MovieChat Forums > Leaving Neverland (2019) Discussion > Why I don't believe these two

Why I don't believe these two

posted 5 years ago by [deleted]
9 replies | jump to latest

1) Wade went on tv and said as a boy nothing happened. You wouldn't risk your victim doing this if you were engaging in sex, too risky. You'd just ship them off to Brazil or somewhere to lay low.

2) Wade was a defence witness during the trial. I understand that some victims defend their abusers, but he claims mj coached him by phone every day leading up to it. Wrong, MJ was bugged by police and FBI. No evidence!

3) sodomy is alleged. No man is going to defend someone who sodomised then. Period!

4) Wade praised MJ after his death. Gushingly.

5) safechuck referred to his sex as while he was dating Michael. Dating? Who's the sicko?!?!

6) they claim MJ told the Robson's to move from Australia to live with them. Truth be told, MJ said in Australia "come to la, you got talent, I'll help" and they did two years later, and had to stalk MJ to have a meeting. MJ felt obligated to take them in. He wasn't close to wade. He helped him because he wanted to pay it forward.

[–] captainbucky (15252) 5 years ago

I agree

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

May I ask, how many testators saying the same thing would get you to belidve?

[–] kenburke (2287) 5 years ago

Sexual abuse is a horrifying, shameful thing. Add to that the superstar status of Michael Jackson and it is easy to see why victims would lie.

[–] Starduster (268) 5 years ago

So the idea is to wait until 10 years after his death and then bring forth accusations against a person who is in no position to defend himself?
It seems the standard operating procedure is to wait until a lucrative offer comes along and suddenly come up with a story that will "sell" and where there is little risk of repercussions. What is the risk of stabbing a dead guy in the back.
While Jackson was living, was there any sort of moral responsibility on their part to see that other kids weren't abused if they genuinely felt that Jackson was such a threat?
OR; is it just more convenient now that they can make a profit now and sell a story with little moral responsibility at all.
FOLLOW THE MONEY and see who ends up profiting here.
Then reap the benefits of playing "victim" and reap some sympathy as well.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

The risk should be very evident, on this board, and in your post, alone.

The risk is being maligned and accused of being golddiggers.

From what I've read, they did not have any idea of "waiting until 10 years after his death," although that is what happened.

The reality is neither you nor I know if Michael Jackson did this or not. IF he did, it certainly should come out, and they deserve sympathy.

[–] Starduster (268) 5 years ago

I have dropped out of a discussion in another thread and will do the same here.
There is no possibility of a meaningful discussion with people who refuse to look at the historic facts of the individuals making the accusations (now) as well as the historic facts of multiple investigations into Jackson and his activities and the possibilities of the accusations being true. No credible evidence was found. This also means that the evidence to support their current claims doesnt exist and didnt exist.
While I completely understand that children may not wish to speak of the abuses, these 2 accusers continued to VOLUNTARILY come to Jacksons defense, even into adulthood. Would YOU ask to be included at the funeral of your abuser to PRAISE him for all that he contributed to your life?
Both of these men attempted a lawsuit several years after Jacksons death. The courts threw it out for lack of evidence and credibility. They tried to put these accusations in a book. No publisher would get near it. So NOW they find Reed to make this so called "documentary" of information that cant be documented. If this wasnt being marketed the way it is, it might well be considered child porn.
Safechuck "came on board" after Robson claiming that he he suddenly (AS A MATURE ADULT MALE) took a look back and concluded that what he experienced in his childhood may have been abusive.

I told myself that I wouldnt reduce myself to smut. Let me say this as delicately as possible. Genital contact at whatever age can be a pleasurable experience. One might not "complain" but still feel guilty or ashamed and embarrassed. Anal penetration is RAPE and it HURTS. If someone HURTS you, you understand PAIN. At some point, you will KNOW its abuse. Kids that endure such pain do so because they are in situations they are FORCED to be in. It could be a parent, relative, a person in a position of authority or prisoners. were these kids FORCED to be there or forced to return for more abuse?

To be continued

[–] drhouse (79) 5 years ago

the documentary clearly explained both victims found that the one or two attempts at anal penetration were unacceptably uncomfortable to continue, so they went back to other stuff

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

1. If you knew you'd brainwashed your victim thoroughly enough, it's not that high of a risk and the benefit of being defended could outweigh any risk.

2. Can't comment much on this, except to say if all of MJ's phones were bugged during this period, then either Wade was outright lying, or exaggerating.

3. You just got through saying in 2) you understand some victims defend their abusers. which is true. It's not uncommon for boys who were molested to by molested by sodomy. If this happened, they were children when it happened, not men.

4. This could be a result of many years of grooming, and denial. I'm not saying it is, because I don't know, but he wouldn't be the first.

5. If MJ referred to their relationship as "dating," it wouldn't be surprising that his victim does too.

6. Can't comment, don't know enough about that.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

It's not uncommon for abused children to deny the abuse.