MovieChat Forums > Leaving Neverland (2019) Discussion > You have to admit, THESE TWO ARE LYING a...

You have to admit, THESE TWO ARE LYING about this

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

A little background first.

There is a thing called a 'statute of limitations' that says you have 2 years to report sexual abuse. After that, too bad so sad. They are now making it 10 years in california.

Regardless, these two men, in 2013, were WAY TOO LATE.

But there is a legal loophole.

"If a survivor of sexual violence discovers an injury or illness that has resulted from an act of sexual assault, he or she can file a civil action for recovery of damages within three years of the date that the injury was discovered. This is important because psychological injuries and illnesses can appear many years after an incident of sexual violence."

So these two sued. And they presented to the court the story that they didn't understand it as abuse. Grown ass men who apparently were giving and receiving head, watching porn, etc, didn't understand this was abuse, despite police investigating it and the man the most famous "pedophile" in the world.

Not until 2013, with therapy, did they understand it was abuse at all.

LIES!

This is story to get around the statute of limitations.

I watched the Oprah interview and even she was like 'how can you not know it was abuse?' and 'you lied to your first therapist?'

Jimmy had a tale that he got a weird feeling after Wade came out and couldn't sleep and wondered why he was a bad person. Only when he had therapy did he understand it as abuse.

Both said because they pictured their child being abused but left out they had strange sexual feelings.

They are playing as idiots if they think they can say they didn't know what abuse was until 2013.

This is why their case got tossed. It's on appeal.

[–] Washingtonnative (2613) 5 years ago

They are not lying. And besides, how would you know if they are? Have you even in the past ever been inside Michael Jackson's house whenever he had little boys over?

[–] maul (1530) 5 years ago

This post is so hilariously ironic. How do YOU know they're NOT lying? If they're not lying now, they were lying for the past 30 years, including under oath and intense cross-examination. And they have vested financial interest. So, how the fuck, do YOU know they're "not lying"?

This is why we have innocent until proven guilty. It's not our job to prove to you that something didn't happen, the burden of proof is on the accuser, and these accusers are unreliable as fuck.

[–] Threadkiller (2952) 5 years ago

Either way you look at it, to believe these two boils down to taking it on faith the word of two agregious, determined liars.There is no way around that.

[–] whatwazdat (374) 5 years ago

Occam's Razor man... Which is a simpler explanation?

A. A grown man who is a real life Peter Pan, has nothing but good intentions when he sleeps with your children, and that he's truly also a child at heart. A man who, at the time, didn't date women or men, and only liked to hang and play with children.

or

B. This isn't normal and he's most likely a pedophile.

I mean if you want to believe in option A, more power to you. I also have some swamp land I'd like you to look at. This man was sick, but he had talent, and the power of his music to confuse you. Strip down all that glitzy, celebrity, musical talent stuff, and just look at him as a biological human being. A human being has sexual urges for either men or women. You can't be human and not have sexual urges. So if you don't have them for men or women, it still has to be directed somewhere, and sick people have urges directed towards children, animals, cadavers, etc. MJ was a sick man, plain and simple.

[–] SaltandLimes (154) 5 years ago

His fans are just going to say that he was asexual. That he never had any interest in women or men, because he had no desire for sex. Granted, there are people out there who are like that. However, what asexual person would have pornography in his/her household? The same household where he or she entertains children?

[–] BillySlater (4096) 5 years ago

He wasn´t asexual. He was hetero. He fucked Lisa Marie Presley. FBI found hetero porn on his computer, just like every other straight adult male has. If you listen to the Glenda tapes, you can hear how lonely Jackson was and how much he was longing for (female) companionship. The biggest reason I don´t believe Robson is that why would Jackson let the guy he supposedly molested be his star defense witness, if he supposedly molested him? It makes zero sense! No sex offender would let one of their victims be their star defense witness in their criminal trial. Its so absurd, but apparently MJ was coaching Robson on what to say, even though the FBI were bugging his phones.

[–] SaltandLimes (154) 5 years ago

He wasn´t asexual. He was hetero. He fucked Lisa Marie Presley.

I hate to break it to you, but just because a man has sex with a woman that doesn't mean he's hetero. There have been lots of cases where closeted gay men...as well as pedos... have had wives. There was obviously zero chemistry between MJ and LMP. Lisa Marie has implied that their sex life was quite dull. The other women he "dated" said that he was uninterested and unresponsive to their sexual advances. And his last wife, Debbie Rowe, said that THEY'VE NEVER HAD SEX![/b] What straight man (a straight man who could have had any woman he wanted) marries a woman and doesn't even consummate the marriage?

FBI found hetero porn on his computer, just like every other straight adult male has.

That still doesn't mean anything. In fact, it quite common for pedos to leave dirty material for kids to see. [b]These are things that you don't have when you're sharing a room with children. What was he doing with porno mags and nasty porn sites on his computer, when he was having "innocent slumber parties" with boys? As a matter of fact, when they tested those mags, they found 9 of MJ's finger prints out of 700! And how do explain that book they found of nudist boys?

The biggest reason I don´t believe Robson is that why would Jackson let the guy he supposedly molested be his star defense witness, if he supposedly molested him? It makes zero sense! No sex offender would let one of their victims be their star defense witness in their criminal trial.

It's not uncommon for male victims to lie about being sexually abused. Especially if their abuser is a male. In fact, there have been cases of male victims testifying on behalf of their predator. I believe it was Sandusky who later admitted to molesting the boys who testified on his behalf.

[–] BillySlater (4096) 5 years ago

Yes I know its not uncommon for victims to lie, that´s not my point. My point is why would Jackson, allow one of his victims to be cross-examined by the prosecution? If you were Jackson and guilty, there is no chance in hell you would take the risk and allow one of your victims to take the stand even if you had "trained them" to respond.
As for Sandusky, I find it dubious that any of his victims testified in his defense at his criminal trial.
Edit: I was so curious, I looked up and found no "alleged victim" testified in the defense of Sandusky. Sandusky´s defense consisted of attacking the victims´ credibility. Good try making that one up though.

[–] SaltandLimes (154) 5 years ago

Probably because of grooming and/or the shame of being abused by a man. And if you want me to be even more cynical, Wade may have been promised large sums of money and a furtherance in his career, if he lied. Besides, Mesereau more than likely prepped him for cross examination.
As for Sandusky, I said I believed it was him. I do remember coming across a child molester who later confessed to molesting the boys who testified for him. I just can't pinpoint his name. Anyway, ask anyone who works in law and they'll tell you it's not unheard of for some victims to lie about being victimized when they're testifying.

[–] BillySlater (4096) 5 years ago

Reading comprehension is not your forte. Wade lying or not is not the point. I don´t doubt victims are susceptible to coercion, being prepped or whatever else that might make them lie in court. The point is that no guilty paedophile with a brain would take the risk of having one of their victims be their star witness when you could just easily pay and train a non-victim to be your defense witness and avoid any risk of your victim, telling the truth on the stand. Do you get it?

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

As I said in another post: If you've brainwashed and molested a child from the time they're 7 through 14 years old, who idolised you long before you even met, and know they haven't told anyone, not even their parents or siblings, threatening that both their and your life would be over if they spoke the truth, it's a pretty safe bet you can trust them to not tell the truth on the stand.

As a bonus, getting them to lie for him once, pretty much assured for him, they'd at a minimum remain silent in the future, just as they had been for the previous years.

Remember too, this is the same guy who thought it was a good idea to admit on international TV that not only did he invite children into his bed, but went on to say it's the most loving thing anyone can do (share you bed), and everyone should do it. After he'd been charged with child molestation!

[–] BillySlater (4096) 5 years ago

Theres a difference between naivete, and stupidity. I don´t care how confident he was that the kid was brainwashed, why take any risk when you don´t need to take a risk at all? He was confident, is just a poor rebuttal to this problem.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

I see, so you're coming at this assuming he's innocent. Otherwise you wouldn't assume he said what he said on that documentary out of naïveté.

To you it's a poor rebuttal, to me it makes sense, and is in line with other of his behaviours. As I said, it also gave him greater assurance they'd stay quiet, at a minimum, afterwards.

[–] BillySlater (4096) 5 years ago

He was found not guilty twice, why wouldn´t I give Jackson the presumption of innocence? But apparently, all you need is a 4hr documentary to undo years and years of policework, to assume someones guilt.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

In truth, he was found not guilty once, in the 2nd trial. In the first he settled out of court for $22M.

Do you believe that everyone who's found not guilty or guilty is in fact guilty or not guilty? I don't.

Have you seen the documentary?

[–] BillySlater (4096) 5 years ago

You are correct, but in 1993, there was not enough evidence to criminally charge Jackson. To me paying a settlement is not necessarily an admission of guilt. I do agree it is difficult to find the truth especially when an alleged victim admittedly committed perjury...

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

The reason there wasn't enough evidence in the first trial is because Jordan Chandler wouldn't testify, and obviously the case was built around him. Why he refused to testify, or speak or even be seen publicly again, is a question I'm trying to find an answer to.

I agree, paying a settlement doesn't necessarily mean it was a payoff out of guilt. It doesn't look good, sure, but then neither does having testified against the person you're now accusing of something you'd earlier said did not happen.

Can I assume you haven't seen the documentary?

[–] BillySlater (4096) 5 years ago

Then a case can´t be very strong if its built around the testimony of one witness. I have seen it.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

So, do you not understand how criminal cases such as these work, then?

It was about MJ sexually molesting Jorden Chandler. If JC refused to testify, they had no case.

Same thing happens in domestic violence cases. If the person who was assaulted and/or battered refuses to press charges and testify, the prosecution has no choice but to drop it because they no longer have a case.

The law about child molestation cases has been changed as a result of the MJ/JC case. Now, the child cannot refuse to testify. Not sure how I feel about that. I understand the reasoning, but we are talking about a child being forced to take the stand, which is stressful enough for adults.

[–] maul (1530) 5 years ago

If you know anything about MJ's background, have seen his interviews, and know the background of the accusers and everything else, A is the choice. If you're just hearing about this now, and have only seen this new unbelievably biased documentary, then the choice is B.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

I do know about his background, have seen many interviews, and know the backgrounds of the accusers as well. At this point I have no rational choice but to say it's B. YMMV.

[–] Robbie008 (8) 5 years ago

How do we know FOR SURE that Robson Wade &
James Safechuck are telling the truth about
their abuse claims by Michael?

In 2013, these abuse claims Wade & Safechuck
are now making, were rejected & dismissed by
a Law Court in Los Angeles, and their case
was closed.

Also, the FBI investigated Michael Jackson
for 10 years and found nothing.

So what are now the motives of Wade & Safechuck
in this TV documentary? Are they telling the truth
about Michael? Or is this all about money?

Is this a planned conspiracy and extortion attempt,
on their part, to destroy Michael's reputation and
then claim a huge cash payout from Michael's estate?

The only way we will ever know FOR SURE if Robson Wade
James & Safechuck are telling the truth is to:

MAKE THEM TAKE A LIE DETECTOR TEST
AND A POLYGRAPH TEST!

We will then see in a clear light, how truthful
they really are!

[–] liscarkat (16496) 5 years ago

No, I don't have to admit any such thing.

[–] Threadkiller (2952) 5 years ago

You're right you don't have to admit it but lying they are.

[–] whatwazdat (374) 5 years ago

You know it's easier to believe MJ is a pedophile than to believe Cosby raped women, but it's true. I have no problems believing these accusers. You can explain away why they protected Michael at the time. The psychological impact of being brainwashed, the desire to help a friend, etc. You are still growing as teenagers, which is hard enough, let alone being conditioned, brainwashed and molested since 7 yrs. You cannot possibly understand or feel the conflicted emotions these kids feel. It's in the same ballpark as Stockholm syndrome. It is much easier to believe Bill Cosby never raped anybody than to believe a man in his 30's hanging out and sleeping with kids is normal. You guys are defending him, but never in your life would you let your own kids sleep with another man because he's also a "child at heart." You would never do that, so just stop it. And if you would, I feel sorry for your kids.

[–] Threadkiller (2952) 5 years ago

Typical projecting of conjecture and innuendo. The bias of what you believe not because of evidence but because you choose to believe it. About the same reasoning that's always been used to lynch black men without evidence.

These proven liars were already grown men, not teenagers when they gave their sworn statements under oath, Robson the first witness to testify in Jackson's defense. Only in la la land would a guilty man or his lawyer allow a man he serially abused as a child to be the first witness in his defence and have no concerns about him cracking under rigorous cross examination so confident in his brainwashing powers. It's rediculous the shit people are willing to convince themselves of to fit their predetermined conclusions.

[–] whatwazdat (374) 5 years ago

Food for thought... you would think a person of his stature, of his popularity, and with all the advisors on his team, a multi-billion dollar entity, that someone would have the idea, "Hey, Michael, people are out to get you. Sleeping with kids is not a good idea. So if you want to do it. Lets put surveillance in your bedroom for insurance. In case anybody ever accuses of you of wrongdoing. Or better yet, just don't allow it."

If he is not guilty, he sure is stupid as hell.

[–] Catbookss (13664) 5 years ago

Where is the projecting of conjecture and innuendo? Two people have said exactly the same thing in interviews, people who were there. But you don't believe them, yet you believe Prisilla Presley, based on her speaking in an interview. Who's biased? Could it be you?

MJ is also a proven liar, so should we automatically not believe anything he said?

Wade was 11 year old when he first testified for MJ. James was also around the same age when he testified. Neither were even teens then. You know this because we've already talked about it, yet you continue to lie about it. (Who again is biased??)

If you've brainwashed and molested a child from the time they're 7 through 14 years old, who idolised you long before you even met, and know they haven't told anyone, not even their parents or siblings, threatening that both their and your life would be over if they spoke the truth, it's a pretty safe bet you can trust them to not tell the truth on the stand.

Wade was 22 when he testified the second time. Not a child, legally an adult, but not emotionally an adult. James never testified again. You know this too, but keep lying about it.

There are many child abuse victims who don't come out, don't even admit to themselves that they were molested let alone anyone else, for much longer than these two. Some take it to their graves.

[–] Threadkiller (2952) 5 years ago

https://theblast.com/wade-robson-michael-jackson-cirque-du-soleil-letter/

Robson was a staunch Michael Jackson advocate for years after his sworn testimony until he was denied The Cirique du Solei along with a string of other professional & financial struggles but that's not suspicious timing at all. Totally not just cashing in on the media/entertainment industry's long lopsided & racist obsession with slandering & defaming Michael Jackson at any cost

[–] MovieFan00 (211) 5 years ago

“After that, too bad so sad”.

This attitude towards child rape says everything about you.

[–] whatwazdat (374) 5 years ago

I idolization of celebrities is freaking amazing. If it was anybody else, anybody else, any normal Joe who is in his 30's, and have sleepovers with kids, the guy would be locked up. Because it's Michael Jackson.. it can't be!!!! This is an angel, and we don't understand him.

Again, all these people defending him would never ever let their own children have a sleepover with other kids with the host being a 30 something loner. You just wouldn't, so how are you so sure that MJ is innocent? Deep in your subconscious, there are reservations and you know it. Because if you think this is completely normal, then reply with "Yes, I would let my child sleep with another man child. Yes, I do believe such innocent dudes exist."