Leaving Neverland

[soulmum]

andjustice4some
@andjustice4some

"Shareholders of HBO...were livid that Plepler and Stankey had put their investments in a precarious position, by not bowing to immense pressure and the powerful Jackson estate to back out of the film." The word powerful is propaganda, but interesting read.

AT&T announced on Fri April24 that #JohnStankey was promoted to CEO succeeding Stephenson as of July 1. The person anonymously because he works for the parent HBO and isnt authorized to speak for HBO Max, said Stankey barely survived "#LeavingNeverland.”

[soulmum]

[soulmum]

Leaving Neverland Facts
@NeverlandFacts

Wade Robson admitting under oath he auctioned Michael Jackson memorabilia. Leaving Neverland duped viewers into believing he burned it. Wade recently release a video on his alleged "symbolic" act.

[soulmum]

[soulmum]

Justice for The Falsely Accused
@JuliaBerkowitz1

OMG, can haters get any more comically desperate? Now they admit the photos from the empty spot of the train station on August 1993 are real and the date is correct. New excuse: there must have been another train station that was demolished before that. LMAO. This is beyond funny twitter.com/K_Eff3Kt/statu…

[soulmum]

#MJStory
@MJISRL

In 2005 Wade Robson testified that his mother was ALWAYS with him when he visited Neverland except for that ONE time he was there with Jordan Chandler and Macaulay Culkin in 1993.
His testimony also refutes his & Safechuck's LN claim that MJ would keep them all apart.

[soulmum]

TSCM
@MJJRepository

So, about that video camera Michael gave Wade:
In LN Wade frames this as a sexual favor gift given the morning after their final alleged sexual experience (age 14, where he claims attempted sodomy & bloodied underwear).
"The next morning he handed me some new, like, camera."



Dan juxtaposes this story with footage of teenage Wade—hand-picked from many hours of home video of Wade throughout his childhood.
Wade's clip of a random parking garage is shown the moment Wade describes throwing the underwear away, again to portray it all as the same timeline.







TSCM
@MJJRepository

Now the real story from unearthed 2002 interview.
MJ loaned the camera years earlier when Wade 1st took interest in directing: "Take a week, learn how to use it—shoot some stuff. If you've done something interesting you can keep it, if you mess around I'm going to take it back."


Every item that the Robsons and Safechucks ever owned from MJ—including conversations, faxes, gifts and voice messages—is completely exculpatory.
Devoid of any incriminating materials, the best these fools can do is weave imaginary sinister side-plots around innocent incentives.


Justice for The Falsely Accused
@JuliaBerkowitz1

Replying to
@MJJRepository
Great catch. His mother told him in their e-mail correspondence in 2012 that he got the camera "on that first trip" (ie. 1990 when he was 7 in accordance to the interview you just found). By LN this story changed to Wade getting it after MJ tried to anally rape him at 14.

[soulmum]

[soulmum]

[soulmum]

[soulmum]

[soulmum]

TSCM
@MJJRepository

It is often impossible for the accused to disprove an abuse accusation, just like proving a negative.
Wade & James claimed the abuse stopped just shy of injuries, to prevent medical review. But their evolving tales are their downfall, like claiming abuse at imaginary buildings.

[soulmum]

TSCM
@MJJRepository

There's a reason Dan shot many takes from Wade & James
& it had nothing to do w/ his camera "breaking" or too much noise in the background as he claimed.
Then James filmed A/B-Roll clips and added to ring story 17 months later, fondling the jewelry that he didn't like to touch.

[soulmum]

Leaving Neverland Facts
@NeverlandFacts

Where was the "empathy" when WarnerMedia's #HBO network smeared an exonerated black man in Leaving Neverland? Was it "empathy" to silence his family's voice when he's no longer here to defend himself? #hypocrites #HBO #MJInnocent https://deadline.com/2020/05/warnermedi ... 202947435/ via
@Deadline

[soulmum]

[soulmum]

Leaving Neverland Facts
@NeverlandFacts

What a joke: Leaving Neverland is nominated for a
@BAFTA
award in the "Factual" series category when its own director admits he intentionally refused to reach out to anyone to verify or fact check the tales told by Wade Robson and James Safechuck. #LiesOfLeavingNeverland

[soulmum]

Siggy is hilarious, he should have his own tv show.

[soulmum]

Leaving Neverland Facts
@NeverlandFacts

Wade Robson's "Brillo pad" line in Leaving Neverland is provably false, insulting and reprehensible. It should have never made it into the movie. #HBO and #WarnerMedia must admit it.

[soulmum]

[soulmum]

Taj Jackson
@tajjackson3

Here are the people behind the hit piece “Leaving Neverland”.
Anyone else see anything wrong with this picture?

[soulmum]

Justice for The Falsely Accused
@JuliaBerkowitz1

It were always the Robsons who had to be pushy with MJ. They wanted him to take Wade on tour with him (which he refused), they had to be the ones to push him to put Wade in videos or spend time with him. Of course, all of this was left out of LN.









TSCM
@MJJRepository

Wade says abuse began on 1st visit, 1st time they were alone. MJ skipped ALL steps of grooming.
He didn't touch Arvizos in 2000-2003 until the moment the world and DHFS was investigating him.
And JF was "tickled" a few seconds every 1-2 years.




Justice for The Falsely Accused
@JuliaBerkowitz1

That's why he came up with that nonsense that MJ groomed him before they met. Not really grasping the real meaning and function of grooming. But he needed to turn every single occasion they were alone in a room into a molestation story, because he spent so little time with MJ.

[soulmum]

Rat Carn is sick of your dumb crap Rat
@Carnivius

Replying to @MISST4LYFE @SookieVamp and 2 others
I no celebrity. Wasn't even a fan. Didn't know enough about the case to make a claim (unlike ignorant idiots) but was my own bad experience that made me watch Leaving Neverland & notice it had MAJOR cred issues so dived into research & holy shit the allegations were always scams

[soulmum]

[soulmum]

Leaving Neverland Facts
@NeverlandFacts

Yesterday Danny Boy lost out in the BAFTA awards in the "Director: Factual" category for his Leaving Neverland movie that showed he couldn't care less about facts.

[soulmum]

TSCM
@MJJRepository
The LN clip BAFTA will show for nomination is James' wife: "MJ's gone, but it doesn't change the fact that he destroyed these people & the world still goes on loving him."
Carefully selected as another feeble attempt to guilt-trip the public into "muting" MJ because they say so.




Justice for The Falsely Accused
@JuliaBerkowitz1

Replying to
@MJJRepository
BTW, a little trivia about James's wife that on FB she followed a page that is called "Richest Celebrities". It posts about how rich which celebrity is (they also had articles about MJ's kids). I find it a rather remarkable interest considering the circumstances.

[soulmum]

Justice for The Falsely Accused
@JuliaBerkowitz1

Dan Reed BSing again.
"We briefly put some old material in the film where MJ states his innonence, so this means my film isn't one-sided."
That's just a BS excuses to not give any chance in his film for rebuttal.

[soulmum]

A thought provoking read.


Cracks in the Dam
supermodelsonya

Mar 12, 2019
This is the first article in a four part series about the accusations made in the documentary, “Leaving Neverland”.
Part II
Part I
Stephon Cook had some vivid memories, but these were not loving memories that he would cherish for the rest of his life. These were vivid memories of sexual abuse that he had suffered as a child; suffered at the hands of Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. Bernardin was head of the nation’s third largest archdiocese, with nearly three million Catholics that were under his guidance. He was considered a worldwide leader of the church and had taken the initiative in helping to establish an investigative mechanism for handling charges of clerical sexual abuse. His methods were seen as ground breaking and a laudatory example for others across the nation.



Could it be true? Was the Cardinal guilty of such a heinous crime? He had evidence that supposedly corroborated his story. The media reported it as a classic, “he said, she said” event with Cook’s story of abuse holding up against Bernardin unequivocal and unchanging denial. The Cardinal never wavered. He claimed that he was not guilty of these crimes and that he had faith in the American justice system that the people would see the truth.
This is when Stephon Clark filed a $10 million-dollar lawsuit filed against the Cardinal and the Catholic church. Mr. Clark believed that he should be compensated for his pain and anguish for all the time that he suffered at the hands of the Cardinal and the church.
Bernardin had a “spotless” record as a leader and servant in his community. He was also pro-active when it came to actual victims of child abuse. Later, there would be claims that he helped cover some claims of sexual abuse up. However, the national climate against the Catholic church and its sex abuse scandals began to radically change. The Catholic church had been rocked with scandal after scandal of credible abuse charges and allegations. Many people began to believe the victims and pushed for the Catholic church to do something with all the allegations. People began to speak up and wondered aloud why the church shuffled abusers from church to church instead of letting them go and/or looking to prosecute these men?
What was Mr. Cook’s evidence that he was sexually abused? He recalled these “vivid memories” retrieved from “repressed memory during hypnosis”. His corroborating evidence was a book signed by Bernardin, and a photo of them together. Apparently, his statement and his scant evidence was enough to suspect that Bernardin sexually abused Cook. Things didn’t look good for the Chicago cardinal, but Bernardin maintained his faith in the legal system and his innocence.
However, something happened a year into Cook’s accusations. Suddenly, the charges were dropped and Bernardin was exonerated. Stephen Cook came out and stated that he made a huge mistake based on a “faulty memory”. Cook was convinced that he was sexually abused, but he was confused about the identity of the actual perpetrator. However, he was firm in stating that the person was not the Cardinal.
Bernardin forgave his accuser and even the psychotherapist who “implanted memories” into Cook’s mind.



“I can assure you that all my life I have led a chaste, celibate life.” Bernardin stated. When he was confronted with Cook’s claims of evidence, he simply stated, “I don’t understand.” In the end, the Cardinal wasn’t concerned about himself, stating his innocence and his concern for his loved ones who had to endure these allegations as well.
Image for post
Cardinal Bernardin in Chicago
There can be no doubt due to past and ongoing allegations against the Catholic Church at the time that many assumed that the Cardinal was guilty as sin.

Based on the climate of the day, many thought the Cardinal would spend a considerable amount of time behind bars due to the encapsulating scandals that rocked the Catholic Church at the time. However, the Cardinal was innocent as he always proclaimed and was ready to gamble his freedom with the American justice system.

During the 2005 allegations and trial against Michael Jackson, the media consistently beat the drums of Michael’s guilt. It was all but assured that he would probably spend the rest of his life in prison. There were media reports of individuals who were betting how long before Jackson “cracked”, talks of suicide watches, and morose family visits with Janet, Jermaine, and Katherine. What would happen to his children once he was locked away and if they were allowed to visit him? There was even one news producer from CBS News that trademarked “Jesus Juice” wine, something that his accuser Gavin Arvizo falsely stated Michael offered him. Forget about fair and balanced, this was flatly offensive to everyone, especially actual victims of child abuse.
The difference between false memories and true ones is the same as for jewels; it is always the false ones that look the most real, the most brilliant.”
-Salvador Dali
However, a strange dichotomy occurred with this 2005 trial. The reporters and journalists sat in the courtroom and watched the same trial the rest of us did. They saw the strange antics of the mother of the accuser, Janet Arvizo, snapping her fingers and talking about being kidnapped in hot air balloons. They watched as the ever vengeful and persistent District Attorney, Tom Sneddon, grow angry and red faced as his witnesses turned from pro-prosecution to help the defense. They saw there was very little evidence against Mr. Jackson, with some wondering how did a case like this ever make it to court? However, the truth was not to be reported. Night after night, the same reporters and journalists told us that it would be a matter of time before Jackson would be behind bars. When Jackson was rightfully acquitted, the media professed to be “shocked”, but they knew that the evidence against Jackson was flimsy and couldn’t stand up in court.
It was described by some as “the most shameful episode in journalistic history.” It was the most lopsided reporting on a case that we’d ever seen. It’s why so many were confused as to how a man, who was painted as guilty by the pro-prosecution media, was allowed to walk free on every single charge. There was one man who ensured that Michael would walk with his damning testimony. Wade Robson.
As with the previous cases, the media ran with stances that were unbelievably biased against the defense, hinting at guilty verdicts for all the defendants. This was done in the McMartin trial, a child sex abuse scandal involving day care workers and child abuse allegations. The children, who alleged incredible sex acts that took place in their day care, talked about flying around the room on their own volition. The media continued to report the salacious details of the case, but did little reporting on just how improbable the testimony was. What this shows is that when the public gets caught in a firestorm, the media follows along blindly.
Instead of being a check and balance on power, it just cashes checks while the balance is the bottom line.



In Michael’s case, this remains to be true.
Believe the victims.
When Wade Robson and James Safechuck were children, they steadfastly claimed that Michael never touched them in a way that was ever inappropriate. However, as adults, the stories began to change, and they committed perjury under oath. One man perjured himself twice, just so that he could get around the statute of limitations. This is the reason why the lawsuit against Jackson’s estate was thrown out of court.
The media continues this crusade of misinformation today. Recently with the Leaving Neverland documentary, the NYTimes and The Washington Post printed pieces that practically told the reader just exactly how you should feel after watching the documentary. It didn’t seem to disturb the American media that there was only one side being told. One journalist was so bold into saying that Michael Jackson “defended himself enough while he was alive”, therefore pushing the narrative that Jackson’s children, family, loved ones, and fans are no longer entitled to the truth. A truth, the media told us that they only they can tell. However, with the current political climate, it’s evident that the American public don’t feel that they can count on this same media to tell them the truth, regardless of political affiliation. Americans increasingly feel polarized and will get their information from sources that represent their beliefs. If you believe Jackson is guilty, then you’ll stay away from reports and details that clear him of wrong doing, or at least sources that raise serious questions about any allegations made.
Michael Jackson made a lot of money for himself and millions for others. However, he was still a human being. He had his day in court, with the finding of not guilty, but unfortunately, the court of public opinion is a never-ending trial. In the court of public opinion, there are few rules, everyone is a judge, juror, and executioner, and the defendant is forever guilty on the internet.
With the latest documentary airing on HBO, the director is asking to take you along on a ride through the life of the worlds’ biggest star and arguably the greatest entertainer of all time. The two young men, along with the director, took you through nearly an hour of how they met Jackson and what it was like with sleepovers, parties, and amusement parks. It seemed like a party every day for the children that Jackson let into his very private life, only trusting a few people, but being very generous with his home, his time, and often his bank account.

But then, the ominous music plays, and the party is over. This world of games, non-stop laughter, and fun has come to a screeching halt, like a song coming to an end. Now, we are to believe what was once innocent and childlike, was just an elaborate game to procure children for his sexual desires.
It’s disturbing to watch. You will squirm. You will look away. You will hold your children tight. You will beg them to always come to you if someone was audacious enough to approach your child inappropriately. It may even cause you to lose sleep as you are literally inundated with very graphic and detailed descriptions of how a predator traps its prey. However, there is a voice in the back of your mind, filled with doubt….
Could the King of Pop have really fooled us all into thinking he was one of the worlds most talented AND greatest criminal pedophiles of all time? That he was able to escape local and federal law enforcement, along with private detectives that even followed him around just clever enough to have never been prosecuted? That this documentary was able to find evidence that the police and the FBI were never able to locate? If true, would that make Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, would have been the greatest, smoothest criminal of all time? (no pun intended)
That’s when the wool is pulled away from your eyes. Or at least, it should be.
Wade Robson wants you to believe that the King of Pop, a man already under intense scrutiny by local law enforcement and the FBI, once fondled him with just a “thin blanket” covering them, with his mother in the same room. He wants you to believe that a man, with hundreds of millions of dollars to lose, the adoration of millions of fans all around the world, along with his freedom, would be so brazen and bold to abuse him with his mother present, and anyone able to walk in on them at any time. He is asking you to believe that Michael could control himself for the most part, this crazed “boy lover”, while losing complete control other times, to the point where he recklessly abused a child in sight of an adult?
I’m to believe a man, whose mother relentlessly pursued Michael to another continent to ensure her child would be a star, is telling the truth? Joy Robson claims that Michael’s companies are responsible for the abuse, but it was she that initiated contact with Michael, even lying about the first meeting being facilitated by Michael. It wasn’t. Target held the meeting. You may believe that is a small detail, but these things go to the veracity of what these people are claiming and to their credibility. The Robson’s know that they can’t sue Michael because he’s dead. So, the ever changing narrative needs to be that Michael’s companies were aware of the abuse and did nothing to stop it, even making allegations that they facilitated the abuse. This is so that he can get around the statute of limitations. Yes, you read that correctly. He had to change his narrative to fit the lawsuit so that it could go forward in court.
Wade Robson is the same man that perjured himself in court to a judge, stating that he didn’t know Michael had an estate, just to get past the statute of limitations. Especially after it was proven to be a lie. It is easily proven that Wade made arrangements with the same estate he was unaware of in 2011, before any allegations just so he could work on a Michael tribute show? The same estate that he claimed he didn’t know existed.
That guy? The same man that had to email his mother several times before the allegations to construct a timeline because he didn’t remember what happened? The emails that he didn’t want to show the court, and even tried to hide? The same person who would like us to believe that Norma Staikos, a personal assistant of Jackson, is more to blame for this alleged abuse than his own mother? The woman who knew her son was sleeping in the room with Jackson and immigrated to the U.S. on her own, because she felt that her son “went as far as he could go in Australia”? Did anyone in the media ever ask Wade Robson that in 2005 when he testified against the accuser Gavin Arvizo, why it’s taken years for him to offer an apology to the child who he denied justice when he testified in Michael’s defense?
However, because the figure is Michael Jackson, an extremely sheltered man, with many eccentricities, the media buys it, hook, line, and sinker. No questions asked. Questions weren’t necessary to begin with.
Believe the victims.
Children that claim child sexual abuse should be believed. However, we know that children are often used so that adults can get something they want. False allegations happen so frequently in divorce proceedings, that there is a name for this kind of phenomenon. However, those who make up sexual abuse do nothing but victimize actual victims repeatedly. To claim that somehow, you’re helping victims of sexual abuse, but then make up allegations that something happened to you, does a disservice to those who were actually abused. It needlessly lessens the credibility of all child sex abuse survivors, making some people less inclined to believe them.



People who lie about sexual assault get to ride and hide behind “#MeToo,” and “believe the victims” so that they escape having to answer for all the contradictions in their statements.
We rightfully get to question the motives, attitudes, and actions of the abusers and accused, but in today’s atmosphere, we aren’t ever allowed to ever question the veracity of the victims. Even the appearance of trying to be fair will bring the wrath of those who believe all victims fall into the same category. The pendulum has swung the other way, from never believing victims and questioning their motive, to never questioning the motive of every victim and allowing them to tell their stories. If Stephon Clark were making his allegations today against the Catholic Church, there would be few that would believe the Cardinal, despite his fervent claims of innocence. Because the Catholic Church had been accused, rightfully so, of shuffling predators around from church to church, why would Mr. Clark’s claims be any different?
But Mr. Clark’s claims were complete lies. Most people today would have easily bought his claims. The Cardinal would have had to resign before the sun went down and he would have been vilified to the end of time. Now that we know Mr. Clark wasn’t telling the truth, what would people have said about the Cardinal? I’m sorry we went too far? Or would the media have just ignored it and went on to the next story? Perhaps, maybe even taking the next claims brought before the media not too seriously. Therefore, actual abuse victims are victimized by liars over and over again.
Believe the victims.
Where does this leave us? Believe all victims that come forward and make claims, just because they are victims? In Michael’s case, these aren’t children coming forward and making claims. These are grown men telling us a story of abuse from their childhood. Where do we draw the line?
We’ve shown that our political ideologies will get in the way when it’s our party that we want to support or deny. We ignore the Christine Blasey Fords’ of the world because we want Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, but do we listen to Al Franken’s accusers? We tell Justin Fairfax that he must step down as Lieutenant Governor, but we ignore the biggest, admitted sexual abuser in the White House. Democrats don’t want to talk about Clinton’s accusers because they are pointing fingers at Trump’s. Republicans point at Clinton and other Democrats but ignore their own who have abused women and children alike. The people we like, we’ll make excuses for. The people we don’t, we make them step down and never show their faces again. How does this treatment belong in a so-called democratic society? Are we going to pretend that everyone that comes forward is a victim and everyone that denies an allegation is a victimizer? There must be a better way of dealing with this.
Michael endured more scrutiny than any other child abuser, pedophile, and other monsters in our society. Not only was he subjected to the criminal justice system, there was a ten-year FBI investigation into him. Investigations done by local and federal law enforcement that turned up absolutely nothing. If there was justice that needed to be done, surely Michael Jackson endured the brunt of it. He came out on the other side, reputation tarnished, but certainly not guilty of the crimes that they claimed he committed.
To believe these accusers, you must believe that during the 1993 investigation into Michael, he was actively molesting children as if he wasn’t fighting for his career at the same time. It is a stretch of the imagination, but because Michael was considered “weird”, “strange”, and “not like the rest of us”, it seems as though the media and his detractors are willing to believe any nonsense against him. Why not? People believed that he bought the Elephant man’s bones, had a shrine to Elizabeth Taylor, and slept in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber.
It’s absurd. It buys into many racist theories of black men that somehow, they are just “different” than the rest of us. They deserve to live under scrutiny and nothing they say is to be believed. Those that are groaning and shaking their heads at yet another “delusional supporter” of Michael’s cult , but these same people won’t answer to at least why they haven’t even bothered to look into the accusers and the accusations that they’ve levied against the world’s most talented and scrutinized pop star. They don’t have answers to why the small number of accusers always seemed to get lost on the way to a police station when making allegations against Michael just to find their way to an attorney. They don’t have answers to why Wade’s and Jimmy’s lawsuits have been amended several times, each changing the claims against Mr. Jackson, and why one discovered he was abused after watching a man, who perjured himself, just to get around the statute of limitations, started making claims that he was abused as well. They don’t have answers as to why Wade Robson hid the fact that he had a girlfriend during the time he claims Jackson told him to stay away from girls. A girlfriend that currently and vociferously refutes many of the statements that Wade has made.
The public need to only ask the question as “Why?” If the sex abuse is real, why omit so much relevant information. What are you trying to hide? Yet, no media outlet at the time of this writing has allowed her to come on the air, including Good Morning America, who scheduled her, decided against it at the last moment and cancelled her appearance.
Just as we didn’t see the truth during the 2005 trial against Michael, where he walked out of court a free man, ask yourself why are the real facts being omitted just to sell a narrative? If you begin to ask yourself these questions, a different picture emerges. Not a conspiracy as some of the wildest Jackson fans would like to perpetuate, but a story that fits a narrative.
If Michael was a great human being, humanitarian, entertainer, a great talent to the world, and innocent, there is nothing to be gleaned from that. If Michael was a sick pedophile and the greatest criminal mind that ever lived, then the media can gain a lot from that. Two-hour long specials, featuring the same people who crumbled and were shown to be liars in court, no new information as Piers Morgan repeatedly points out, and books, movie deals, articles, etc. It’s like trying to draw blood from a stone if Jackson is innocent. However, if Jackson is guilty, that stone becomes a dam bursting forth. That dam bursting to the sound of $1.6 billion dollars in the pockets of Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck.
They both get to tell the gruesome stories of a man that is in the ground, while they hide behind the #MeToo and #Timesup movements. If someone does the work and asks the hard questions, their stories will crumble like a house built with a pack of cards. Until then, they are “victims” and the media will continue to buy it.
However, you should know that dam is built on shaky ground. When the other side gets to tell the truth, the already evident cracks will begin to crumble, but it won’t be water showering you from the dam that they built….

[soulmum]

Jamon Bull
@JamonBull

So utterly disturbed that #LeavingNeverland has won a
@BAFTA
for ‘Best Factual Series’ even though it’s provably based on lies. Thank god I’m minutes away from recording an episode of
@TheMJCast
with
@CEThomson
. We will no doubt be discussing this.

[soulmum]

[soulmum]

TSCM
@MJJRepository

Dan & his enablers vastly underestimated the extent of knowledge MJ supporters possess.
They thought this unsubstantiated bullshit would fly and nobody would bat an eye or fact-check it.
This is why all they can do is ignore & play w/ emotions, rather than debate with facts.

Absolutely. He also admitted this month that he prepped and advised Wade on how to act in front of the camera because Dan obviously recognized he wasn't believable.
I bet he has outtakes from James talking much more at length about the train station abuse that never happened.

[soulmum]

TSCM
@MJJRepository

Bizarro World—A film entirely devoid of factual premise receives "most factual" award.
Closest thing to factual was Wade admitting "1st year living in LA I saw MJ maybe 4-6 times." (Stretch that into "100s of abuses!" as claimed post-LN.)
The real facts were spliced & omitted.

[soulmum]

[soulmum]

[soulmum]

RazörFist
@RAZ0RFIST

Nice try, Dan.
You said yourself, in a vapid attempt to refute Brandi's relationship with Wade, "Michael Jackson lost interest at age 15".
James was almost an adult when that train station was built in 94. And MJ was married to Lisa Marie Presley, and NOT living at Neverland.








Mikey Walsh
@thatbloodyMikey

Fan or, or not, There is something a bit F*cking weird about Leaving Neverland winning an award, when 5 minutes of searching facts, rips holes in the entire thing.. It feels incredibly suspect, and ugly.

[soulmum]

Cohiba
@Cohiba42794785

Did you see this,
@MJJRepository
A recent article about Robson and safechuck

[soulmum]

https://www.avidglitter.com/8-ways-leav ... wrong/?amp

8 Ways Leaving Neverland Got It Wrong
- Oprah’s After Neverland Special
AMERIE JOHNSON | AUGUST 7TH, 2020

The Michael Jackson allegations, how does Leaving Neverland really line up with abuse statistics? Learn 8 ways Leaving Neverland got it wrong.



Leaving Neverland, a film that premiered on HBO in the height of the MeToo and Times Up movements, is a two part, 4 hour film starring Wade Robson and James Safechuck. The two men allege abuse at the hands of Michael Jackson since the age of 7 and 10. Immediately following the second night of the premiere Oprah Winfrey hosted a conversation featuring the accusers, alongside the Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed, before an audience of sexual abuse survivors and others impacted by molestation.

In the interview she asserted: “I taped 217 episodes [of “Oprah”] on sexual abuse. I tried and tried and tried to get the message across to people that sexual abuse was not just abuse. It was also sexual seduction,” Winfrey added that Reed was “able to illustrate in these four hours what I tried to explain in 217.”

Before the premiere of Leaving Neverland it was public knowledge that Robson and Safechuck denied wrongdoing under oath, and that they could potentially win millions after changing their stories. Be that as it may, Oprah Winfrey along with others made the argument that Leaving Neverland would still be an informative documentary no matter what the accusers true stories are.

Oprah began with this comment: “If it gets you – our audience to see how it happens (sexual abuse) then some good will come of it.”



Oprah Winfrey hosts a conversation featuring Wade Robson and James Safechuck, alongside Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed with an audience of sexual abuse survivors.
What was the overall purpose of Leaving Neverland and did it spread awareness about child sexual abuse as its been credited by Winfrey and numerous media outlets? In order to spread correct information about abuse one must focus on the allegations of Robson and Safechuck as separate units outside of the case scenario that Winfrey’s ‘After Leaving’ show attempted to present. Using an innocent person as an example of pedophilia is not creating awareness but paranoia and spreads misinformation.

Aligning the testimony of Robson and Safechuck with sexual abuse statistics in proven cases, here’s 8 ways Leaving Neverland and Oprah Winfrey’s After Neverland got it wrong.

1
The Sexually Explicit Details
Rape and sexual abuse counselors advise victims to disclose abuse for healing but always remind them that they don’t have to go into detail if they don’t want to. This is the most difficult trauma to describe in detail, and most people never tell their full story even after disclosing. Usually survivors give a surface level definition of what took place with their abuser using words like touching, rape, oral sex, molestation etc. Robson and Safechuck described events on a pornographic level with strong clarity. When adult survivors describe abuse from childhood it’s usually vague, in flashes or bits and pieces.

2
The Lack of Emotion
Janita Harris, a rape advocate and crisis counselor summarized both accuser’s appearance this way: “Their bodies were very stiff. Their emotional tone was always the same. The way in which they talk about their excitement of meeting Michael Jackson matched the same cadence of when they were talking about sexual abuse. There is no exact specific way that all victims are going to behave, however both of these victims had no emotional expression and their body language was very very controlled. That’s what I would’ve written in a report.”

3
Location, Location, Location
Robson recalled being molested the first time while his parents were away at the Grand Canyon but his own testimony along with his mothers proves he went with his family on the trip. The way Safechuck remembers it, there was so much ‘sex’, even in Train Stations that weren’t built at the time. In my personal experience with child sexual abuse and communicating with other survivors its uncommon that a victim would create memories of trauma in locations where it couldn’t have happened.

4
Questionable Terminology
Dan Reed told Los Angeles Times : “This is difficult to say, but he (Robson) had a fulfilling sexual and emotional relationship at the age of 7 with a 30-year-old man who happened to be the King of Pop. And because he enjoyed it, he loved Michael, and the sex was pleasant. I’m sorry, that’s just the reality.” Terms used interchangeably throughout the film and After Neverland are desensitizing the audience to disturbed adult – child interactions. Grooming is replaced with ‘seduction’ or ‘honeymoon’ and the word ‘sex’ was used for ‘molestation’.

Referring to the children as ‘lovers’ instead of ‘victims’ disturbingly adds a romantic element and glamour to abuse.

8 WAYS LEAVING NEVERLAND GOT IT WRONG – CONTINUED

5
The Grooming Process
After Neverland paints the picture that everything is ‘Grooming’. There was no real explanation about the difference between normal adult interactions and how a predator would behave at Stage 5 of the process. Winfrey chose to focus on Leaving Neverland’s sexual seduction element and ignore other forms of grooming, such as Verbal Coercion, Use of Drugs/Alcohol, and Threatening/Violence. Part 5 of the 6 Stages of Grooming is when a person commits a series of subtle behaviors and statements over a course of time to desensitize the victim to sexual acts. Both men allege an immediate introduction to sexual acts by Jackson and according to their story they were desensitized up until adulthood.

6
No Real Experts in the Film
In an article titled: Why is there so little media skepticism about Leaving Neverland and its allegations against Michael Jackson? The author David Walsh wrote: “Why does the film not include a single appearance by a psychiatrist, an expert on pedophilia or anyone else genuinely qualified to address such issues? The sordid, sensationalized motives are expressed in the structure and overall feel of the film itself. Leaving Neverland is not designed to educate, but to numb, intimidate and pollute.”

8 WAYS LEAVING NEVERLAND GOT IT WRONG – CONTINUED

7
Repetitive Lines
During the After Neverland interview Robson and Safechuck struggled to give answers outside of their dialog in the film. Several times Winfrey would ask exploratory questions but when Robson or Safechuck failed to answer, she would reiterate answers. For example, when Robson was asked if he thought Jackson did a bad thing in 2005 he responded after rambling: “Michael was good, that was all that existed in my mind” Oprah interjects: “In your mind you were there to protect him and to save him.” This interchange allowed Robson to insert the same line about Jackson’s training.

8
No Warning Signs of Abuse
Robson, Safechuck and their families described battles of mental health shown in adulthood. However not one person mentioned any symptoms of abuse when they were children. Even when children are silent about things their behavior tells.

Rainn.org reports several behavioral and emotional symptoms as warning signs of child sexual abuse such as:

Keeping secrets
Not talking as much as usual
Not wanting to be left alone with certain people
Overly compliant behavior
Sexual behavior that is inappropriate for the child’s age
Change in mood or personality, such as increased aggression
Decrease in confidence or self-image
Excessive worry or fearfulness
Increase in unexplained health problems such as stomach aches and headaches
Resources: For more information on Child Trauma and Sexual Abuse
visit
Stop It Now!

Watch Square One and Lies of Leaving Neverland for more information about the Michael Jackson case.

[soulmum]

MJJJusticeProject #1Billion4MJ
@MJJJusticePrjct

"..no-one who has ever been able to offer a shred of conclusive evidence, that he ever did any harm to anyone."

[soulmum]

MJJJusticeProject #1Billion4MJ
@MJJJusticePrjct
MJEatate knows whats what! They know why the media is not balanced when reporting about Michael as opposed to his white counterparts ..... and this bias, isn't even new, Michael had to endure this racist crap his whole life.

[soulmum]

Just had to post this little snippet here - result!!!

Seány
@SeanyKane

A radio station that banned him after LeavingNeverland have finally seen the light & have woken up to the fact that he was INNOCENT. Today, #MichaelJackson is crowned the Top Musical ICON on that very station. Thank U to
@SmoothRadio
& their listeners. You know what time it is

[soulmum]

This 'mockumentary' has a lot to answer for.

[soulmum]

You would have thought they'd get the name of the 'documentary' right but No!


TSCM
@MJJRepository

They all thought "the floodgates will open" after Leaving Neverland and more fraudsters would come forward to join the bandwagon.
So they prepared this fictitious entity as part of that to help bolster AB 218.
On their website they call it "Finding Neverland Survivors"

[soulmum]

Jail all false accusers
@Hammertonhal

More time bending :
Robson says he was molested in a car while Gary was driving. But Gary said the first time he drove Wade was when Wade was 16-20 years old

[soulmum]

MJJJusticeProject #1Billion4MJ
@MJJJusticePrjct

Die-hard fans are still FIGHTING for Michael Jackson - none changed their minds due to this flop doc - it has in fact created MORE fans for the King of Pop because people are investigating for themselves and finding #MJInnocent

[soulmum]

TSCM
@MJJRepository
HBO/C4/Amos hired a PR firm to mass-promote LN in 2019. Their profits ($500,000+ via Kew alone) depended on the media lapping it up.
This included 11-page "kit" sent to outlets to excerpt from as if their own material.
But guilters insist we are the ones being paid. Deflection.

[soulmum]

TSCM
@MJJRepository

In May 1993, MJ invited LIFE over. He told them of plans to get a steam engine—he only had a 3-car mini-train with a few train stops.
The "Katherine" steam engine arrived in Nov. 93 while the train station was being constructed.
Here's the story by those who restored the train.

[soulmum]

[soulmum]

TSCM
@MJJRepository

Dan took the time to splice out-of-context excerpts from Geragos' 2003 presser but not to show the clip of Feldman explaining how '93 civil settlement had no impact on the criminal case, did not buy anyone's silence, and that MJ maintains his innocence.

(@ 10:55 in video).
Replying to @MJJRepository and @JuliaBerkowitz1
https://youtu.be/Bx-PCsTQ4n8

[soulmum]

Dom
@Dom10155252

let's not forget!
in 1993 Oprah was at Neverland Ranch, she interviewed MJ, she visited the ranch. She Knew there was no train station, yet she gave a platform and her stamp of approval to ROBSON and Safechuck and allowed them to defame a dead innocent black man.

[soulmum]

[soulmum]

Leaving Neverland Facts
@NeverlandFacts

Karma for Leaving Neverland's foreign distributor..."The last remnants of what was Kew Media Group are now expected to be wound up in early 2021, leaving investors with a $100m hole in their pocket."




Leaving Neverland Facts
@NeverlandFacts

Television Business International story says docs show Kew Media's entire catalogue, including foreign rights to Leaving Neverland, went for just $2.5 million in a "fire sale" when it was sold in May to Quiver Ent. So much for MSM story line that LN was such a massive hit.