Oprah Winfrey stands by her 'Leaving Neverland' interview: 'I never wavered'

[DOS_patos]

On Wednesday night’s The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, Oprah Winfrey sat down with Noah and explained why she still stands by the interview she did following HBO’s Michael Jackson documentary, Leaving Neverland. Winfrey told Noah that she “never wavered” despite recent news that there may be a timeline discrepancy in James Safechuck’s story.

“I had girls at my school who were sexually assaulted and abused. And I have never won a case,” she stated. “When you put a girl on the witness stand and she can’t remember was it Thursday or Wednesday, it’s automatically discredited.I had girls at my school who were sexually assaulted and abused. And I have never won a case,” she stated. “When you put a girl on the witness stand and she can’t remember was it Thursday or Wednesday, it’s automatically discredited.”

In an interview with the Daily Mirror, biographer Mike Smallcombe claimed there’s a discrepancy in Safechuck’s story of alleged abuse.In an interview with the Daily Mirror, biographer Mike Smallcombe claimed there’s a discrepancy in Safechuck’s story of alleged abuse.

“The deficiency in Safechuck’s story is this — construction on Neverland’s train station didn’t start until the latter part of 1993, and it didn’t open until the first part of 1994, when Safechuck was 16. So abuse in the train station wasn’t possible if the abuse stopped in 1992, as he claims in his testimony, as it didn’t even exist then. There’s a 2-year difference.The deficiency in Safechuck’s story is this — construction on Neverland’s train station didn’t start until the latter part of 1993, and it didn’t open until the first part of 1994, when Safechuck was 16. So abuse in the train station wasn’t possible if the abuse stopped in 1992, as he claims in his testimony, as it didn’t even exist then. There’s a 2-year difference.”

Leaving Neverland’s director, Dan Reed, maintains the documentary is accurate.





However, Smallcombe believes that Leaving Neverland was poorly investigated.



Winfrey explained to Noah that it is typical of sexual assault victims to misremember details of their assaults.Winfrey explained to Noah that it is typical of sexual assault victims to misremember details of their assaults.

“When you’re in the midst of trauma, something terrible is happening to you. You may not remember the exact time,” she said. “It was that hotel, but it was that hotel. ‘Oh, it probably never happened.When you’re in the midst of trauma, something terrible is happening to you. You may not remember the exact time,” she said. “It was that hotel, but it was that hotel. ‘Oh, it probably never happened.”’

Fans remain divided on Michael Jackson’s innocenceFans remain divided on Michael Jackson’s innocence.












Despite receiving hate, Winfrey explained her Leaving Neverland special was worth it in the hopes that it will help people understand the patterns of sexual abuse.Despite receiving hate, Winfrey explained her Leaving Neverland special was worth it in the hopes that it will help people understand the patterns of sexual abuse.

“People call it molestation, but there is a big seducing that goes on and the pattern of that seducing,” she explained. “And that was important enough for me to take the hateration for.People call it molestation, but there is a big seducing that goes on and the pattern of that seducing,” she explained. “And that was important enough for me to take the hateration for.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Despite receiving hate, Winfrey explained her Leaving Neverland special was worth it in the hopes that it will help people understand the patterns of sexual abuse.Despite receiving hate, Winfrey explained her Leaving Neverland special was worth it in the hopes that it will help people understand the patterns of sexual abuse.

“People call it molestation, but there is a big seducing that goes on and the pattern of that seducing,” she explained. “And that was important enough for me to take the hateration for.People call it molestation, but there is a big seducing that goes on and the pattern of that seducing,” she explained. “And that was important enough for me to take the hateration for.

That's the kinda sentiment I hate hearing coming from these #MeToo people and others. It's like "sure I might be unfairly smearing this person, but it's ok as long as we get the word out and some people understand it's good to come forward." I get the goal, but these people are way to cavalier about the collateral damage.

 

[DOS_patos]

That's the kinda sentiment I hate hearing coming from these #MeToo people and others. It's like "sure I might be unfairly smearing this person, but it's ok as long as we get the word out and some people understand it's good to come forward." I get the goal, but these people are way to cavalier about the collateral damage.

and no one is held accountable for lies is why i dont like it.
yes, we need to support those who are victims...but people need to check these liars.

 

[LurkerSix]

One of my main things about these sexual assault cases, is if you question a big inconsistency or some way off behavior, you automatically become an asshole & they always have the excuse "victims sometimes _____ to cope". Doesnt matter what it is or how outlandish the behavior.
Dude claimed he was abused on the train at a time it didnt even exist and they still caping just so she doesnt have to admit she took their word for it because it was trending and didnt research shit smh

 

[The Lonious Monk]

One of my main things about these sexual assault cases, is if you question a big inconsistency or some way off behavior, you automatically become an asshole & they always have the excuse "victims sometimes _____ to cope". Doesnt matter what it is or how outlandish the behavior.
Dude claimed he was abused on the train at a time it didnt even exist and they still caping just so she doesnt have to admit she took their word for it because it was trending and didnt research shit smh

Right, she coming with the "when you're in a stressful situation you don't always remember if something happened Wednesday or Thursday." We're not talking about getting a day wrong. This dude claimed something happened for years under circumstances that weren't possible at the time.

 

[King Freeman]

Canceled.

 

[StringerBell]

 

[deadeye]

Related video:

 

[Big Lurko]

This is why I believe her. There's more she probably knows but won't divulge to the media. Oprah has billions of dollars she doesn't need the press or the money. She's not the type to spite either. She knows what a genuine victim looks and sounds like that's why I think she took this up.

Don't get me wrong, MJ is a phenomenal musician and I still listen to his music but I separate the men from the music. Y'all should go and read the case file on both his cases and see the evidence they found in case 1 and the evidence they omitted in case 2. Shit will blow your mind.

Such as?

 

[The Lonious Monk]

They found child magazines (as in erotica and shit from like Greek paintings depicting children - I'm not gonna spell it out for you) and also homo erotic magazines and ONE barely legal porno magazine. These were found in a stash box near his bed. They wanted more evidence omitted and managed to not have those things used in his second trial.

I believe Oprah on this one because she's a victim herself and run a school where some of the girls may have come from that background. Like I said great musicians but far from perfect. I think in North America we shield and defend our stars and amp them up into godlike figures that we're quick to defend and also destroy them for entertainment.

It goes both ways. If I'm not mistaken, they also didn't allow testimony and evidence that would have worked in MJ's favor too including testimony from people who had good reason to believe the accusers were lying.

I don't know why Oprah is doing what she's doing. MJ is dead. Nothing that happens now will bring him to justice or help victims. True or not, this documentary can be nothing but a smear campaign because he's not here to defend himself. Also, I think Oprah being a victim is a little reason not to trust her here. I'm not saying she's not honestly working on behalf of the victims, but victim advocates like her that are so personally invested are the ones that automatically assume the accused is guilty. People who have been victims know what it's like to not be believed and do everything they can to ensure they don't do that to someone else even if it means hurting innocent people.

 

[Maywood]

Ego is a MF

 

[LurkerSix]

This is why I believe her. There's more she probably knows but won't divulge to the media. Oprah has billions of dollars she doesn't need the press or the money. She's not the type to spite either. She knows what a genuine victim looks and sounds like that's why I think she took this up.

Don't get me wrong, MJ is a phenomenal musician and I still listen to his music but I separate the men from the music. Y'all should go and read the case file on both his cases and see the evidence they found in case 1 and the evidence they omitted in case 2. Shit will blow your mind.

All of this was a huge reach Sion. Her whole business is built around press to make money. Of course she'd hope on this for more of it.

They found child magazines (as in erotica and shit from like Greek paintings depicting children - I'm not gonna spell it out for you) and also homo erotic magazines and ONE barely legal porno magazine. These were found in a stash box near his bed. They wanted more evidence omitted and managed to not have those things used in his second trial.

I believe Oprah on this one because she's a victim herself and run a school where some of the girls may have come from that background. Like I said great musicians but far from perfect. I think in North America we shield and defend our stars and amp them up into godlike figures that we're quick to defend and also destroy them for entertainment.

Nah, they didnt. but heres a video that speaks on it and tells you about the evidence.

Listen to this in the background and you'll see how messy this is. I have it time stamped.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

I have to respectfully and strongly disagree with the 'Oprah being a victim means not to trust her' statement you made. Oprah really has nothing to gain from this. She could have spoken on R. Kelly, she could have spoken on Cosby there's plenty of others. I'm rocking with Oprah on this one.

You didn't get the point I was making. It's not about Oprah gaining anything. I say you can't really trust her because she's squarely putting herself on the side of victims and not truth. She's not hiding the fact that her main concern is to advocate for victims, so when she finds someone that she believes is a victim, she's going to ride or die for that person. An objective person would look at new facts and reassess his or her stance based on what was presented. A person that doubles down without even considering the new information cannot be fully trusted to behave fairly.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

And this is where I strongly disagree. You're making an assumption about Oprah. Oprah doesn't strike me as someone who will blindly or squarely put herself into a position or cause just because.

These victims even now what's the sense in coming forward and admitting something like that ? They're not going to gain anything from it. I could understand if it was 1 or 2 people but there's a whole group of people man. It is also possible that MJ is 100% innocent but personally, given how people can be, given all the signs around this I would be very surprised if he was 100% innocent.

I don't believe MJ is 100% innocent. He as doing something inappropriate, but that doesn't mean all these allegations are true. And the argument of "why would they do that?" doesn't work in this world where people, celebrities and otherwise, do shit for no other reason that be seen.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Yeah but I don't think that's one of those things and definitely not something Oprah would attach herself to if it was.

In a situation like that I feel there's no reason for someone to be less than 100% innocent, because anything less to me, means they did something a capable adult is not supposed to do.

That's just my opinion on it. Michael Jackson is a great musician but I wouldn't trust him around my kids.

We can agree to disagree. You seem to be putting Oprah on a pedestal. I don't have nearly as much faith in her as you do.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

So you can believe MJ molested kids but you think Oprah is above wrongly pushing a narrative for her own reasons? See why I say you're putting her on a pedestal?

 

[LurkerSix]

Fam I swear to God I downloaded the evidence online and read it myself. They found erotica magazines with children , it wasn't pornography by definition but it was made in an erotic matter. But that's what it was.

Dude Oprah is a billionaire and will be that for the rest of her life. There's way more going on in the world she could speak on. I get MJ is a great musician without question but it's not far fetched that he was a pedo. Are we really gonna denounce every story from the documentary ? There's gotta be some consistency.

first video i posted addresses that and even shows the book they found. And it wasnt a erotic magazine.

 

[LurkerSix]

IDK how you putting this much faith in Oprah still after she basically said she opened her school in Africa instead of america, cuz american blacks want an ipod not an education. Thats that bs generalization, wealthy white people say to put down African Americans.

 

[Lucas]

Let's put it this way, nobody really knows whether MJ was a pedo or not. but when it's come to Oprah, I'm not suprised she thinks MJ is guilty. It's about Oprah being the victim of sexual abuse. It has everything to do with the fact that she was raped when she was nine years old so she tends to always believe the accuser.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

I believe MJ did and I don't think this is a scenario where Oprah would have to because again there's not much for her to gain. She could have covered a million other situations far more critical than this one. She's giving her opinion that she doesn't think MJ is innocent but she's not out there running a crusade against the man. All she did was interview victims.

I think that because of personal bias and love for MJ you are pushing your own narrative to disparage Oprah in hopes to make MJ look innocent because you genuinely believe he is. All I'm saying is he's not 100% innocent and in a case like this with children if you're not 100% innocent then what's there to explain ? And while I love MJ's music, I separate the man from the music and wouldn't put it past him that he did it. Will we ever know for sure ? No, but are there people in Hollywood who really know the truth ? Of course. Is it Oprah ? Maybe, maybe not.

Bruh, you're pegging me wrong here. I like MJ's music, but I don't and never have given a shit about MJ as a person. I don't give a shit about Oprah as a person. I don't give a shit about any celebrity. That's not how I'm built. These people mean nothing to me. I'm looking at the situations objectively here. You're not. You're clearly biased towards defending Oprah. If you weren't you'd realize that "I don't see what she can gain from this" is not a good defense. You don't know Oprah. You don't know her motivations. So with all due respect the fact that you can't see why she might have an agenda here doesn't mean anything.

The fact of the matter is that Oprah was faced with new information that suggested that this documentary that she's supporting may not be fully true and may have some serious problems as far as research and vetting go. The responsible way to deal with that is to say that you'll look into it and make sure that everything is correct because you don't want to unfairly smear a dead man. That's not what she did. She doubled down on her defense of the documentary, dismissed the controversy, and basically said we shouldn't question victims even if the shit they say is demonstrably false. Those aren't the reactions of a trustworthy person to me. Those are the actions of someone with an agenda that refuses to assess the legitimacy of her stance.