Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

Unbelievable, this guy.... sigh. He clearly thought nobody was gonna notice it. Sure, that goes for the ignorant ones out there, but not us, and if it comes to it, the judge will notice as well.

screenshot_20190317-1ggk64.jpg
 
I know that it is not LN related but I am wonder of one thing :Was or why not Lisa Marie Presley called to testify in the court in 2005 as she is the only one woman who has confirmed sexual life with Micheal? Sometimes while talking to friends/family members who have doubts about MJ I use even argument that in the time that Wade and James claim they were "molested" MJ was for 7 years with Lisa(I know it is call off and call on) and Wade was with Brandi. But why Lisa was is not mentioned in 2005 trail as she could finish many doubts?

BTW Today I just seen an video of Lisa's daughter talking about being his stepdaughter and fact she took Bubbels to school
???
 
Unbelievable, this guy.... sigh. He clearly thought nobody was gonna notice it. Sure, that goes for the ignorant ones out there, but not us, and if it comes to it, the judge will notice as well.

From what I can see, this video was POSTED on Youtube in Dec 2012, but DATES from sometime between 2011-2012. There is discussion of future 'Pulse' classes in the interview, but it seems that the interviewee confused Atlanta / Atlantic city. In any event, the date of this 'Pulse interview doesn't seem to be clear. Pulse have/ had been doing these events regularly for a number of years.
 
This is an very good informative/debunking video to share

"Leaving Neverland - The Truth behind the Lies" from Mrs Flying Fairly
358 views on March 17 2009

 
The NAMBLA supporter Reed did another interview where he says Wade and Safe chuck were not traumatised by the abuse itself because they enjoyed it so much but their trauma is based on the fact that they had to lie to their parents and everyone about what really took place. He says people still do not understand this part of his documentary. And this is the real motive behind this shitty documentary that if those kids did not have to lie about their 'sexual relationship'' with MJ then everything would have turned out to be fine with them because mj was a loving romantic Partner. Wow just wow.
 
Last edited:
The NAMBLA supporter Reed did another interview where he says Wade and Safe chuck were not traumatised by the abuse itself because they enjoyed it so much but their trauma is based on the fact that they had to lie to their parents and everyone about what really took place. He says people still do not understand this part of his documentary. And this is the real motive behind this shitty documentary that if those kids did not have to lie about their 'sexual relationship'' with MJ then everything would have turned around to be fine with them because mj was a loving romantic Partner. Wow just wow.

Wow when this does not shout NAMBLA very loud all the way then I don't know!!!!
They wanna make phedophilla legal, that no child must lie about it and can enjoy their loveing romantic relatinships with their abusers!!!
Leaving Neverland should be step one in their sick mind to legalizie it.
Everyone worldwide is now talking about sexual acts betwen children and adults and pedophantasie to have loving enjoyable relationships!
 
Last edited:
He is claiming that the fans did not refute anything in the documentary. For example, according to him the fans citing the scene where safechucks mom claims to have danced when MJ died in 2009 while her son claimed in court filings that he only realised he was abused after he saw wade on TV in 2013 as a contradiction, is completely wrong because the documentary makes it very clear that he told his mother in 2005 he was abused there is no ifs or buts about that. Well, then why did he tell Oprah that he only realised he was abused when he saw wade on TV?! How did MJ manipulate and groom him to say that to Oprah?
 
Read and laugh.

"The astonishing thing is also when you go online on Twitter and stuff, which I try not to do too much, there’s people who spend a great deal of time and care into creating videos exposing the lies of Leaving Neverland, and pretty much everything they are saying have been contradicted by the documentary itself. All you need to do is watch the documentary. There’s this thing around of “Oh, well how come Stephanie knew about the abuse, how come she was dancing when Michael Jackson died when James told her about the abuse in 2013?” Well, that’s not the case. James told his mother about the abuse in 2005, and that’s clear in the film. He told her “Michael abused me” in 2005. If you watched the film with both eyes and ears open, that’s incredibly obvious and plain. That’s the bizarre thing; they don’t even seem to watch the film. A lot of what they’re saying is based on the letter the Jackson estate’s lawyer wrote before he watched the film. So it’s not a dialogue between the Jackson truthers and my documentary, it’s an internal dialogue within the community of Jackson truthers kind of convincing one another that “we gotcha!” when in fact, none of it relates to my documentary. It’s like people shouting inside some kind of cult temple and none of them ever look outside."
 
The video about Jacobshagen is good but do we really need to spread it? Last weekend I messaged Razorfist about it and said if he was planning on adding that chump to one of his three videos and he said he's not worth it. And that not even haters bring up his name.

I think we should post the video in every comment section on You Tube with Jocobshagen and should post it also as a reaction of the comments which are posted there, cause this people alredy know something about this case.
 
Read with complete disgust


[FONT=Source Sans Pro, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"The damage and the pain of the abuse is much more subtle than that. For them the sexual abuse at the time was not traumatic. They say it in the film that it was pleasurable, a loving, gentle, caring experience. Child sexual abuse is a criminal act, we know that. It’s not like they are remembering something that really upset them at the time. The psychological consequences play out during adulthood because your life is built on a lie, your childhood is built on a lie. You have to lie to everyone: your mother, your father, your sister, your brother. And that takes a toll. This is not somebody remembering being raped or someone attempting to murder them or someone killing someone close to them. It’s not that kind of trauma. People have to take that on board. People still don’t understand, even when they watch my film they still haven’t fully taken it on board. That’s why Wade was more upset when he recounted the impact on his family. That’s trauma. That’s stuff that he experiences as a bad thing. The remembering of it is upsetting. But for these guys, this is what conflicts them so much, this is what they grappling with. Remembering the abuse is this weird mix of the hindsight that this was abuse and someone taking advantage of them when they were children, but also the print memory of that moment of how good it felt. And that’s the headlock."[/FONT]
 
Soundmind;4250199 said:
Read and laugh.

"The astonishing thing is also when you go online on Twitter and stuff, which I try not to do too much, there’s people who spend a great deal of time and care into creating videos exposing the lies of Leaving Neverland, and pretty much everything they are saying have been contradicted by the documentary itself. All you need to do is watch the documentary. There’s this thing around of “Oh, well how come Stephanie knew about the abuse, how come she was dancing when Michael Jackson died when James told her about the abuse in 2013?” Well, that’s not the case. James told his mother about the abuse in 2005, and that’s clear in the film. He told her “Michael abused me” in 2005. If you watched the film with both eyes and ears open, that’s incredibly obvious and plain. That’s the bizarre thing; they don’t even seem to watch the film. A lot of what they’re saying is based on the letter the Jackson estate’s lawyer wrote before he watched the film. So it’s not a dialogue between the Jackson truthers and my documentary, it’s an internal dialogue within the community of Jackson truthers kind of convincing one another that “we gotcha!” when in fact, none of it relates to my documentary. It’s like people shouting inside some kind of cult temple and none of them ever look outside."
Liar Liar Pants on fire!
 
Liar Liar Pants on fire!

He has just destroyed Safechuck case. His only chance of overcoming the status of limitation is by sticking to the version which says he only realised he was abused in 2013. And they wonder why the judge throw out his lawsuits. Oprah asked him a direct question when did you first realise you were abused and his answer was only when I saw Wade on TV. Reed has just confirmed that Safechuck lied to Oprah (of course while putting on his sad face after all he is so traumatised by the recent realisation that he lived all his life on a lie (please forget about the claim that he told his mom 14 years ago in 2005 about the lie that he has just realised and causing him all this visible trauma don't dare and shame the poor traumatised victim Jimmy ). Where are the victims of sexual abuse? how can you relate to that? I definitely cannot. I really got sick of people and their stupidity how can anyone believe this kind of shit?
 
Last edited:
Seriously, all three belong behind bars.

We can only hope that the lawsuit against HBO will change some stuff. Not just about HBO getting to pay the estate, that's all fine and dandy. It's much more important that these three don't get away with it.
 
Soundmind;4250199 said:
Read and laugh.

"The astonishing thing is also when you go online on Twitter and stuff, which I try not to do too much, there’s people who spend a great deal of time and care into creating videos exposing the lies of Leaving Neverland, and pretty much everything they are saying have been contradicted by the documentary itself. All you need to do is watch the documentary. There’s this thing around of “Oh, well how come Stephanie knew about the abuse, how come she was dancing when Michael Jackson died when James told her about the abuse in 2013?” Well, that’s not the case. James told his mother about the abuse in 2005, and that’s clear in the film. He told her “Michael abused me” in 2005. If you watched the film with both eyes and ears open, that’s incredibly obvious and plain. That’s the bizarre thing; they don’t even seem to watch the film. A lot of what they’re saying is based on the letter the Jackson estate’s lawyer wrote before he watched the film. So it’s not a dialogue between the Jackson truthers and my documentary, it’s an internal dialogue within the community of Jackson truthers kind of convincing one another that “we gotcha!” when in fact, none of it relates to my documentary. It’s like people shouting inside some kind of cult temple and none of them ever look outside."

This Reed person makes me sick! He must be a very disturbed individual. If he doesn't belong in jail, he, at least, belongs in a mental institution! Lock him up and throw away the key!
I don't even know where to start, there is so much to say about his sociopathic persona...and he is most definitely stalking all of us!!!
Hope, the police will get in on him and his shady business.
 
This Reed person makes me sick! He must be a very disturbed individual. If he doesn't belong in jail, he, at least, belongs in a mental institution! Lock him up and throw away the key!
I don't even know where to start, there is so much to say about his sociopathic persona...and he is most definitely stalking all of us!!!
Hope, the police will get in on him and his shady business.

If the FBI were to do a investigation on Reed, best believe they'd find out that he's been in contact with Victor for at least the book. And I wouldn't be surprised if it's more than just the book. That's why this thing can't just go away, they cannot get away with it. Please let that not happen.
 
He has just destroyed Safechuck case. His only chance of overcoming the status of limitation is by sticking to the version which says he only realised he was abused in 2013. And they wonder why the judge throw out his lawsuits. Oprah asked him a direct question when did you first realise you were abused and his answer was only when I saw Wade on TV. Reed has just confirmed that Safechuck lied to Oprah (of course while putting on his sad face after all he is so traumatised by the recent realisation that he lived all his life on a lie (please forget about the claim that he told his mom in 2005 about the lie don't dare and shame the poor traumatised victim Jimmy ). Where are the victims of sexual abuse? how can you relate to that? I definitely cannot. I really got sick of people and their stupidity how can anyone believe this kind of shit?
Yeah, so true and why cut this crucial part about his mother knowing about it in 2005 and dance about Michaels death in the edited version? Clearly this severly contradicts about James statement about not knowing about abuse until 2013 to Oprah. No doubt he is a big liar and Dan Reed has just confirmed it. No chance he can get any money from the Estate if he sticks to this story about knowing about it all the time, it is outside of the statute of limitations and therefore he is too late. This matter becomes more and more of a joke, this must be spread to the general public so that they have more knowledge of this obvious lie from the three liars.
 
Victims of abuse please read and see how sympathetic he is towards us:

"What do you think it’s done to your psyche, having spent three years on this project?
[Laughs.] I think my psyche has a pretty good workout the last thirty years, exploring war zones and crime and terrorism, and being confronted with the worst of human behavior, and also the best, but I’ve seen a lot of unpleasant things. There’s probably quite a few scars on the old psyche, but I’ve learned to compartmentalize the bad things. I keep my distance from that."

Amazing.
 
Anouther inconcistencie is that wade said to Oprah that he didn't remember anything about the abuse when he had his therapy in 2012 after his nervous breakdown ( and didn't say anything about it to his therapist) but then he said in 2018 at the inside edition interview that he never forgot one moment of what Michael did to him!
 
Yeah, so true and why cut this crucial part about his mother knowing about it in 2005 and dance about Michaels death in the edited version? Clearly this severly contradicts about James statement about not knowing about abuse until 2013 to Oprah. No doubt he is a big liar and Dan Reed has just confirmed it. No chance he can get any money from the Estate if he sticks to this story about knowing about it all the time, it is outside of the statute of limitations and therefore he is too late. This matter becomes more and more of a joke, this must be spread to the general public so that they have more knowledge of this obvious lie from the three liars.

I am sure some will say he lied because this is the only way he can get money and it is justifiable because as a victim he deserves to be compensated for the abuse he endured. But, then that mean he LIED after MJ died and after MJ lost control on him. It means when he put on that sad face and answered Oprah that he continued to be so in love with MJ because of all the grooming until he saw Wade and said to himself 'wait a minute there might have been something wrong' and went to therapy and got depression the FAKE EMOTIONS that was all A LIE. So how can we trust him with anything else?
 
Seriously, Geragos should sue the shit out of this sicko Reed.

Dan Reed used footage of a lawyer regarding a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT case in order to manipulate his audience to believe it supported his lies about Michael Jackson's 2005 criminal case.

Mark Geragos was giving a press conference regarding Xtrajet's recording of MJ.

@RAZ0RFIST https://t.co/jOZ6zlOzQi
 
The NAMBLA supporter Reed did another interview where he says Wade and Safe chuck were not traumatised by the abuse itself because they enjoyed it so much but their trauma is based on the fact that they had to lie to their parents and everyone about what really took place. He says people still do not understand this part of his documentary. And this is the real motive behind this shitty documentary that if those kids did not have to lie about their 'sexual relationship'' with MJ then everything would have turned out to be fine with them because mj was a loving romantic Partner. Wow just wow.

Gross. Why was he allowed air time?
 
Seriously, Geragos should sue the shit out of this sicko Reed.

Dan Reed used footage of a lawyer regarding a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT case in order to manipulate his audience to believe it supported his lies about Michael Jackson's 2005 criminal case.

Mark Geragos was giving a press conference regarding Xtrajet's recording of MJ.

@RAZ0RFIST https://t.co/jOZ6zlOzQi

When he has manipulated this why should he not manipulated the videofootage and picturrfootage of MJ too? (Birhdaymasage, Hawaimessage, Hitlerpicture,.... others?)

I am not sure for example that the tent village picture is from neverland with the hourse standing there.

It could be from somewhere else.
 
Soundmind;4250201 said:
Read with complete disgust


[FONT=Source Sans Pro, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"The damage and the pain of the abuse is much more subtle than that. For them the sexual abuse at the time was not traumatic. They say it in the film that it was pleasurable, a loving, gentle, caring experience. Child sexual abuse is a criminal act, we know that. It’s not like they are remembering something that really upset them at the time. The psychological consequences play out during adulthood because your life is built on a lie, your childhood is built on a lie. You have to lie to everyone: your mother, your father, your sister, your brother. And that takes a toll. This is not somebody remembering being raped or someone attempting to murder them or someone killing someone close to them. It’s not that kind of trauma. People have to take that on board. People still don’t understand, even when they watch my film they still haven’t fully taken it on board. That’s why Wade was more upset when he recounted the impact on his family. That’s trauma. That’s stuff that he experiences as a bad thing. The remembering of it is upsetting. But for these guys, this is what conflicts them so much, this is what they grappling with. Remembering the abuse is this weird mix of the hindsight that this was abuse and someone taking advantage of them when they were children, but also the print memory of that moment of how good it felt. And that’s the headlock."[/FONT]

I honestly never saw any victim think what was happening to them was the bolded. Most think it's 'normal' until they get older, and then the trauma set in. But almost none of them would call the experience 'loving' unless they were heavily brainwash and that usually happens to those who were abused by their parents, not a stranger.
 
Ramona122003;4250213 said:
Gross. Why was he allowed air time?

Because there is an agenda to push this into the mainstream. Notice the interviewer is trying to get him to speak about the effects of having to listen to stories of children sexual abuse for three years and his reaction was to laugh and to say he distance himself from such things.

He is becoming more obvious with his NAMBLA agenda. He says the viewers did not understand the source of the trauma in the stories of Wade and Safechuck, it was not the sexual acts themselves but the fact that they had to lie to their families. Their families reactions, the impact on their families when they knew is what traumatising them. He is still insisting that until this very moment they still don't find the sexual acts done on them wrong but they are being told it was abuse and someone have taken advantage of them. So if society sees it as they see it "loving, caring relationship" , they would no longer be in this trauma. Of course neither of them says that. This is him using them to push his agenda. They are fine with that. They are liars and he presented them as trustful victims to the public for which they are grateful.

Read carefully especially the highlighted parts:

[FONT=Source Sans Pro, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The psychological consequences play out during adulthood because your life is built on a lie, your childhood is built on a lie. You have to lie to everyone: your mother, your father, your sister, your brother. And that takes a toll. This is not somebody remembering being raped or someone attempting to murder them or someone killing someone close to them. It’s not that kind of trauma. People have to take that on board. People still don’t understand, even when they watch my film they still haven’t fully taken it on board. That’s why Wade was more upset when he recounted the impact on his family. That’s trauma. That’s stuff that he experiences as a bad thing. The remembering of it is upsetting. But for these guys, this is what conflicts them so much, this is what they grappling with. Remembering the abuse is this weird mix of the hindsight that this was abuse and someone taking advantage of them when they were children, but also the print memory of that moment of how good it felt. And that’s the headlock."[/FONT]

struggling with how the society view such acts.
 
I think we should post the video in every comment section on You Tube with Jocobshagen and should post it also as a reaction of the comments which are posted there, cause this people alredy know something about this case.

I agree, because there are many forums still giving this con artist validity. Yes, post the video in every comment section on You Tube, and any other places you can. The more you post these debunking videos, the better.
 
Last edited:
Ramona122003;4250215 said:
I honestly never saw any victim think what was happening to them was the bolded. Most think it's 'normal' until they get older, and then the trauma set in. But almost none of them would call the experience 'loving' unless they were heavily brainwash and that usually happens to those who were abused by their parents, not a stranger.

I have been posting in every forum that Dan Reed is a NAMBLA enthusiast. It’s obvious that this whole scam is based on NAMBLA doctrine using Guitterez’s perverted book. I have not been shy about saying this, and will continue to repeat it.
 
I love how well educated the MJFam is. How we ALWAYS bring facts and receipts.
 
Actually Reed claiming they still don't see what happened with them as something bad totally contradict Reed's own assertion that Safechuck told his mother in 2005 especially the way he told her "he was an evil man". So if he is still not accepting that what happened to him was abuse, why did he consider mj a bad or evil man in 2005? Why did he not want to defend him back then? why did he hang up on him? because if we are to believe them he was still very much fond of him until he saw Wade on tv and probably until now, his trauma is rooted in the conflict between how others view what happened to him and how different are his own thoughts and feelings about it.
 
Last edited:
Interesting soundcloud interview with John Ziegler, talks about Brandi Jackson not getting airtime to tell her story on Good Morning America or TMZ.

Apparently an Australian radio station interviewed Brandi and then Reed was interviewed on the same programme. (Intrvw. at appx 23 mins.) Apparently Reed attacked Brandi, saying she was sleeping with Robson at 12. (Brandi said her relationship with Robson was age appropriate, and did not progress until Brandi was 18).

Mentions the TMZ claim as regards Paris attempted suicide (at appx 26 mins.)

Mentions Geragos (at appx 28 mins.)

Mentions Brad Sundberg conversation (at appx 30 mins)

Mentions Joy Robson 2011 interview at about 35 mins.

Safechuck (and mother) discussed at appx 43 mins

Moves on to College admission frauds at 51 mins appx.

2019 - 03 - 17 - 1 Frauds And Fakes

https://soundcloud.com/freespeechbroadcasting/2019-03-17-1-frauds-and-fakes
 
Last edited:
Back
Top