What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Leaving Neverland

bileduct

Coach
Messages
17,832
I have seen a lot of people claim that if these two are lying then they are the best actors/liars to have ever lived.

Even though if Wade Robson is telling the truth now it means he was lying for 20 years including in court and numerous live TV appearances.
I didn't think they were great actors in the "documentary" at all. It's pretty easy to sit there and lie through your teeth about something when nobody is challenging you.

In fact, if you listen closely, the interviewer even seems to be egging them on. At one point one of the two grifters mentions something about returning to Neverland Ranch with his friend Michael Jackson, and the interviewer butts in and says "your lover" which the grifter repeats.

A cross examination of their stories would have made them look very, very different.
 

bileduct

Coach
Messages
17,832
To me, the biggest indicator that Wade Robson was telling the truth in 2005 and is lying now, is that they put him on the stand in 2005 as the key witness for the defence.

According to Mesereau they had dozens of witnesses they could have used, but Robson volunteered and was emphatic about wanting to defend him. If what Robson says is saying now is true I don't think there's any way Michael would have allowed him to be put on the stand and cross examined by prosecutors.

As far as Safechuck goes, here's what one of Michael Jackson's private investigators has to say about his claim that Jackson was begging him to give testimony at the 2005 trial.

 

Springs09

Juniors
Messages
1,903
I didn't think they were great actors in the "documentary" at all. It's pretty easy to sit there and lie through your teeth about something when nobody is challenging you.

In fact, if you listen closely, the interviewer even seems to be egging them on. At one point one of the two grifters mentions something about returning to Neverland Ranch with his friend Michael Jackson, and the interviewer butts in and says "your lover" which the grifter repeats.

A cross examination of their stories would have made them look very, very different.

I haven’t seen it, it’s just been all over the news and everyone is outraged as usual so I looked some things up.

I’ve no idea on Jackson’s innocence but for his music to be pulled and everything over this is indicative of the silly culture we live in now. What gives these two more credibility than the two that he went to court over in 1993 and 2005? Documentaries are often little different than media spin. The first aim of this is to make money, which it gets more of the more controversial and newsworthy it is. The second aim is to pull viewers to their side, something which nearly all documentaries do regardless of how impartial they claim to be. And despite the director claiming he took no sides and wanted the stories to tell themselves, he didn’t bother to contact any of the former child friends like Corey Feldman or Macaulay Culkin who have defended Jackson in the past even though he tried to contact Jordan Chandler and the one from 2005 whose name escapes me.

Someone with good editing skills could get two actors and come up with stories of abuse about anyone and people would believe it. It’s Homer Simpson in his sexual powers shower curtain type stuff.
 

Eelementary

Post Whore
Messages
56,107
I am certain I read somewhere that the director of "Leaving Neverland" decided not to pursue the story from the other angle (ie: Jackson's defence), because it was important to hear the victims' voice.

While I agree that sexual molestation and paedophilia are very serious issues, I think it speaks volumes that he claims he made a documentary, trying to uncover the truth - but played it all from only one angle...
 

bileduct

Coach
Messages
17,832
I am certain I read somewhere that the director of "Leaving Neverland" decided not to pursue the story from the other angle (ie: Jackson's defence), because it was important to hear the victims' voice.

While I agree that sexual molestation and paedophilia are very serious issues, I think it speaks volumes that he claims he made a documentary, trying to uncover the truth - but played it all from only one angle...
He also said during his interview with Piers Morgan that people giving an opposing view had a financial incentive to lie, and that Michael Jackson's protests of innocence as shown in the "documentary" were a sufficient opposing view.
 

Rhino_NQ

Immortal
Messages
33,045
Considering how much Michael Moore has made only giving one side of a story in documentaries i dont really blame him for giving it a go
 

axl rose

Bench
Messages
4,936
Considering how much Michael Moore has made only giving one side of a story in documentaries i dont really blame him for giving it a go
True though not so much lately. Fahrenheit 11/9 bombed badly at the box office. I think even lefties have realized how full of shit he is. That or they just get their propaganda fix elsewhere online.
 

Lemon Squash

First Grade
Messages
7,982
For those doubting how the young boys could have been so easily manipulated and supportive of Michael Jackson as kids and then decide to turn against him later on... watch ‘Abducted in Plain Sight’ on Netflix

Different set of circumstances but similarly a peadophile completely duped his child victim just like MJ is accused of doing.. quite interesting comparison
 

Springs09

Juniors
Messages
1,903
Its not that he was supportive as Jackson as a kid, he was supportive of Jackson for 20 years including appearing in court as a grown man before changing his mind a few years ago.
 

bileduct

Coach
Messages
17,832
For those doubting how the young boys could have been so easily manipulated and supportive of Michael Jackson as kids and then decide to turn against him later on... watch ‘Abducted in Plain Sight’ on Netflix

Different set of circumstances but similarly a peadophile completely duped his child victim just like MJ is accused of doing.. quite interesting comparison
Did MJ dupe Safechuck so badly that he seems to have conjured up locations for the abuse that didn't even exist at the time he claims it happened?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/45819/report-leaving-neverland-discrepancy-found-key-jeffrey-cawood

Also, isn't it kind of ironic that Robson's and Safechuck's lawyer is now claiming that the documents recovered from Robson during his lawsuit that relate to him shopping around a book proposal are "biased" and "one sided?"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...chael-Jackson-sex-abuse-claims-tell-book.html
 
Last edited:

Rhino_NQ

Immortal
Messages
33,045
something seems off. I dont doubt some stuff still happened but it looks like they have taken the nrl journalist approach to it
 

Lemon Squash

First Grade
Messages
7,982
Its not that he was supportive as Jackson as a kid, he was supportive of Jackson for 20 years including appearing in court as a grown man before changing his mind a few years ago.

Robson did correct... Safechuck refused to as an older man.

Of course both of them are after money their lives have gone to shit but I believe he did abuse them.

We will never no for sure you can make strong cases both ways.
 

Lemon Squash

First Grade
Messages
7,982
Did MJ dupe Safechuck so badly that he seems to have conjured up locations for the abuse that didn't even exist at the time he claims it happened?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/45819/report-leaving-neverland-discrepancy-found-key-jeffrey-cawood

Also, isn't it kind of ironic that Robson's and Safechuck's lawyer is now claiming that the documents recovered from Robson during his lawsuit that relate to him shopping around a book proposal are "biased" and "one sided?"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...chael-Jackson-sex-abuse-claims-tell-book.html

So he got details of one area he was abused wrong 20 odd years after the fact? Doesn’t seem overly surprising to me.

Of course the documentary was one sided, no argument from me there. Doesn’t change my opinion, I’ve always been an MJ defender and have seen heaps of evidence over the years where I thought it was always BS conspiracy to bring him down. This doco has convinced me otherwise.
 

Springs09

Juniors
Messages
1,903
Everyone has been saying that the details of their testimonies is why they believe it’s true and not made up. So yes to get such a big detail as a place that didn’t exist yet or the age the abuse stopped is a big indicator he is lying.

I don’t know about you but I can generally remember the difference between what happened to me at 14 and what happened at 16. Something as big as being raped by one of the biggest superstars that ever lived is something I doubt I’d get my age at the time mixed up over, especially when I can apparently recall every other detail with 100% accuracy.
 

bileduct

Coach
Messages
17,832
So he got details of one area he was abused wrong 20 odd years after the fact? Doesn’t seem overly surprising to me.
I wouldn't be surprised if he couldn't remember what MJ was wearing, what day of the week it was, even what month of the year. But he gave a precise location of where an assault took place which couldn't have possibly happened within years of the time frame he claimed it did. That's a major problem that raises serious questions about Safechuck's credibility.

Of course the documentary was one sided, no argument from me there. Doesn’t change my opinion, I’ve always been an MJ defender and have seen heaps of evidence over the years where I thought it was always BS conspiracy to bring him down. This doco has convinced me otherwise.
So a one sided documentary in which precisely no evidence or eyewitness testimony was produced to support the tales told by these two guys convinced you? A documentary that completely ignores Robson's repeated attempts to enrich himself over the years with book deals being negotiated before he went public with his story, and desperate attempts to draw MJ's production companies into his lawsuits so he could extract money from them? The very basis of his lawsuit is entirely contradicted by his own mother's testimony of events.

How about the "Robson Family Fund" that was set up just in time for the documentary?

I'm sorry, but a closer examination of Robson in particular suggests there is a financial motive behind his allegations. Safechuck jumping on the wagon after Robson went public with them both sharing the same lawyer gives me no confidence that he is telling the truth along with his story falling apart.
 

Latest posts

Top