1) Robson claims in the film that he and his co-accuser Safechuck never met each other as adults. This is false. In a 2016 deposition, it was confirmed that they met in 2014, and that they even have the same attorneys.pic.twitter.com/YYzD7iDb6l
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
In any case, while we should accept that the accusers would be under great mental stress, and that this would affect their recall, we cannot use this explanation as evidence that the allegations are true (because that would be circular reasoning).
The best way to assess whether stress and trauma are responsible for the inconsistencies of the accusers’ stories is to search the histories of the accusers for further evidence of such stress or trauma, or repression thereof. So let's do that...
As kids, Robson and Safechuck both defended MJ in court against allegations of child abuse. Robson also went on to defend MJ as an adult. This is not inconsistent with molestation: people have been known to become so twisted by abuse that they defend their abusers.
However, Robson not only defended MJ repeatedly, but he was also eager to be associated with MJ even after the popstar died. For instance, in 2011, he begged the MJ estate to allow him to be the director of a MJ tribute show. https://leavingneverlandfacts.com/wade-robson-email-to-cirque-du-soleil-on-5-21-2011/ …pic.twitter.com/v2I5PYGtdA
The gig went to someone else. Some time after, Robson claims he suffered a nervous breakdown. Is this, finally, hard evidence of abuse trauma? No. Robson himself claimed it was due to him overworking and realising he would never get to be a film director.https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2018/05/12/robsons-route-to-changing-his-story-part-4/ …
Unable to secure any lasting work in showbiz, Robson soon also began suffering financial troubles. This led to him pawning his personal belongings, including some of his MJ memorabilia. He did this throughout 2011 and 2012, while continuing to praise MJ publicly.
The following year, Robson’s “repressed memories” of abuse by MJ surfaced, at the age of 30. He immediately wrote a book about the abuse, and began shopping it to publishers, but interest was scarce.
Fortunately, Robson received backup from Safechuck, who claimed that seeing Robson talking about the abuse on TV had refreshed his own memory, and that he was now also sure that he’d been abused.
Together, the pair filed a $1.5 billion dollar creditor’s claim and civil lawsuit against MJ’s estate. Their case was thrown out of court due to the Statue of Limitations and possible implications of perjury. But Robson & Safechuck can still appeal, and intend to.
Now, it is possible that Robson’s effusive tributes to MJ, his insistence on being associated with MJ even after death, his grand showbiz aspirations, his sudden epiphany of abuse when penniless aged 30, are the encrypted cries for help of an an abuse survivor.
It is also possible that watching Robson detail his abuse on TV really did trigger latent memories of abuse in Safechuck, and that the two then decided to collaborate in good faith to innocently seek justice in the form of $1.5 billion by blaming MJ’s estate for MJ’s abuse.
But, the more I learn about this case, the more room for doubt I find, and I am just not able to explain away the inconsistencies as peremptorily as so many of you have done.
And even if Robson and Safechuck are telling the truth, then Leaving Neverland, with its tendentious cherry-picking, and its refusal to address suspicious holes in the testimony, from which doubts have sprouted, has utterly failed them, and they deserve better than a shock-doc.
Whatever the truth, one fact remains: despite all the doubts we should have about the allegations—after Jussie Smollett and Covington—the world has once again uncritically swallowed a victimhood narrative based on mere talk. And that, to me, is wrongdoing I can be certain of.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.