Leaving Neverland

Ome

Admin
Messages
11,372
Reaction score
17,522
He was in a 10 year relationship with Brandi Jackson, had numerous affairs
I'm not sure what someones past history with relationships has to do with it.

From what I understood, he tried to live a normal life and I'm assuming that happens with many victims of abuse. Like they are in a state of denial.

You don't get to 23 years old and have no idea if someone abused you if you're out having sex with anyone you can
I don't know what goes through the mind of someone that has suffered sexual abuse, so I can't comment on whether that's actually correct.

silly me.
You don't have to put yourself down just because you have a different opinion.
 

James from London

Telly Talk Superstar
Top Poster Of Month
Messages
4,326
Reaction score
5,178
Location
Brixton
Medals
5
Member Since
Time immemorial
Sometimes children who have been abused become “sexualised” earlier than they would otherwise have done and go on to have more sexual relationships, because their perception of who they are has been affected by the abuse.

To say that someone can’t have been abused if they’ve had a lot of sex is a little like citing a woman’s sexual history when she claims to have been raped.
 

pete lashmar

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
Messages
609
Reaction score
695
Location
Portugal
I'm not sure what someones past history with relationships has to do with it.

From what I understood, he tried to live a normal life and I'm assuming that happens with many victims of abuse. Like they are in a state of denial.


I don't know what goes through the mind of someone that has suffered sexual abuse, so I can't comment on whether that's actually correct.


You don't have to put yourself down just because you have a different opinion.
A normal life? Have you come across anyone that spoke about Wade or his mother in a positive way. He was a very unliked person. A man who was full of himself and his own self importance. A man who thrived on being part of Jackson's life - right up until he didn't the Cirque job.

The vast majority of people who have been sexually abused have big problems with intimacy and/or relationships. Wade hasn't had problems with either.

His accounts of dates and times have been consistently incorrect, in lengthy emails to his mother they found timelines between them that worked for his claims in the documentary.

His court case against Jackson brought to light the book he was trying to sell to publishers about the abuse from Jackson - the Judge got very angry with him because even in the draft versions (there were a few) all the details changed from one draft to another, and again on his abuse court claim, they had changed again.

Wade Robson is an out and out liar and the sooner people understand his past they'll understand why he's now appealing and still trying to sue the Jackson Estate for hundreds of millions of dollars.

He lied about knowing there was an Estate looking after Jackson's interests, again, the judge called him a liar since he applied for the Cirque job through it.

It's not just his word against a dead man, there's so much evidence as to what kind of man he is - dishonest.
 

pete lashmar

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
Messages
609
Reaction score
695
Location
Portugal
Sometimes children who have been abused become “sexualised” earlier than they would otherwise have done and go on to have more sexual relationships, because their perception of who they are has been affected by the abuse.

To say that someone can’t have been abused if they’ve had a lot of sex is a little like citing a woman’s sexual history when she claims to have been raped.
I understand that, but when someone claims they never saw it as abuse but go on to have a normal sex life where no abuse is involved, by 23 and standing in a court under oath you'd expect them to tell the truth - because at that point, before they open their lips on the stand, they know whether they are lying or not.
 

James from London

Telly Talk Superstar
Top Poster Of Month
Messages
4,326
Reaction score
5,178
Location
Brixton
Medals
5
Member Since
Time immemorial
by 23 and standing in a court under oath you'd expect them to tell the truth - because at that point, before they open their lips on the stand, they know whether they are lying or not.
That point was addressed in the documentary.
 

pete lashmar

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
Messages
609
Reaction score
695
Location
Portugal
That point was addressed in the documentary.
I don't think it was really.

In 2005, during Jackson's trial, Wade, at 23 was very happy with his life and most importantly he still had connections with Jackson, who had really helped him with his career.

He took the stand and was grilled for over 2 hours, the transcripts are all available to view, though I doubt anyone supporting Wade here has ever read them. The prosecution did not relent with Wade, they pushed and pushed but he was adamant - Jackson had never touched him.

Now - if Jackson had abused him, why would he want Wade on the stand, knowing that the prosecution were going to do anything and everything they could to get a conviction. Why would he take such a risk?The simple answer is that is didn't happen - Wade was telling the truth.
 

Ome

Admin
Messages
11,372
Reaction score
17,522
Why would he take such a risk?
Because he got away with it in the early 90s, because he was still in touch with Wade and was very confident Wade would not reveal the truth.
 

pete lashmar

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
Messages
609
Reaction score
695
Location
Portugal
Because he got away with it in the early 90s, because he was still in touch with Wade and was very confident Wade would not reveal the truth.
Are you being serious?

You're suggesting that after 7 years of abuse...."Every night I was with Michael he abused me", 7 years,let's just get that clear in our heads, Jackson wanted him as his star witness, up against a prosecution that wanted him behind bars.

I really think you need to look back at previous claims also, the trial was a joke, the family had endless counts of extortion aimed at them from other celebrities, the evidence was a joke and the jury cleared Jackson of everything.

Now, let's go to Safechuck because he's been left out a fair bit.


Jimmy Safechuck's family business went under and he was facing bankruptcy. He sees Wade on TV claiming abuse and suddenly realises he too was absused and gets in touch and gets the same attourney.

Together they contact their families through emails (all available online because the judge in their case demanded them), and together they found their timelines.

After the Chandler case, a fictional book was released, "Michael Jackson was my lover" by Victor Gutierrez. The book contains the story of a wedding ceremony - in fact a huge amount of what Safecuck says in the film is taken from this book - his whole language of the accounts is a direct copy from the book.

So, together they sue Jackson/the estate/whoever they can and the judge looks at all the evidence.

he looks as the drafts of Wade's book, he looks at emails from both and finds so many discrepancies on all manner of details be publicly shames them - but the case is thrown out as it's been filed too late.

Then Dan reed comes knocking.....an appeal is made to the courts.

Media goes mad and appeal is pending.

Doesn't take much to work through the lies and the set up.
 
Last edited:

Ome

Admin
Messages
11,372
Reaction score
17,522

pete lashmar

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
Messages
609
Reaction score
695
Location
Portugal
Yes, absolutely and all based on what I've seen and read.

Why would MJ pay off some of his accusers?
The fact that you even ask that question shows that you haven't read a lot of the facts at all.

Jackson paid the Chandler's 20m in the CIVIL trial because he was advised to.

The reasoning behind it was that if the civil trial went before the criminal trial, the prosecutors would have access to all the defense information prior to the criminal trial, leaving them wide open in a 2nd trial (the criminal one).

However, once the Chandler's got their money they walked away from the CRIMINAL trial and therefore the criminal trial, that could have put Jackson behind bars, never happened.

The case actually changed U.S Court Law so the Criminal trial has to be heard before the civil one.

A civil case is always brought for compensation - cash - money - nothing is given in a criminal trial, except jail time.

If you had a child who was abused would you want them behind bars or accept a nice pile of cash? That tells you who the Chandler's were.

Jackson stated it was the worst thing he ever did because every case against him since has followed the exact same accusations - it left him open and vunerable.

So - that's what happened with the pay off.
 
Last edited:

Ome

Admin
Messages
11,372
Reaction score
17,522
The fact that you even ask that question shows that you haven't read a lot of the facts at all.
We are discussing the documentary and I don't recall the reason given why he paid off those accusers.

because he was advised to.
that could have put Jackson behind bars

Thanks for explaining why he paid them off. Now I'm even more convinced he is guilty.

If you had a child who was abused would you want them behind bars or accept a nice pile of cash?
If I was accused of any kind of child abuse, I would never pay anyone off, to me that's sounds too much like a guilty man.

That tells you who the Chandler's were.
But this isn't about the child's parents, it's about a man accused of child abuse.
 

pete lashmar

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
Messages
609
Reaction score
695
Location
Portugal
We are discussing the documentary and I don't recall the reason given why he paid off those accusers.





Thanks for explaining why he paid them off. Now I'm even more convinced he is guilty.



If I was accused of any kind of child abuse, I would never pay anyone off, to me that's sounds too much like a guilty man.



But this isn't about the child's parents, it's about a man accused of child abuse.
You obviously have no conception of civil & criminal trials.

I really don't see any point of taking this forward if you are not going to educate yourself with facts and just reply with one line off the cuff comments.

Do some research because you obviously take what was said in the Documentary as 100% absolute truth without looking behind it all and seeing what led up to it and what the history of these 2 lairs are.

I have nothing left to say to you on this, if anyone else wants to have a debate I'm happy to.
 

Ome

Admin
Messages
11,372
Reaction score
17,522
You obviously have no conception of civil & criminal trials.
I don't have a lot of knowledge about that.

one line off the cuff comments
One line off the cuff? I am merely stating my own thoughts based on what I've seen and read. I prefer to stick with bullet points over long-winded replies, but that's just me. My comments are not just thrown together as you imply.

Do some research because you obviously take what was said in the Documentary as 100% absolute truth without looking behind it all and seeing what led up to it and what the history of these 2 lairs are.
I haven't got time to start researching Michael Jackson's past, hence why I ask questions in the thread, particularly to those who have a different opinion to me.

I have nothing left to say to you on this,



I thought the documentary was very straight forward, I got a real understanding of what these two guys went through as children. I'm happy to have my opinion challenged, however, I haven't felt that from you so it's probably wise we cut ties here and now.
 

pete lashmar

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
Messages
609
Reaction score
695
Location
Portugal
Of course it does. I just don't believe he's guilty is all and mentioned Paris because he was her father.
I can't even imagine how his kids are feeling. No one seems in any way concerned about their welfare as far as the media is concerned - the tabloid headlines of alleged abuse vs the "we don't give a crap" about his own kids, screams of double standards and hypocrisy.

Salacious Jackson headlines sell magazines and are great click bait - it's shameful.
 

pete lashmar

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
Messages
609
Reaction score
695
Location
Portugal
Comments like that (Streisand) don't help anyone, in fact they fuel a fire on both sides.

For someone who comments very often on political matters, it shows a lack of knowledge & education - in fact it was a downright insult to any victims of abuse.

Compare that comment to the supportive comments for Jackson of Diana Ross & Debbie Allen and you can see a huge difference on how people react.

Interestingly ratings for Leaving Neverland were very low, it flopped worldwide and the defense of Jackson is ongoing and getting more media attention.
 

Angela Channing

World Cup of Soaps Moderator
Messages
8,243
Reaction score
9,065
Medals
13
Member Since
1999
the defense of Jackson is ongoing and getting more media attention.
I've seen some but not all of the documentary but my understanding is that it is very one sided and tells the story as relayed by the 2 men involved and it doesn't really challenge their story to any great extent. That's why I believe the result of a court trial more than this documentary.

I recently read that Brandi Jackson, Michael niece as also defended her uncle. She was the girlfriend of Wade Robson, one of MJ's accusers, during the time when he claims the abuse was going on. She said that many of the times that he claimed he was at Neverland with MJ, he was either at home, with her or Michael was away travelling or working. Given her comments, I very much doubt whether Wade Robson's claims would stand up under the scrutiny of a court case.
 

Alexis

Telly Talk Hero
Messages
6,654
Reaction score
6,196
Medals
3
Member Since
July 2007
You obviously have no conception of civil & criminal trials.

I really don't see any point of taking this forward if you are not going to educate yourself with facts and just reply with one line off the cuff comments.

Do some research because you obviously take what was said in the Documentary as 100% absolute truth without looking behind it all and seeing what led up to it and what the history of these 2 lairs are.

I have nothing left to say to you on this, if anyone else wants to have a debate I'm happy to.
But you 100% believe Jackson was innocent and some higher being incapable of wrong doing. Your tone and bombastic defence of him and the total disregarding of anyone who holds a differing opinion to your own makes you seem more than a little biased and borderline obsessive. Nothing in the known world could convince you that Jackson was a kiddie fiddler but ya know what? There are a whole lot of people who always thought it, and then there a whole lot of new people who think it now. That's just how it is. No need to shut people down rudely or behave like a paid member of the Jackson legal team. It is what it is, keep on believing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ome
Top