Leaving Neverland: Part 2

Journalists in the U. S. and the U. K., especially Dan Reed, love to criticize Michael Jackson's fans. But have they ever stopped to consider why the King of Pop's fan base keeps growing? What no one mentions is that after Leaving Neverland, many people decided to do their own research - and instead of turning away, they became even bigger fans.

James Safechuck and Wade Robson, as children, told the truth: that Michael Jackson was a loyal friend, someone who never harmed them. Now, decades later, they conveniently reinvent themselves as "victims" - but only when there's money involved. They refuse to testify under oath, yet have no problem selling their stories to the media and attending paid events.

The real question is: how much longer will a narrative full of contradictions be used to tarnish the legacy of one of the greatest artists in history?

1/10

As someone who values investigative integrity and factual reporting, Leaving Neverland 2 comes across as yet another deeply flawed and heavily biased narrative that attempts to reinforce unproven allegations against Michael Jackson, despite decades of evidence, legal scrutiny, and acquittals proving otherwise.

Michael Jackson was thoroughly investigated by local authorities and the FBI for over a decade-including a 13-year federal investigation and multiple surprise raids of his Neverland ranch-yet no evidence of wrongdoing was ever found. In 2005, Jackson was acquitted on all 14 charges in a highly publicized trial after testimony, evidence, and cross-examinations failed to prove any criminal behavior.

One of the primary accusers featured in this film, Wade Robson, is a particularly problematic figure. Robson testified under oath in 2005, as an adult, that Jackson never abused him, delivering a confident and detailed defense of Jackson in court. He only reversed his story years later in 2013, after Jackson's death and after his own career had reportedly stalled. It's also worth noting that Robson's lawsuit against the Jackson estate was dismissed multiple times by judges who found no merit in his claims. His testimony and allegations have repeatedly shifted over time, raising serious doubts about his credibility. Even key details in Leaving Neverland 1 and 2 have been publicly debunked by independent investigators and Jackson biographers.

Leaving Neverland 2 does nothing to address these discrepancies. It continues to present a narrative-driven documentary that cherry-picks emotional testimony while deliberately omitting counterpoints, court documents, and crucial context. The film lacks objectivity and fails to acknowledge the existence of credible rebuttals, legal rulings, and exculpatory evidence.

Michael Jackson was not perfect, but he was never found guilty of the horrific allegations made against him-despite unprecedented scrutiny. To continue vilifying a man who cannot defend himself, through a medium that excludes all opposing views, is not justice-it's opportunism.

Jackson's legacy as a musical genius and humanitarian should not be carelessly dismantled by documentaries that fail to meet even basic standards of balanced journalism. This film ultimately does a disservice to both viewers and survivors of real abuse by centering its message on discredited narratives and personal vendettas, rather than truth.

Obviously this HBO show got it right about one thing, it was all about money. How much money makes it okay to supposedly be molested by Michael Jackson. One of the victims and his family had gone on TV defending Jackson in the 90s, but by the time this filming was made, the story changed. By how much? About 10 to 25 million dollars worth. Thats how much it would take apparently to make being molested by Jackson okay, according to the victims mother.

The families go on, complaining about Jackson getting married to Lisa Marie Presley, comparing that to being dumped by a long-term boyfriend. This "documentary" is nearly unwatchable, if not laughable if it weren't for the subject matter. It really makes it hard to believe someone when they say for 25 years they weren't molested by Jackson, then all of a sudden, when money is involved and needed, gosh darn it, it actually did happen according to this one sided dumpster fire.

They both were exploited, as children to dance like animals on stage. This was exploiting children, this cause a family break up, pushing and pulling, as his mother supporting this. The world is not perfect and Michael complained he was exploited and did the same to your children. The abuse or not abuse is something they testified against in court to protect him and he left them nothing in his will. They both felt rejected after Michael used them and he was not a saint, he exploited them. The both don't need money for telling these stories against Michael now, but this does not mean he abused them. They are both very angry about their childhoods and how they were exploited, as children, they were in the bubble of fame. I like Michaels music, but he changed in to someone who was plain weird and the sleeping in bed with children is strange. They both tell there story without emotion and one of the mothers cried when he died. I can't see how she still loved him, if he abused her child. It is very odd and they are like cult victims, going to his funeral. They could of just sued for exploitation, as children, they would win that case. There was no bigger fan of Michael than them and they hopefuly can move on. Even if they could prove it in court who would win, they would damage his fame, if their is any fame left and they would get money something they don't need. The other men who were abused could talk and they, too could get help. The documentary was dragged out, not needed and just could have been better, it is only so long because of money they want to make from having part 1 and part 2. They have their views and I belive they could be telling truth, but need to just move on. It could be better to move on, than get justice. The other men who have kept quite are the problem, not them. The truth will come out, one day and tapes may one day be found to prove it. It could just take two men more to speak out and this will be settled. People are ready to support them now and they grow stronger together.

In a world where critical thinking is not dead; Robson's "I did not want to testify and lie, but he subpoenaed me" would be seen as just as irredeemably stupid and unbelievable as Safechuck's "I want you to testify and deny I abused you, or my Attorneys will expose you for lying when you denied I abused you before"

We live in an insane world that has mostly chosen to eschew objective scrutiny after 2 men recanted their defence of a dead man accused of CSA and now want money. You would think a species that calls itself "Homo sapiens" would understand why serious allegations deserve serious scrutiny.

It is important to take accusers seriously and conduct thorough due diligence on their claims. However, this does not mean that we should automatically accept all allegations as true or abandon objective scrutiny. It is concerning that this point needs to be emphasized repeatedly. Their lawsuit since 2013 has generated thousands of pages which reveals massive problems with their allegations as well as some of the outright lies discovered in their original TV show; none of which is addressed in their sequel. Several journalists like John Ziegler have now done enough research to see this as an obvious money-grab and he is not alone.

Serious allegations deserve serious scrutiny and condemnation must not precede investigation in a civilised society.