and molested children. The grooming is specifically a huge part of the allegations about him. I think people don't know what grooming is. He, essentially, had romantic relationships with these children. He seduced them. They were in love with him, both mentally and physically. They even say so in the documentary. They thought much of the abuse "felt good."

So when people are like "why didn't these guys come forward earlier?" They're psychological messes. Do you know how fucked up coming to grips that would be? These are guys who identify as straight men, they have children and families. It's still 2019. Of course it'll take decades for some of these victims to come to terms with what happened to them. Both guys say they still miss MJ to a degree.

Regarding the "Penis description did not match":

I notice they keep pointing to this website, the michael jackson allogations website, and saying "the penis description in the deposition didn't match!" Have any of the people pointing to this page actually read it? The "not matching" parts are

A) A dispute of the location of the colored splotch in general, over a few centimeters

B) a dispute over the shade of brown of the splotch (is it light brown, or dark brown)

C) The claim that the described penis was "uncircumcised", but if you read the deposition, the drawing of the penis was erect, which an erect uncircumcised penis looks very similar to uncircumcised one

the website itself uses language like "may disprove" or 'calls into question." but these are quibbles. The main point of the deposition, their website does not disprove. Fact is, the evidence was presented in court as credible, not some discredited thing that nobody believed.

This does a pretty good idea of countering those who claim with certainty that it didn't match. It doesn't at any point state unequivocally that the drawing must have been accurate, but does dismantle the cynical misinformation campaign of the Jackson camp and its minions.

https://www.mjfacts.com/the_telltale_splotch/

Regarding Cory Feldman and Macaulay Culkin:

Reminder: Corey Feldman walked back his claims on MJ. He originally tweeted that everything in the documentary matches up with his experience with MJ, right up until the actual sex occurred. This includes the emotional manipulation. Feldman's comments were originally misunderstood as being a defense of MJ, but he's clarified. He does not mean to say that because he wasn't sexually abused, nobody else was. Rather, he notes how the worst thing about Jackson is that he was an open ear. Feldman, who had been abused by others in hollywood, would confide in MJ for hours about the abuse, and he said the most hurtful thing was how MJ wouldn't do anything to help.

This is important to note, that Feldman opened up to MJ about his abuse. It's important because the stories from the kids who were abused by MJ is that MJ would only abuse certain children (in the doc, wade mentions how they'd be in a group of kids and MJ and another would sneak away from the pack for moments). The kids all say MJ would drill into their heads how important their silence was. So if Feldman were demonstrating to MJ in private that he couldn't keep silent, then that's a good reason why MJ wouldn't actually abuse him.

Regarding Culkin, Culkin had very controlling parents. A common theme among MJ victims is that they came from poor families that tended to be broken, where he could easily manipulate their parents. Culkin does not fit the pattern for abuse.

 

[Deleted member 19739]

I am not sure if I can watch a documentary about this subject. It is sickening.

 

[17 Seconds]

You are free to presume MJ's guilt and address him accordingly.

Click to shrink...

You CANNOT label the accusers as liars or frauds or similar.

Click to shrink...

i don't really see how this makes sense. isn't presuming his innocence calling the accusers liars? it's not like the MJ defenders in these threads have been using the argument that the accusers are confused or whatever.

i don't see how this thread will be any different than the last one if even the mods don't seem to know what's allowed.

 

[alexi52]

Are both parts of the documentary on HBO Go?

 

[aerie]

I am not sure if I can watch a documentary about this subject. It is sickening.

Click to shrink...

It was a difficult watch but I am glad I did.

 

[Kyuuji]

To note:

An investigative reporter literally tried to send a note to James asking him if he'd been abucted he was so concerned about Michael's relationship with him:

Smyth said that he was staying at Jackson's hotel, where Safechuck was also staying, and that he felt something wasn't right about their relationship.

"I remember thinking at the time… it's very odd for a man in his 30th year to have his very best friend as this boy called Little Jimmy Safechuck who was 10," he said.

Click to shrink...

He describes how Safechuck had his own room at Jury's Hotel, but that it constantly had a 'do not disturb' sign on the door and sheeting on the windows to block out views. While those facts themselves didn't arouse too much suspicion, Smyth said "the whole thing was adding to something very bizarre".

After learning that Safechuck was not attending Jackson's concert in Pairc Uí Chaoimh and was staying in his bedroom all night, Smyth, along with Eamon Dunphy, decided to write the boy a letter in an attempt to ensure everything was okay.

Click to shrink...

Using hotel stationery and a notepad, he describes that they wrote: "Dear Little Jimmy Safechuck, we are in the residents' lounge… and if you are being held against your will or if you need rescuing contact us'."

Click to shrink...

https://www.thejournal.ie/michael-jackson-finding-neverland-sam-smyth-4529933-Mar2019/

 

[Sweeney Swift]

Footage has been uncovered of MJ going ring shopping with a young James Safechuck (he showed some of the rings with hesitation during the Leaving Neverland documentary)

Click to shrink...

Here is another news report where someone who worked at Zales talks about how the police were called because Michael seemed very nervous and kept adjusting his mustache and was in a disguise, so they thought he was a robber. The whole time the 12 year old boy was talking for the both of them because Michael didn't want to talk because his voice would be recognized. The police let Michael go when they realized who he was and he gave the security guard at Zales an autograph.

Click to shrink...

 

[Carolina Reaper]

Remember, if your goal is to cast aspersions on Wade by claiming he lied during the first two trials, all you're actually doing is acknowledging that he was molested.

 

[Deleted member 12790]

This episode of the Last Podcast on the Left is entirely dedicated to going to one of the many "Michael Jackson is Innocent" websites and systematically debunking their claims: https://soundcloud.com/lastpodcastontheleft/side-stories-leaving-neverland

 

[El Bombastico]

Remember, if your goal is to cast aspersions on Wade by claiming he lied during the first two trials, all you're actually doing is acknowledging that he was molested.

Click to shrink...

You should put this in bold red letters.

 

[Bakercat]

I am not sure if I can watch a documentary about this subject. It is sickening.

Click to shrink...

I watch about 1 and 1/2 hours today and I had to stop for the day because I felt like I was gonna vomit from stomach pain. Its something that should be watched, but its clear to me I'm gonna need to take periodic breaks.

 

[Deleted member 12790]

The Onion takes a shot at being an MJ defender:

https://entertainment.theonion.com/...e-questions-why-accusers-only-comi-1833105791

SANTA BARBARA, CA—Noting that the timing of the allegations appeared to be "a little too perfect," a lawyer representing Michael Jackson's estate questioned Wednesday why those accusing the late pop icon of child sexual abuse had only come forward steadily since the early 1990s. "It seems awfully convenient that all these people suddenly decided to come out of the woodwork on a regular basis over the course of a quarter century," said Jonathan Steinsapir, explaining that he also found it quite suspicious that some had chosen to make their accusations as grown men instead of doing so back in the '90s like so many other children did. "This all seems like quite the coincidence to me. Are we to believe that one man with access to a private Peter Pan–themed ranch, a multimillion-dollar legal team, and a rabid fanbase willing to ignore his considerable eccentricities could just molest a bunch of kids without us finding out about more than a handful of them per year since 1992? That's a bit far-fetched." Steinsapir added that suspecting a grown man of sexual misconduct simply because he made a habit of inviting underage fans to sleepovers in which they shared his bed was unfair and "frankly just cynical."

 

[Brinbe]

Said this in the past topic, but at this point anyone that still believes him should probably watch the 4 hour doc+Oprah interview, then watch that recently uncovered footage of MJ+Safechuck and then get back to us about how he's innocent and we're all just out to destroy his reputation.

Michael Jackson was a pedophile serial sexual abuser.

 

[Ebullientprism]

You CANNOT label the accusers as liars or frauds or similar.

Click to shrink...

I appreciate the effort but the same thing that was happening in the other thread will happen here.

MJ stans wont outright call the accusers liars or frauds. Its just gonna be variations of "I am not sure I believe them"/"I find it hard to believe..."

 

[Bakercat]

I haven't gotten to part 2 yet, but from the interactions mentioned with Michael, it seems he didn't like women, or at least viewed them in a negative opinion. I wonder if that played a role?

 

[Kyuuji]

I am not sure if I can watch a documentary about this subject. It is sickening.

Click to shrink...

If you have the ability to, I really would make an effort to. It's horrific and unsettling but incredibly important in understanding just how insidious Michael's actions were.

Also the Oprah interview is a required watch if you make it through. They cover a number of points about abuse, how it manifests and how complex an issue it is to deal with.

 

[Deckerd]

I haven't gotten to part 2 yet, but from the interactions mentioned with Michael, it seems he didn't like women, or at least viewed them in a negative opinion. I wonder if that played a role?

Click to shrink...

To me it seemed more like he was saying those things to manipulate the boys into not developing interest in girls as they got older.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Has the Jackson estate or family responded since release? As I recall it they were fighting hard against the release but I hVent heard much from them since?

 

[Bakercat]

To me it seemed more like he was saying those things to manipulate the boys into not developing interest in girls as they got older.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, i thought that too, but it just seemed like a recurring thing, plus him specifically targeting little boys. I don't know, just something that caught my ear. Like i said i'm still in part 1, so i wasn't sure if its there in part 2 as well.

My mom who also watched noticed it too.

 

[Lifendz]

I had my doubts...or, like many people, I just didn't want to believe. MJ was my idol growing up. One of my fondest memories is the day my mother told me I wasn't going to school and when I asked why she said it's because we were going to the Michael Jackson concert in Madison Square Garden. And if that wasn't enough, when we got to our seats my Dad was there (he was in prison for most of my youth and I didn't know he was released). I don't think 90's or especially 2000's kids will understand just how much of a star he was...and the fact that he was using his stardom to manipulate families into giving him their children so he could sexually abuse them is just...I have no words. I can't even listen to his music anymore without thinking about what he was. Hopefully, James and Wade can find a way to repair the relationship with their mothers.

 

[Air]

Has the Jackson estate or family responded since release? As I recall it they were fighting hard against the release but I hVent heard much from them since?

Click to shrink...

The kids are apparently considering suing the doc film makers, Brandi has done a couple of talks about Wade, and Taj has spoken about it a lot. From what I read, according to the family, they didn't think this would be a big deal and didn't want to address it because they thought it'd blow up more.

 

[Shy]

Are both parts of the documentary on HBO Go?

Click to shrink...

They are. And if you can stomach it. Please watch the Oprah special (which is also on HBO) after the two parts.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

The kids are apparently considering suing the doc film makers, Brandi has done a couple of talks about Wade, and Taj has spoken about it a lot. From what I read, according to the family, they didn't think this would be a big deal and didn't want to address it because they thought it'd blow up more.

Click to shrink...

interesting. ty.

 

[Driggonny]

Just finished the 2 parts. Oof

Edit: Started the Oprah interview. Might not continue today, but my god James Safechuck looks like an absolute wreck :(

 

[Deleted member 48897]

It is also worth keeping in mind that even though Corey Feldman says he was not sexually assaulted by Jackson, his experience (in his own words) matches all the other details provided by the victims in the documentary: his tweet on the documentary agreed "RIGHT UP 2 THE SEX PART". Given that people trying to cast aspersions on the documentary have taken Feldman's comments as credible testimony that Jackson's behavior did not include sexual abuse of children, they would be admitting that Jackson was still engaging in the grooming and emotional abuse of children. Behavior that people should rightly condemn as unacceptable.

 

[Deleted member 42055]

I'm sure this thread iteration of this topic will go well and not be absolutely exhausting+infuriating 😓

 

[Kyuuji]

I'm sure this thread iteration of this topic will go well and not be absolutely exhausting+infuriating 😓

Click to shrink...

I'm thankful that we have a number of the long-repeated talking points from the prior thread on the first page though, for people that are genuinely curious.

Better than the last one where the main ones were seeking to discredit elements around the fringe while ignoring the main issues.

 

[Deleted member 12790]

One thing that particularly upsets me regarding Michael Jackson defenders is how many of their arguments are appeals directly to those who didn't watch the documentary. They openly tell people not to watch it, and misrepresent easily verified things. Like MJ's niece, the one who says the documentary wouldn't tell you that MJ set them up with each other. Well, the documentary doesn't mention her specifically, but it absolutely talks about Jackson's role in Wade's sex life outside the abuse. The documentary brings it up explicitly, Wade talks about how as he got older and he and MJ stopped having sex, MJ would live vicariously through him and would try to get wade to talk at length about his sex with other women.

Lots of these defenses begin with "THE DOCUMENTARY WON'T TELL YOU THIS," when the documentary touches on these subjects in depth, which is a tell-tale sign that they're aimed at people who didn't watch the documentary. That's a super underhanded tactic. People who are all about character and shit should take into consideration how much of the defense of MJ relies on keeping people from actually ingesting the documentary to begin with.

 

[Shy]

I'm sure this thread iteration of this topic will go well and not be absolutely exhausting+infuriating 😓

Click to shrink...

TBF. They seem to staying to the other thread, for now.

 

[Air]

One thing that particularly upsets me regarding Michael Jackson defenders is how many of their arguments are appeals directly to those who didn't watch the documentary. They openly tell people not to watch it, and misrepresent easily verified things. Like MJ's niece, the one who says the documentary wouldn't tell you that MJ set them up with each other. Well, the documentary doesn't mention her specifically, but it absolutely talks about Jackson's role in Wade's sex life outside the abuse. The documentary brings it up explicitly, Wade talks about how as he got older and he and MJ stopped having sex, MJ would live vicariously through him and would try to get wade to talk at length about his sex with other women.

Lots of these defenses begin with "THE DOCUMENTARY WON'T TELL YOU THIS," when the documentary touches on these subjects in depth, which is a tell-tale sign that they're aimed at people who didn't watch the documentary. That's a super underhanded tactic. People who are all about character and shit should take into consideration how much of the defense of MJ relies on keeping people from actually ingesting the documentary to begin with.

Click to shrink...

The niece not being mentioned is weird though, given that Wade said MJ told him not to trust women, that they're bad and so on. Brandi saying that Wade asked MJ to introduce them personally and that he did is a critical point no? Brandi isn't mad at the director for not including her because she thinks Wade didn't even tell him about her. That's a pretty big issue to overlook

 

[xxracerxx]

The niece not being mentioned is weird though, given that Wade said MJ told him not to trust women, that they're bad and so on. Brandi saying that Wade asked MJ to introduce them personally and that he did is a critical point no? Brandi isn't mad at the director for not including her because she thinks Wade didn't even tell him about her. That's a pretty big issue to overlook

Click to shrink...

Wade can still be abused while with her AND still have Jackson grooming into him that women are not something to pursue.

The whole Brandi relationship really means squat when it doesn't negate the abuse.

 

[Deleted member 12790]

The niece not being mentioned is weird though, given that Wade said MJ told him not to trust women, that they're bad and so on. Brandi saying that Wade asked MJ to introduce them personally and that he did is a critical point no? Brandi isn't mad at the director for not including her because she thinks Wade didn't even tell him about her. That's a pretty big issue to overlook

Click to shrink...

It's really not a big issue to overlook at all. Who the fuck is she? Her dating wade doesn't offer any new insight at all.

You seem to think a maladjusted predator being contradictory is weird. That's what the fuck they're all about. Sort of like how they can tell their victims they love them, despite cruelly throwing them away later (which is proven and verifiable). MJ being inconsistent is hardly a revelation.

 

[ValiantChaos]

The niece not being mentioned is weird though, given that Wade said MJ told him not to trust women, that they're bad and so on. Brandi saying that Wade asked MJ to introduce them personally and that he did is a critical point no? Brandi isn't mad at the director for not including her because she thinks Wade didn't even tell him about her. That's a pretty big issue to overlook

Click to shrink...

Dan Reed said it best in an Austrailian interview a few days ago. Wade met his wife when he was 18 or 19. Brandi being in a "7" year relationship would mean that Wade was like 12 when they started "dating" when the abuse was still going, Both could be true. Him persueing Brandi and still being abused with Michael at the same time.

 

[Air]

Wade can still be abused while with her AND still have Jackson grooming into him that women are not something to pursue.

I understand he could still be grooming him behind the scenes. I'm just saying, taken at face value, it's something that if it was added, could have been built up in the doc and addressed directly. I'd be more confident in the doc if they addressed those points and struck them down. That makes for a strong case. Now, it just sounds like a missing piece of the story (even if it isn't)

The whole Brandi relationship really means squat when it doesn't negate the abuse.

Click to shrink...

It's really not a big issue to overlook at all. Who the fuck is she? Her dating wade doesn't offer any new insight at all.

You seem to think a maladjusted predator being contradictory is weird. That's what the fuck they're all about. Sort of like how they can tell their victims they love them, despite cruelly throwing them away later (which is proven and verifiable). MJ being inconsistent is hardly a revelation.

Click to shrink...

It matters because they dated during the time of the alleged abuse. Yes, a maladjusted predator can do those kind of things, but for me, that provides room for doubt. Brandi talks more about his character, and if we're to take the his recollection of events seriously, a lot of it is contingent on his character, which for me, is flawed and that casts doubt on a lot of his claims. It's not impossible to watch the doc, the oprah talk and consume a bunch of other information about this and come out with a different conclusion.

Dan Reed said it best in an Austrailian interview a few days ago. Wade met his wife when he was 18 or 19. Brandi being in a "7" year relationship would mean that Wade was like 12 when they started "dating" when the abuse was still going, Both could be true. Him persueing Brandi and still being abused with Michael at the same time.

Click to shrink...

I know this. They dated until they hit around 19-20 years old. She was her first according to her. I just think that we should listen to the testimonies, but that doesn't mean I have to buy everything the man says. I know how predators work, but a lot of Leaving Neverland is Wade's testimony, and I think it's a big ask of people to take the word of someone with (depending on your perspective) character flaws and issues with lying (I'm not talking about him testifying either, I understand that abuse victims can stick up for their, but Wade has lied to Brandi multiple times, and if I recall, has called himself a "Master Manipulator").

 

[Deleted member 12790]

It matters because they dated during the time of the alleged abuse.

Click to shrink...

Again, why does that matter at all? You are aware that these guys identify as straight? People can be contradictory. MJ also told him to be suspicious of his mother, and yet he still chose to live with her over his dad, so some 12 year old sexual molestation victim acting confused is hardly surprising at all.

If his own mother didn't know he was being sexually abused, why the fuck would MJ's niece?

Yes, a maladjusted predator can do those kind of things, but for me, that provides room for doubt. Brandi talks more about his character, and if we're to take the his recollection of events seriously, a lot of it is contingent on his character, which for me, is flawed and that casts doubt on a lot of his claims. It's not impossible to watch the doc, the oprah talk and consume a bunch of other information about this and come out with a different conclusion

Click to shrink...

Someone's character has absolutely no baring at all on whether or not they were sexually abused. Wades claims are consistent with multiple people who claim they were abused by Jackson.

 

[Deleted member 10629]

It is also worth keeping in mind that even though Corey Feldman says he was not sexually assaulted by Jackson, his experience (in his own words) matches all the other details provided by the victims in the documentary: his tweet on the documentary agreed "RIGHT UP 2 THE SEX PART". Given that people trying to cast aspersions on the documentary have taken Feldman's comments as credible testimony that Jackson's behavior did not include sexual abuse of children, they would be admitting that Jackson was still engaging in the grooming and emotional abuse of children. Behavior that people should rightly condemn as unacceptable.

Click to shrink...

IMO he and Maculay were just too high profile for him to molest. I don't doubt Maculay is telling the truth when he says that he wasnt assasulted, and to my recollection he hasnt said that the other victims are lying or something like that.

 

[Deleted member 17658]

Had to stop watching midway through several times not because of how long it is (its over 4 hours) but because alot of the details was really disturbing.

In a way, I'm glad I watch it but not happy it happened. Really changed my mind on the topic.

 

[Air]

Again, why does that matter at all? You are aware that these guys identify as straight? People can be contradictory. MJ also told him to be suspicious of his mother, and yet he still chose to live with her over his dad, so some 12 year old sexual molestation victim acting confused is hardly surprising at all.

Click to shrink...

I know they identify as straight. It seems we're at an impasse here. You're willing to believe more of what he says because states his victim hood. I just think there are holes in his story and his character.

If his own mother didn't know he was being sexually abused, why the fuck would MJ's niece?

Click to shrink...

Well depending on their relationship it could have been something they could have talked about. Everybody handles abuse differently. Some people can confront their abusers and others can't. But at the time, she would probably know his schedule better than anyone else, what he'd be doing at any given day, how often he'd be at neverland, etc. Like do you think she has no information at all? Especially on what would essentially be her home turf?

Someone's character has absolutely no baring at all on whether or not they were sexually abused. Wades claims are consistent with multiple people who claim they were abused by Jackson.

Click to shrink...

Of course someone's character doesn't have a baring on whether they've been abused or not. You're putting words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that we're getting an hour plus of him talking about his personal experience. We have photos and videos of some of stuff they did together (and faxes), but for bigger claims, we just have his word. Now if you put your trust in his word 100%, that's fine. It makes no mess for me, but I don't.

 

[Deleted member 12790]

But at the time, she would probably know his schedule better than anyone else, what he'd be doing at any given day, how often he'd be at neverland, etc. Like do you think she has no information at all? Especially on what would essentially be her home turf?

Click to shrink...

And? She doesn't dispute any of his claims about being at Neverland or on tour with Jackson. She doesn't dispute they had lots of alone time together. She doesn't dispute any of that shit.

but for bigger claims, we just have his word. Now if you put your trust in his word 100%, that's fine. It makes no mess for me, but I don't.

Click to shrink...

No, we don't "just have his word," we have the words of many kids, which corroborate the claims. We have a distinct pattern that's visible.

"Holes in his story" is some straight horseshit. What the fuck does that mean?

 

[jetpacks was yes]

Man, just finished the doc and what a gut punch that was. How are people still defending MJ?

 

[Air]

And? She doesn't dispute any of his claims about being at Neverland or on tour with Jackson. She doesn't dispute they had lots of alone time together. She doesn't dispute any of that shit.

Click to shrink...

She talked about how in the Doc, Wade made Neverland seem like it was a quiet place with only the kid and maybe his mom there. She talks about there being a bunch of kids at the same time in these situations. She essentially said there were almost always a lot of kids there at once

No, we don't "just have his word," we have the words of many kids, which corroborate the claims. We have a distinct pattern that's visible.

"Holes in his story" is some straight horseshit. What the fuck does that mean?

Click to shrink...

When it comes to the sex stuff it's his word. Most other people who have come out have said everything is more or less the same up to the sex stuff (which is what I've always disputed with the doc).

As I said before, you're taking Wade's word at face value and I'm not. I've watched the doc, got a bunch of other insight from the family, read a bunch into it. I'm well versed and my position is informed. I'm not trying to convince you that Wade is a liar or whatever. I don't care what you believe, but I just think it's weird to totally dismiss a point of view about a character who could have insight into someone's life. She knows Wade better than any of us do. If you want to dismiss her because you believe she wouldn't have any information into what Wade and MJ's personal time together was like, that's fine, but I don't think a couple who was dating for 7 years, someone and who Wade tried to reconnect with after MJ died (while he was married), would have no insight into each other. Like I'm not boosting her as a truth bomb for Wade, because I don't think it is. But character matters to me, and she helped inform some parts about Wade that wasn't known before

 

[xxracerxx]

She talked about how in the Doc, Wade made Neverland seem like it was a quiet place with only the kid and maybe his mom there. She talks about there being a bunch of kids at the same time in these situations. She essentially said there were almost always a lot of kids there.

Click to shrink...

Wade also says this.

When it comes to the sex stuff it's his word. Most other people who have come out have said everything is more or less the same up to the sex stuff (which is what I've always disputed with the doc).

Click to shrink...

I mean, the other accusers are on the same page of the "sex stuff."

 

[Deleted member 12790]

She talked about how in the Doc, Wade made Neverland seem like it was a quiet place with only the kid and maybe his mom there. She talks about there being a bunch of kids at the same time in these situations. She essentially said there were almost always a lot of kids there.

Click to shrink...

....Wade specifically talks about that in the documentary, how Michael would pull Wade aside for a few moments while they were with big groups of people and molest him. She's confirming his timeline.

When it comes to the sex stuff it's his word. Most other people who have come out have said everything is more or less the same up to the sex stuff (which is what I've always disputed with the doc).

Click to shrink...

"His word" corresponds to the words of the other sex abuse victims. Wade is not saying anything that other victims aren't also saying.

 

[Mavis]

I watch about 1 and 1/2 hours today and I had to stop for the day because I felt like I was gonna vomit from stomach pain. Its something that should be watched, but its clear to me I'm gonna need to take periodic breaks.

Click to shrink...

My wife who's a Doctor and has had a lot of experience in child welfare via running drug clinics and mental health work couldn't watch it, got 90 minutes in and had to stop. How people can't see the pain these men are going through is completely beyond me.

 

[Air]

Wade also says this.

I mean, the other accusers are on the same page of the "sex stuff."

Click to shrink...

I could have forgotten his mention of it. Which accusers? Jimmy or the trials? I was talking about Corey Feldman and that other guy who came out a few weeks ago.

....Wade specifically talks about that in the documentary, how Michael would pull Wade aside for a few moments while they were with big groups of people and molest him. She's confirming his timeline.

Click to shrink...

If she's confirming it good. So why wouldn't you want to hear more from her?

 

[Deleted member 12790]

If she's confirming it good. So why wouldn't you want to hear more from her?

Click to shrink...

Because the rest is character assassination bullshit. Why do we need to hear about how Wade broke up Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake's relationship? She wants an audience so she can sling these victims through the mud. We don't need her to confirm shit, there are other people already corroborating this stuff.