Recently Joe Coscarelli, the music reporter at the NY Times contacted the admins of this blog to say that he was interested in getting the perspective of MJ’s “most loyal fans, supporters and historians” on the documentary which none of us had yet seen by that moment.

Today, the day after the documentary has gone on air on HBO, Joe Coscarelli’s article has been published, quoting us together with other Michael Jackson’s advocates with whom the correspondent has evidently been in touch.

Since most of these bloggers are Americans I presume that their interviews must have been done over the phone, while we (Susanne and I) are foreigners who are absolutely not sure of our English speaking skills and this is why we submitted our replies in writing.

We certainly never expected the NY Times to give a full coverage of our ideas on the present situation around Michael Jackson, so for the readers of this blog to really know what “truthers” like us think about it,  here is both Joe Coscarelli’s piece and our written answers to him sent several days ago.

Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. ‘Leaving Neverland’ Has Them Poised for Battle.

A new documentary detailing allegations of sexual abuse has the pop star’s most activist supporters ready to jump on Twitter and YouTube to defend his name.

In the age of the 21st century fan community, perhaps no group is more emphatic, organized and passionate than Michael Jackson’s supporters.CreditCreditIllustration by Javier Jaén; photograph by Yvonne Hemsey/Getty Images

By Joe Coscarelli

• March 4, 2019

Beyoncé has the BeyHive and Nicki Minaj the Barbz, fan groups who swarm online against anyone who disparages their idols. The Deadheads may have provided a blueprint, though these days they are more likely to bicker among themselves.

But in the age of the 21st-century superfan, perhaps no group is more emphatic, organized and passionate online than the devotees of Michael Jackson, the King of Pop whose legacy includes decades of innuendo and court cases regarding what he did or did not do with young boys.

Across blogs, message boards, podcasts, YouTube videos and especially social media feeds, where a Jackson avatar broadcasts one’s allegiance, they circulate exhaustive evidence that they view as exonerating for the singer, while shouting down news outlets they consider inaccurate and biased.

#MJFam: Here’s our 2 step plan for the week of March 3rd ‒ March 10th.

1) Flood the #LeavingNeverland hashtag with rational tweets including the FACTS about the allegations!

2) WATCH the ‘This Is It’ movie on @Netflix and STREAM Michael’s catalog on any/all streaming platforms. pic.twitter.com/EFFK121eJ3

— MJJLegion ♕ (@MJJLegion) February 28, 2019

Brewing for weeks, their fight kicked into a new gear on Sunday, with the airing of the first half of “Leaving Neverland,” an HBO documentary about two men who say Jackson repeatedly sexually abused them as children.

Ads for MJInnocent.com on buses in London and digital billboards in the United States are proclaiming: “Facts Don’t Lie. People Do.” Under the Twitter hashtag #MJFam, dozens of fan accounts have encouraged counterprogramming to the film, instructing followers to stream Jackson’s music instead of watching. And on Sunday night, fans deluged the #LeavingNeverland hashtag with thousands of tweets, dominating discussion of what they called a “mockumentary” and attacking the two men at its center.

[Michael Jackson cast a spell. “Leaving Neverland” breaks it, our critic writes.]

Dan Reed, the director of “Leaving Neverland,” which concludes on Monday, said that his company had received “dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens” of emails from Jackson fans — “a deluge of hatred” beginning within 20 minutes of the film’s announcement in January. He and the two men in the film, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, said that some fans had taken it even further, with threats of violence.

“One can only compare them to religious fanatics, really,” Reed said. “They’re the Islamic State of fandom.”

Michael Jackson with Wade Robson in 1987, when the two met for the first time. In “Leaving Neverland,” Robson alleges that Jackson sexually abused him for years.CreditDan Reed/HBO

Jackson’s supporters don’t see it that way. Since accusations in 1993 by a boy and his family ended with a $23 million settlement, the fandom’s party line has been that any allegations amounted to extortion plots by hangers-on hellbent on tarnishing Jackson and exploiting his naïveté.

A specific strain of the Jackson faithful has pored over the granular details of his life and cases, including the 2005 trial in which he was acquitted of charges he molested another boy, in hopes of proving his innocence. Those fans — including the young and old, from Queensland, Australia to Moscow to Huntsville, Ala. — view “Leaving Neverland” as a manipulative, one-sided hit piece that rehashes old allegations from inconsistent sources.

The film has also turned what was for years a niche obsession for many Jackson fans into a mainstream battle.

“If you’ve been a fan for a long time, you’ve seen this over and over again,” said Casey Rain, 30, a musician and YouTuber living in Birmingham, England. He called “Leaving Neverland” a “sick attempt at hijacking the Me-Too moment.”

Many Jackson fans resort to indiscriminate, anonymous hate mail targeting journalists and Jackson’s accusers. Others like Rain show their devotion in deeper ways, painstakingly constructing videos and epic polemics that weave together court papers and obscure interviews, then sharing and resharing their work across multiple platforms.

“There’s nothing about Michael that the fan community doesn’t know,” said Rain, whose blog post about “Leaving Neverland” became a go-to text even before the documentary aired. “I really don’t think that we lack objectivity on him.” (Rain and others who had not yet seen the film said their information came from a few Jackson fans who attended the Sundance premiere and took “very, very detailed notes.”)

Susanne Baur and Elena Ovchinnikova, who co-author the blog Vindicating Michael, said they prefer not to be called Jackson fans at all because fan “has a too negative connotation of adoration and worship,” Baur, 60, wrote in an email from southern Germany.

Two Jackson fans drove from Canada to Utah to protest the premiere of “Leaving Neverland” at Sundance.CreditDanny Moloshok/Invision, via Associated Press

Instead they identify as researchers and activists who view Jackson as a civil rights case. In a post about “Leaving Neverland” that totaled more than 10,000 words, Ovchinnikova, who is 65 and based in Moscow, parsed the changing stories of the two men in the film and concluded that they are liars.

“The reaction of the M.J. community is absolutely adequate,” Ovchinnikova said via email. “It is the reaction of knowledgeable people who have to talk to ignoramuses.”

Linda-Raven Woods, a 56-year-old from Huntsville, called herself a former “die-hard metalhead” whose lingering questions about Jackson’s guilt after his death had led her to fansites.

Wowed by the depth of their research, Woods realized, “This is why they defend him so passionately,” she said. She is now an administrator of @MJJLegion, a Twitter account with more than 80,000 followers that has been busy coaching fans on how to counteract the documentary.

Some of these supporters acknowledge that the elaborate lengths of their writing and reasoning invites comparisons to conspiracy theorists, or as Damien Shields put it, a “ranting mob.”

But Shields, the author of a book on Jackson’s music and a fan for more than two decades, said it is all a matter of perspective: “We also view the media as a ranting mob in some circumstances.”

He said that the fans’ support comes from a place of love and passion, comparing those on social media to the Britney Spears fan Chris Crocker, who cried “Leave Britney alone!” in an infamous viral video.

Jackson supporters crowded outside the California courthouse where Jackson stood trial for molestation in 2005. The singer was acquitted on all charges.CreditMonica Almeida/The New York Times

“That’s Michael Jackson fans on Twitter times a million,” Shields said.

In the cases of Robson and Safechuck, fans note that both had previously testified that Jackson never abused them, and that they later unsuccessfully sued the singer’s estate. (Their claims are now under appeal.)

Both men said that it took them years to accept that they were abused and that they had felt pressured to testify on Jackson’s behalf. Reed, the director, said the film was, by design, “about how Wade changed his mind and confronted the truth about what happened to him” — a “radical reassessment of what it all meant.”

In an interview, Robson said that he understood the way many still cling to Jackson’s “very particular angelic persona.” He added, “That was so palatable for so many people, including myself.”

Robson and Safechuck said they, too, had faced an onslaught since coming forward, with Robson describing “thousands of extremely volatile and nasty emails or social media comments.” They cited the intensity of Jackson’s defenders a possible reason more people don’t come forward. “It’s an extremely terrifying thing to do,” Robson said.

As the film’s television premiere approached, some fans struggled with keeping up the fight for Jackson’s reputation as they also girded themselves for the increased scrutiny.

While some said they would boycott the film because it does not include outside context or interviews with defenders, others said they would stomach it for the good of the community.

“I need to know what we’re up against,” said Woods of @MJJLegion.

Shields said he couldn’t help but feel a sense of dread about the coming months: “This literally could be the end of Michael Jackson if — big if — someone in a position of repute doesn’t decide to tell the other side of the story,” he said.

In the meantime, it was “almost like therapy” for fans to do their part to push back on the claims. “Even if their part doesn’t actually make any impact,” he said, “at least they tried their best.”

~

And here are my answers to Joe Coscarelli of the New York Times:

(Susanne Baur is welcome to post hers as she sees fit)

Joe Coscarelli:  How long have you been a fan of Michael Jackson? Can you tell me a little bit about how your fandom started and developed?

Elena Ovchinnikova:  I am not a fan, at least in the traditional meaning of the word. Like many others I loved Michael Jackson’s music and dance, but we lived behind the Iron Curtain and had little access to western music, so the peak of Michael Jackson’s fame and success somehow bypassed me.

And in the 90s when the borders opened his image was already heavily tarnished by the allegations.

The thought that so nice a guy could be involved in the heinous crimes that were alleged about him was so revolting that I shifted it into the back of my mind to never think about it again – until the moment he died.

I clearly remember that when he came to Moscow in 1993 I didn’t have the slightest desire to see him in concert or even try to buy a ticket. Unfortunately, like many others I thought that there could no smoke without fire and that “all people can’t be wrong about it”. Listening to his music while half-believing all those rumors was impossible for me, so at the time I preferred to simply shut it out of my mind.

JC: When did you begin talking and working with other Michael fans online?

EO: Again, I never really “worked” with Michael’s fans. His death was a shock to everyone as he died so young, so even in my far-away part of the world people tried to learn more about the circumstances of his death. And I was no exception. Initially I read everything there was to read about him on the web, which was mostly the media screaming about tons of narcotics in his body (later found to be a very big lie) and some people even celebrating his death. Among other things that came my way was also a Michael Jackson forum where the mood was completely different and more in line with the sudden sadness that fell upon me.

This is probably where I read personal accounts of people who knew and met MJ, as well as some documents. It seems that it was mostly Michael’s interviews that opened up to me a different Michael Jackson, a mega pop star who spoke about things I didn’t expect him to even bother about. A shy and deep thinking man, who speaks about God and is constantly on the road of soul-searching and hoping that human nature will change for the better, and slightly naïve in thinking that it is indeed possible. What I saw was a very clean way of thinking, found in a man in whom I expected it least of all.

However the main problem of the allegations was still there. To make sure that Michael was incapable of what he was accused, the allegations had to undergo the harshest scrutiny possible and this is when I delved into the subject really deep. And over here another surprise was awaiting me – it turned out that the evidence of Michael Jackson’s innocence (documents, witnesses’ accounts, etc.) was all there in the open lying under everyone’s feet for anyone to pick it up, only no one was willing to. Michael Jackson’s fans seemed to know about his innocence without any proof on my part and refused to even discuss what they rightfully called “that filth”. Most of them said that they had been there long before me and didn’t need any more proof than his full acquittal at the 2005 trial, their first-hand knowledge of him and the like.

I argued that the general public was not convinced, especially about the 1993 case and that fans do need to talk to Michael Jackson’s haters, otherwise the latter will feel free to spread their lies about Jackson without any hindrance and no one standing in the way to their lies. Apparently Michael’s fans were too mournful to listen to my nonsense, so I ended up being banned.

JC: What led you to start your website, Vindicating Michael? 

EO: My thread on the Michael Jackson forum was called “Vindicating Michael” and this is where I tried to collect the worst allegations about Jackson and the proof that they were lies. The thread was not popular with fans as only a handful of people followed it. It seems that this kind of activity was important only to novices like me and not to Michael’s fans who had lived with it all their lives and were already sick and tired of it. Apparently they were not disposed to raking in that mud. When my thread was deleted together with all the evidence collected there, I received a message, probably from another novice, who surprised me with the news that she had opened a wordpress page for me asking me to move all the information there for it not to be lost. The name of the blog was the same – Vindicating Michael, the login was vindicatemj, so this was the accidental way the blog started and vindicatemj became its admin. Eventually some other people joined me and each made his or her contribution to it. All of us were driven by the desire to know more and were limited only by the time we could spend on this time-consuming job.

So what began somewhat by accident in November 2009 became a starting point for several inquisitive people to examine every nasty story ever told about Michael and search for information to find out whether it was true or not. Some of these people later opened blogs of their own and summarized the information in a much more compact way, which is why they are now even better sources than Vindicating Michael – ours is more like a diary we jointly kept on a ten-year long journey of ours where we described everything that came our way and how we dealt with it at the time.

And what came our way was a huge mass of lies told by people who seem to be dedicated to spreading lies about Jackson. There wasn’t a day without a new dirty story told or an elaborate question arriving like “Will you please explain this particular book found on Michael’s bedside table when police raided Neverland in 2003?” To answer it you had to study all transcripts of the 2005 trial and police reports available online, and after the many hours of research you found that the book wasn’t on the table but in an attic, still packed in a closed box, was probably never opened, and it contained photos of neglected (fully dressed) children playing in the dust and portraying their obviously unhappy childhood. So what of it if Michael purchased it? Wasn’t he an exemplary father himself and didn’t he urge other parents to take care of their children and let them have a happy childhood?

With constant questions like that we were always busy and had our hands full, so the longevity of the blog and the depth of research there is for the most part thanks to Michael Jacksons’ haters who didn’t give us a moment of quiet. However there is no cloud without a silver lining – as a result now most of us are like academic scholars specializing on truth about Michael Jackson while the general public and media are playing with old misconceptions and fabrications about MJ like their nursery school toys.

To give you an example of such misconception, some still believe that the Santa Barbara DA Tom Sneddon seriously intended to produce the photos of MJ’s genitalia at the 2005 trial to prove their “match” to Jordan Chandler’s description, while Michael’s researchers know that it was a mere theatrical show intended for the uninitiated. Sneddon simply could not do it in the absence of Jordan who flatly refused to testify a year earlier, in September 2004. The reason is the 6^th Amendment to the US Constitution which allows any evidence from the accuser to be produced only in the presence of such accuser so that the other side is able to cross-examine him. Tom Sneddon knew that Jordan as a witness was not available to him, but still did it, solely for the effect it would produce on the jury, media and the public. The judge naturally declined it, but the majority failed to grasp how clever and devious Sneddon’s maneuver was.

Incidentally those photos were not a match, otherwise Michael Jackson would have been incarcerated long before and on that evidence alone.

JC: What do you think makes the community of Michael fans online special? Michael Jackson is one of the most beloved, well-documented and popular stars of all time. Do you feel like he is under attack, or unfairly maligned in the press, in general?

EO: What makes the community of Michael fans special is knowledge and research. And Michael Jackson is certainly not a well-documented star of all time – a much more proper word would be the worst-maligned star of all time.

I don’t know whether the media did it deliberately or because negative news sells better, or due to the media propensity to copy-paste cheap sensations instead of doing their own laborious research. Whatever it is, the end result is that the major part of publications about Michael Jackson are just lazy lies imitating news, while the real him and truth behind the accusations are silenced and never explored, though this is where the real thriller is if anyone in the media ever cared to look.

Now the true world of Michael Jackson and the false picture of him presented in the media are like two different planes of reality that never cross. It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that massive fake news started with the media maligning Jackson, and though for some it could look like mere fun done at the expense of just one vilified man, the long-term consequences of such a massive lying campaign are surely underestimated. Even today people are virtually unable to tell a genuine victim from a fake one, and when their inability to tell lies from the truth extends to everything else, there will come a time when the media tries to tell people the truth on some essential and crucial problem, but the confused public will be simply unable to accept it. Unfortunately at a pace like that this time is not too far off.

JC: Do you plan to watch the new Leaving Neverland documentary? Why or why not?

EO: Leaving Neverland is not a documentary and I was not planning to watch it as we’ve studied Robson’s and Safechuck’s lawsuits and know what they are going to say. But I will have to because we haven’t come so long a way in debunking lies about Jackson to drop it at the last moment. For me it is a necessity though I know what a nightmare it is going to be.

Why is it not a documentary? A big red flag is that Dan Reed violated the principles of true journalism and by his own admission has not even done basic research about the characters he presents in the film. He takes their stories at their face value, does not fact check a single of their statements, says that the viewers should watch it and decide for themselves. Decide what? The people lacking knowledge and guided only by emotions cannot take a responsible decision about anything at all.

Essentially it is no better than giving a platform to two madmen who are happy to have a chance to reel off their gravest fantasies about someone they used to know and praised for decades, and who now say the opposite at the luring prospect of getting hundreds of millions from his Estate and knowing that it is a safe venue as the law on defamation doesn’t protect the deceased. Their case is still under appeal now, and it is in their interests to make their stories as graphic as only possible as the more public outrage the higher the chances that the appellate judges will give in to this noise.

The first viewers of the film who did no research and know only the media innuendoes about MJ say that the film is ‘powerful’ and its characters look ‘credible’. But the Star Wars is also powerful, and as to the two guys’ performance in the film, anyone would look upset and miserable at the prospect of losing hundreds of millions and would cry like babies out of the sheer shame of having to present themselves as “voluntary participants” of the alleged “sex activities” and possibly also losing the reward for telling so humiliating a lie.

Robson has to feign mental confusion saying that at age 23 he “didn’t realize that rape is abuse” and that he “liked it”, because there is no other way for him to explain how he managed to testify under oath that he had never been touched and after that still expect not to be called a perjurer he really is.

Safechuck’s story is different but is no better. According to his lawsuit he realized that his long psychiatric history could be the result of “abuse” only when he saw Robson on TV in 2013 and until that moment he had no idea about it. Isn’t all of it an insult to intellect and common sense?

Anyone familiar with the history of allegations against Jackson will know that Jordan Chandler in 1993 and Gavin Arvizo in 2005 did not claim even a fraction of what is now claimed by the two guys who were supposed to be the earlier “victims”. So while real predators always progress from bad to worse, for these two characters it worked in the reverse order – when Jackson was still young, naïve and incredibly God abiding, he was supposed to commit much graver crimes than those that were alleged about him years later when he was mature and really grown-up.

For the media to support so obvious a fake is utter disgrace.

JC: How do you feel like the MJ community is reacting to news of the film and the ensuing media coverage? Is there a responsibility felt by fans to protect his legacy?

EO: The reaction of the MJ community is absolutely adequate – it is the reaction of knowledgeable people who have to talk to ignoramuses. In contrast to the public and media many fans and supporters have studied Robson’s and Safechuck’s lawsuits, and are not only aware of what they are going to say in the film, but also know at which point their statements contradict their own previous testimonies and even their own current versions – like Robson, for example, who realized that his initial claims will be disproven by his sister’s testimony at the 2005 trial about the first two nights at Neverland and to be on the safe side has now shifted the beginning of “molestation” to a later time, as I hear.

Or take, for example, Dan Reed’s ridiculous assurances that these two guys didn’t meet each other as adults, when in his 2016 deposition Robson is recorded saying that “the last time they spoke was in early 2014” which was after Robson’s complaint but before Safechuck made his, which was a perfect period for exchanging ideas and unifying their claims.

As to the media coverage I cannot yet figure out whether the media is simply ignorant or has an agenda against Michael Jackson. However there isn’t much difference as both are unforgivable.

Speaking of our responsibility as MJ advocates and fans we’ve found ourselves in the circumstances when the media doesn’t do its work and is counterproductive to the truth, so we have no choice but be the media alternative and keep educating people on the real situation around Jackson.

JC: Would you be interested in a documentary about the alleged abuse if you felt it was a more balanced portrayal or should the topic be off limits?

EO: The topic is absolutely not off limits and one day there will be a good documentary series about all the allegations about Jackson based on facts and facts alone. I can assure you that that will be a sensation as it will open up so many secrets of the people who consistently worked on stigmatizing Jackson that they will probably wish they had never started it.

One of the lacunas to be filled is the man who spent decades spreading lies about Jackson, who worked in collaboration with Martin Bashir on his second film about MJ and assisted some US TV channels in covering the 2005 trial. His name is Victor Gutierrez and he is a self-admitted attendee of a NAMBLA conference (North American Man Boy Love Association) held in late 80s where its participants decided to turn Michael Jackson into their poster boy. The only problem was to “prove” that he was their kind. Since then Victor Gutierrez has been tirelessly working in this direction and there is no low to which he didn’t stoop in smearing Jackson. Michael sued him and won, but Gutierrez fled the country not to pay him millions in damages, however the court order didn’t prevent him from reemerging in US to work as a TV consultant producer during the 2005 trial. A NAMBLA attendee as a consultant producer of US TV programs – isn’t it a nice piece of news just for starters?

If most of the media never heard of Victor Gutierrez it means that while doing their lazy copy-pasting they failed to notice an elephant in the room.

Dateline NBC program. Victor Gutierrez is a consultant. [September 3, 2004]

JC: What do you think is the single most misunderstood thing by the public about Michael and the allegations of pedophilia and molestation?

EO: The single most misunderstood thing by the public is that Michael Jackson is absolutely not guilty of what he was accused. We may argue about his way of life and criticize him for behaving like a 12-year old and making a fool of himself by allowing all those slumber parties at his home, but he never molested anyone and his heart was in the right place.

Even when recorded by Conrad Murray when he was falling asleep and was in a half conscious state Michael’s words were about how much it hurt him to see children suffering and that God wanted him to help them. A person speaking about God and the need to help children at the moment when he was unable to control his subconscious surely didn’t have a single dirty thought on his mind. Any anesthesiologist who regularly hears people spilling out their innermost thoughts under sedation will tell you that.

Incidentally the full text of that tape has been very scarcely reported by the press. Why so, I wonder?

Here it is in case you don’t know.¹

JC: Why do you think MJ fans are so dedicated and thorough in their defenses of Michael on social media?

EO: You can address the same question to people who know that the Earth is round, but are ridiculed by those who think that it is flat. There is simply no choice, but fight them – for the sake of truth, sanity and future of civilization. With the wealth of knowledge behind our backs we cannot leave the subject of Michael Jackson solely to flat earthers to handle it and keep all others in the medieval dark. There is no other option for us, but defend the truth.

JC: What would be the ideal scenario for you, in terms of how the media and the public treat MJ going forward? And how do you think his accusers should be considered?

EO: For me the ideal scenario would be to make a joint research of all allegations about Michael Jackson with every element of it thoroughly examined without any bias or preconception on any side. Some fans will probably disagree as they understandably want Michael to rest in peace and be left alone at last. But my feeling is that without a proper rebuttal his name will not be cleared and Michael will not get the justice he deserves.

As to Dan Reed’s one-sided propaganda piece the ideal scenario would be to ban it altogether in the same way the media bans other propaganda promoting hatred, discrimination, intolerance and the like. The media will not allow a film where someone propagates any of the above ideas for four hours in the name of freedom of speech, will they? Because even if there is a short post-film disclaimer saying that “these are vicious and hateful ideas, but it is up to you to decide whether they are right or wrong” it will be absolutely not enough – it will not erase the effect of those ideas on human minds when they go totally unchallenged and for four hours too.

So why should the two proven perjurers be given the same chance? The film will become more or less balanced if their claims are alternated with their earlier testimonies and interviews about Michael’s innocence, the correct timeline is provided to disprove their stories (Robson, for example, was to Neverland on four occasions only when Michael was there, as all other stays were in his absence according to his own mother’s testimony²) and exactly half the film footage is given to the facts and witnesses contradicting their claims.

Like this account by German princess Elisabeth von Thurn und Taxis whose brother Albert was also friends with Michael Jackson, for example: https://web.archive.org/web/20110711003404/http://www.finchsquarterly.com/2741/never-neverland-again/

Otherwise the film will remain a blatant propaganda piece intended solely for brainwashing people and a very, very shameful episode in the history of your media which undermines its credibility with its own hands.

————————————————————-

¹ Excerpt from Conrad Murray’s tape: http://archive.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2011/10/05/a_transcript_of_recording_of_michael_jackson/

“Children are depressed. The — in those hospitals, no game room, no movie theater. They’re sick because they’re depressed. Their mind is depressing them. I want to give them that. I care about them, them angels. God wants me to do it. God wants me to do it. I’m gonna do it, Conrad.”

² Excerpt from Joy Robson’s testimony: http://www.reflectionsonthedance.com/05-06-05__Joy_Chantal_Lizbeth_Karlee_.txt

21       Q.  You were not at the ranch on a number of

22   occasions during 1991?

23       A.  My memory is in the entire time we’ve lived

24   here since 1991, we’ve only been at the ranch with

25   Michael on four occasions in 14 years.

26       Q.  Four occasions?

27       A.  Every other time we’ve been here without

28   him.

———————————————————

Best regards,

EO

The first week of March this year was packed with so many crucial events around the so-called documentary  “Leaving Neverland” that each of them demanded a post. However covering them all was impossible in principle, so I settled on a review of the main episodes in the battle between truth and lies suddenly imposed on the public by Michael Jackson haters.

Some important pieces of the battle may have been omitted and I apologize for it in advance – if something substantial was overlooked it may be added later, in the comments or as an update to the post.

What you will see here are mostly tweets and messages from various people who have seen the film. I myself saw about an hour of Dan Reed’s four-hour product and to my surprise was so unimpressed that even despite its graphic content managed to have a meal in the process. My comment will be minimal as the impression is not full, however my short review of the first part will also be here.

For a start this is what genuine survivors of child sexual abuse say about the film.

March 4, 2019

𝕽𝖚𝖉𝖞

As a victim of child sexual abuse I have never felt so disgusted by a single media event in my life. I take these kinds of allegations really seriously because they are. To lie about something so traumatizing is beyond horrifying to me. These men need to be prosecuted

GabPassonen

Real victims should never pay attention to this fake documentary, i was a victim myself and i truly feel this is just a mockery it hasn’t affected me but only wish and pray robson and safechuck pay for their lies along with their supporters its disgusting. #LeavingNeverland

https://twitter.com/awake_gab/status/1102498653489393664

Kae Purbeck‏  If you were a victim of abuse yourself, how can you just dismiss these men’s stories out of hand because you are a fan if MJ?! That is deeply disturbing.

𝕽𝖚𝖉𝖞‏ @rudyvitoria

I don’t know how you feel about this but they also claimed to have kept rings they said Michael gave to them in fake wedding ceremonies? Had my abuser ever given me a gift I would’ve burned it a long time ago. Who keeps mementos of their own abuse? They’re mocking people like us.

𝕽𝖚𝖉𝖞‏ @rudyvitoria

That’s BY FAR the part of the doc that shocked me the most. A real victim would never keep a memento. The fact that they even suggested that victims are sitting at home with souvenirs on their shelves just in case they want to relive their torment infuriates me.

caramella I’ve been sexually assaulted, never considered ever ever ever in my entire life of lives whether or not it would make me “relevant” or “relatable” in my next career, which was the context of his words. Using this in his next career. You know it’s what it sounds like is why.

Michelle heald‏

I can assure you the entire #MJFAM are behind all true victims. I won’t pretend to know your pain but I know you have to have a great deal of pain. These guys don’t deserve to be walking free after the mockery they have made of true victims. Prayers for you and others.

𝕽𝖚𝖉𝖞‏ @rudyvitoria

Tearful reading all the from the #MJFam. I’ve been to therapy & taken meds to deal with the abuse I endured. It’s so hard to come through the other side. Shame on @HBO, @Oprah, Wade, James & Dan for playing with these issues. May God forgive you. #MJInnocent #LeavingNeverland

Steve Brookstein‏ As a survivor, I don’t feel silenced by Michael Jackson fans. I feel silenced by media controlled by powerful paedophiles who would throw anyone else under the bus to protect their own.

The  viewers who expected evidence in the film didn’t find any.

Blackwings‏ @shadowsforlight

2 hours in, and not a shred of evidence. Just grotesque pedophilia fan fiction. Feels very emotionally manipulative and propagandistic.

RazörFist‏ @RAZ0RFIST

…and how they record even the most inoccuous phone calls, yet conveniently never record one where Michael says the faintest incriminating word. In hours and hours of tape. Boy, that’s some uncharacteristically bad luck.

WildStyle   Forgive me, but just got to the MJ showing Wade porn section. Sorry to be graphic, but apparently a grown mans penis in his mouth was ok and something he “looked forward to” when visiting with Michael again after being away in Australia. But later when he got back and MJ started showing him porn (a “new thing” straight from the Arvizo trial)… that wasn’t ok. That wasn’t so fun. And he still looks so troubled by it. Ok, Wade.

Just a short note on the above – besides the “penis” horror tale which is of course a totally new thing as compared with Robson’s testimony under oath in 2005, porn was not an issue there either. We remember Robson’s genuine surprise at the prosecutor telling him that “the exhibit” he was holding in his hands (an erotic heterosexual magazine) once belonged to Jackson. Robson said that this was the first time he knew Michael had any such material.

What the viewers also noticed is that there was something not right about the strange way the two characters in Dan Reed’s film describe their “abuse” and how jolly both “victims” and their family members are.

Mandy Hale

Watching #LeavingNeverland. I’ve always been Team #MJInnocent & so far this documentary is only confirming that belief. There is something very odd & disturbing about how jolly all the “victims” and their families are. The moms keep giggling like schoolgirls.

What doesn’t add up is the relaxed and smiling way they describe their first meetings with Michael and the same relaxed and composed way they describe the alleged abuse.

Safechuck breaks his horror story about how his “molestation started” by talking of his penis swelling.  Yes, it was just like that – a graphic description coming out of the blue. Besides this sudden intimate revelation what also takes you aback is that while saying that he is looking straight into the camera and is speaking in a calm voice with a kind of a lingering smile to it.

Well, I have seen videos of genuine victims talking and remember all of them stammering, making extremely long pauses and struggling to utter just a single word. And Safechuck’s smooth narration definitely has nothing to do with the painful way genuine victims talk – even if they try to occasionally smile.

Here is just one video and you will see what I mean. Mind you that this man is not even describing the abuse he suffered but is only asking other victims to seek help like he did. To reveal the details of his abuse will take him and other real victims a thousand more miles to go before (or if) they ever manage it.

If you compare the above with Safechuck’s relaxed pose you will see that he and Robson are an imitation. A very good imitation, but still an imitation.

Just look at his relaxed pose

The post-film show of the two actors talking to Oprah produced on some viewers the impression of pure evil.

𝕽𝖚𝖉𝖞‏ @rudyvitoria

Just caught up on last night’s #LeavingNeverland & #AfterNeverland and I’ll never forget @Oprah saying “when you’re 7 & someone strokes your penis it feels good” & Wade nodding in agreement. I was 5 when I was molested. It didn’t feel good. How dare you. I feel crushed. #MJInnocent

Indeed, imagine the genuine victim we’ve seen in the video hearing that “stroking his penis at age seven felt good”. I think he would have simply thrown up in front of the camera.

The same creepy feeling of something terribly wrong about Dan Reed’s film came over the viewers after the program “Good Morning Britain”, where the filmmaker clashed with Piers Morgan despite the latter’s reasonable and perfectly adequate questions.

Becoming more and more irate, Dan began accusing Piers, 53, of falling for the story from the singer’s estate, which has claimed the two men, who are now in their thirties, are only going back on their initial statements in the court case as a bid to win millions of dollars.

“They’ve repeatedly said under oath nothing happened,” the journalist offered, citing a previous story in the media which saw “everyone rushing to believe the accusers’ truth,” when it actually “turned out the truth was a very different thing”.

“Why should we not believe them?” Dan blasted. “You are swallowing the Michael Jackson line hook, line and sinker. This is not about money.”

“No I’m not!” Piers insisted, but Dan ignored him and carried on.

https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1096314/ITV-Good-Morning-Britain-Piers-Morgan-Leaving-Neverland-Dan-Reed-Michael-Jackson-doc-video

Piers asked if the director was “100% sure” if the word of the two accusers was enough to prove Jackson was a paedophile.

He said: “It is all very weird and odd and makes me feel uncomfortable. I’m just not as certain as you are that Jackson was proven to be a paedophile and I’m concerned about the credibility of the two people you so whole-heartedly rely on.”

Dan said he believed their accounts and to “concoct a whole charade” of the family’s being devastated would “beggar belief”.

Dan explained there were eyewitness notes, statements made by Neverland staff that corroborated the allegations.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/piers-morgan-clashes-michael-jackson-14093747

What struck some viewers most is that Dan Reed was not shy to express pedophilia views.

The Wigsnatcher His narrative on sexual relationships between adults and children is wrong in general. Were you totally creeped out by him on Piers Morgan? He says “Sex can be pleasant” between adults and children! Something is wrong with this man I tell you.

Justice for The Falsely Accused These creeps like Robson, Safechuck and Reed come out and talk about little children having a “sexually and emotionally fulfilling relationship” with an adult man, internalizing NAMBLA propaganda just to further their agenda, but it is MJ who is the pervert? I don’t think so!

Sameh Wow. “Lover” instead of “abuser”??!Dan Reed has already described it as “the sex” instead of “the abuse”. Would he care to explain his choice of words? No wonder why Safechuck’s accounts are drawn from NAMBLA affiliate Gutierrez’s recounts!

And the thing I noticed about Dan Reed is that when attacking Piers Morgan he said the following, as reported here:

“I make allegations about Michael but Michael’s dead and I’ve put his rebuttals, his denials in the film,” Dan explained. “Wade Robson and James Safechuck are not dead…To talk about hard evidence, soiled underwear 20 years later, I’m sorry that’s… In paedophile cases, if this was tried in a court it would be on the evidence of these two very credible witnesses.”

Forget about the “hard evidence” and “soiled underwear” nonsense – in the recent post about MJ’s personal maid Adrian McManus who washed Michael’s and his guests’ clothes and underwear, I found not a single shred of evidence of what Dan Reed is talking about, even in her latest and nastiest version aired on Australian TV.

But what astonished me most is that Dan Reed admits it himself that it is he who is making these allegations (“I make allegations about Michael…” ) and he is absolutely not impartial here. After such an admission all questions about the gentre of this film will fall off by themselves – the film is NOT a documentary, but is a deliberate hatchet job where everything, from music and changing the timeline of the events to open and vicious lies about Jackson, is dedicated to his murderous character assassination.

The example of this assassination is the way Dan Reed tampered with the tape of Michael Jackson congratulating Wade Robson on his birthday.

Micheal Jackson: “Hello Wade.Congratulations little one.Today is your birthday.I don’t celebrate birthdays,of course,but I thought I would take this moment to say congratulations on the day that you were born. In my opinion, you should spend this day with your mother & your father, who conceived you. You should be giving them the presents & being thankful that they brought you into the world.”

And the first few seconds in this video show us the way it looks in Dan Reed’s trailer:

MJJJusticeProject‏ @MJJJusticePrjct

Pay attention people judging #MichaelJackson there is manipulation in the film #LeavingNeverland – He didn’t come between children & their parents, quite the opposite- in this bday message Michael appears to tell WADE to appreciate his parents and give them gifts –

Let me add that besides Michael asking the boy to be closer with his parents this message shows the unique way of his thinking – Michael tells Wade that it is he who should be grateful to his parents for bringing him into the world and who should make presents to them. After listening to this tape I have no doubt whatsoever that together with the tape Michael sent gifts to Wade’s parents too (and rings to his mother, same as to Safechuck’s).

Coming back to Dan Reed’s film the only journalist who has grilled Dan Reed about his product is Piers Morgan.

As you can see in the above tweet Dan Reed ridiculed Piers Morgan, but the journalist responded saying that he was simply doing his job, putting to him “the obvious questions any journalist should ask about the documentary, which is based on the testimony of accusers who said (under oath) the complete opposite before Jackson died, and now stand to make millions from his estate by changing their stories.”

Who could expect that in the shameless smear campaign against MJ Piers Morgan will remain the pillar of journalism in the UK?  Only recently Charles Thomson, an award winning journalist himself, was talking about the death of journalism – however it seems that all is not lost yet given Piers Morgan’s example.

Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson

A ‘journalist’ who refuses to do any research calling somebody else a disgrace for stating a fact. Death of journalism.

Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson

I dropped a couple of little truth bombs on a pair of BBC presenters yesterday. Watch this video below and hear how surprised they were after I’d finished. One, an ex-journalist, couldn’t understand why nobody else is balancing the story with these facts.

Later Charles Thomson spoke again on the BBC:

When some MJ supporters refuse to watch Dan Reed’s product the arrogant media tells them to see the film before commenting. Charles Thomson has the following to say about it:

Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson

Why would anyone who’s spent 5 years reading the court documents, including lengthy deposition transcripts, need to watch a heavily edited TV show by a director who freely admits that it is completely biased in favour of the accusers & contains zero scrutiny of their allegations?

Instead of inspiring people to watch the film Dan Reed’s mock documentary inspired people to come out of the woodwork and speak up.

Brandi Jackson revealed that while Wade claims that MJ allegedly monopolized the boy for himself, her uncle Michael actually brought Wade and Brandi together and they dated for 7 years after that.

A woman who worked at Neverland in the early 90s and initially didn’t want to be involved found the film to be the last straw. She recalled that the Safechucks had no problem of taking advantage of Jackson’s generosity and that Michael even chose not to be on the property when they came.

Judi Brisse‏ @JudiBrisse

I didn’t want to get involved Maria, but the time has come. Thank you.

Judi Brisse‏ @JudiBrisse

I worked in the house at Neverland when the Safechucks were there, in the early 90’s. They had no problem taking advantage of Mr.Jackson’s generosity back then. Michael was never on property when they came. He chose not to be.

Girls started recollecting their own sleepover experiences with Michael Jackson:

Hammertonhal posted the picture of a girl who slept in Michael Jackson’s bed.

“During the trial they kept talking about all the boys who slept in his bed. Well, I’m a girl and I slept in his bed when I was a kid. The prosecutor must know that there were girls around, but he never mentioned it. I was tempted to offer myself up as a defense witness, but I didn’t relish the media circus” [Ian Halperin: Unmasked, page 108-109]

He talked for more than two hours in a livestream interview with Nicole and disclosed some of the two guys’ secrets.

One, for example, is why Robson waited for the 7-year statute of limitations to expire after the 2005 trial in order to release his story. Ross’s answer to that is because Robson was afraid to be prosecuted for perjury (see 11:50 of the tape) and didn’t want to take any risks.

Scott Ross says that before allowing Wade Robson to testify at the 2005 trial he interviewed Robson for 3 or 4 hours to see whether he was telling the truth. Then came a short talk with Thomas Mesereau and Susan Yu, and then another long interview with two detectives on the prosecution side. Scott Ross doubts that Robson could outsmart all of them – the people with decades of experience in investigating crimes and interviewing witnesses (10:00 of the tape).

And Scott Ross didn’t ask Robson simple questions like “Did he do it to you?”. Ross used the method called by him as “Colombo”, when the detective returns to the same point an hour later and words it in a different way to see the consistency of the answer. Remarkably, Wade Robson never wavered and never once slipped in his answers (28:50 of the tape).

When Scott Ross hears that now Robson claims that he was subpoenaed by the defense he says he would love Robson to show him that subpoena (20:50 of the tape).

As to Safechuck who complained about Michael’s legal team pressuring him into testifying, Scott Ross says that Safechuck was irrelevant as a witness because the judge had ruled against his testimony long before the defense opened their case at the trial (mark 16:15 of the tape).

And what legal team did Safechuck talk about at all if it was only Scott Ross and his wife Lisa? And they certainly didn’t call Safechuck as he was a non-entity to them. The only one left of the “team” was Eva Tavasci, but she didn’t call Safechuck either as at the time she was preoccupied with a very ill relative of hers and was not available even to Ross and sometimes for 3 days at a time (17:15 of the tape).

At 56:30 Scott Ross talks about the behavioral changes that take place in sexually abused children – they grow shy and quiet, don’t talk and jerk when somebody touches them – and none of it was noticed about Robson and Safechuck. (To make sure of it you need to watch at least the first 40 min of the film and see Safechuck happy and elated in Michael’s presence).

As to Dan Reed who now claims that he looked through “eyewitness notes, statements made by Neverland staff that corroborated the allegations”, Scott Ross compared those declarations to a piece of toilet paper. These notes are worthless as they were not made under oath and cannot be cross-examined. What’s more, during the 2005 trial Scott Ross found some of those “eyewitnesses” not even able to speak or read English! (mark 23:10 of the tape).

Another fine piece in Scott’s interview is that Robson’s brother Shane is a policeman with a licence both in Australia and the US, so Scott wonders: “Your brother is a police officer and you don’t tell your own brother?” Scott and Shane are still friends and knowing full well Ross’s views on Wade’s story his brother Shane Robson still works with Scott on their mutual investigations. As to why he took part in the film Shane said: “He is my brother. I need to be supportive of him”.

The talk about Safechuck’s relatives reminds me of his cousin Tony who said in October 2013 that he and Jimmy used to hang out together at Neverland and all allegations about MJ are bullshit. It was the time when Tony didn’t yet know that his cousin Jimmy would join Robson’s complaint, so this tweet was the last we heard from Tony:

TONY SAFECHUCK

“My cousin and I were 2 of the kids that used to hang out with him! Great person, it’s all bullshit, no settlement happened.”

Tony’s tweet is in direct contradiction with statements of Safechuck’s mother who says that she danced when she learned of MJ’s death:

Stephanie Safechuck “Oh thank god, he can’t hurt anymore children. Those were my thoughts, and I danced. I was so happy he died.” – James Safechuck’s mother on Michael Jackson’s death #LeavingNeverland

Why was this callous woman so happy when Michael Jackson died if Tony tells us that at that time they considered Michael Jackson a great person?

The lies these people tell us would be even entertaining and fun to disentangle, if they weren’t that tragic in the first place.

A couple of other incredible details were also noted by knowledgeable MJ fans. Someone recalled that Wade Robson was caught visiting the blog of the worst Michael Jackson’s haters – apparently, in a quest for details of his own abuse or suitable timeline for it.

PHOENIX  What real victim has to research his own abuse on sites decided to smearing his “abuser”?

Others recall that while we are told to believe that both characters were protecting their “lover” not knowing that it was a crime, the judge who looked into their case didn’t buy this BS.

“Plaintiff knew at the time of the decedent’s death in June 2009 that it was a crime for an adult to engage in sexual conduct with a minor.”

There were so many versions of their stories that now I am a bit confused which version is valid for today – “they didn’t know it was abuse and thought it was love” or “they knew it was a crime but were protecting their lover”. But in any case it was a perjury on their part, and Scott Ross is probably right when he says that to avoid going to jail Robson deliberately waited for the 7-year statute of limitations to expire before releasing his complaint.

These guys seem to have safeguarded themselves from any problem while working on their elaborate long-term plan.

The Estate’s lawsuit against HBO will tell you more about the twists and turns in these two charactes’ tales:  https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/mj-arbitration-doc-1.pdf

And yes, a week ago Richard Plepler who had worked HBO for 28 years suddenly resigned amid what they called the “restructuring” of the company.

HBO CEO Richard Plepler to resign amid restructuring under AT&T

CNBC February 28, 2019

HBO CEO Richard Plepler is out amid a broad restructuring of the company under new parent AT&T T , according to an internal memo obtained by CNBC.

Plepler had been at HBO for nearly three decades and led the company as it became one of the market leaders in streaming video on demand. AT&T’s purchase of Time Warner earlier this year spurred reports of a culture clash between the telecom giant and its newly acquired media assets.

Plepler is leaving in part because he would have seen less autonomy under the new structure, according to a person familiar with the transition. Plepler is still working out the exact timing of the transition, the person said, but chafed at the prospect of a larger company and more oversight.

https://finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/hbo-ceo-richard-plepler-resign-223027818.html

MJ supporters responded to it as follows:

The pushed narrative states Richard is resigning because of “reconstruction.” I’ll say the Michael Jackson Estate’s lawsuit over #LeavingNeverland has more to do with it than anything else. Oh not to mention that backlash this film is going to receive.

After Dan Reed’s film aired on TV a certain clip from it came to Taj Jackson’s attention.

The clip has to do with Robson’s explanations why he had to lie in the courtroom. According to the heart-wrenching story of this epitome of human kindness he felt sorry for Michael’s children and couldn’t bear the thought of them left alone if their father went to jail, and this convinced him even more that he should lie in court to protect him.

Here is the transcript of that clip:

Chantal Robson: (music) “So we are at the ranch with all his family. Michael didn’t look well. He looked very sick. His kids were there. Everybody was there.

Wade Robson (music, an aerial view of Neverland):  His mind was in a whole other place (music). I remember all of us sitting at dinner and Paris, his daughter, just wanting her dad’s attention, like pulling on his arm and pulling on his fingers, “Daddy, daddy, daddy”. And he wasn’t there, and I was feeling really sad.

(video of MJ’s children) What if he loses? What if he goes to jail? These are the last couple of times that they see their daddy, you know? Which built my conviction even that much more – to save him.

Amanda Robson: “I think that definitely helped Wade to go into the courtroom feeling that he wanted to support Michael”.

And this is what Taj Jackson revealed in his tweet on the above:

“How do you know, you weren’t there.” That has been one of the main lines the press have used against me as I speak up for my uncle. Someone sent me this part of the “doc”, and I can tell you with 100% certainly, Wade’s WHOLE family flat out lied on camera in this video.

If I was not physically there myself to witness this dinner, I probably would have not even questioned it. This story beat is supposed to give Wade the motivation to “lie” under oath to “protect” Michael Jackson. Problem is, this dinner HAPPENED AFTER Wade testified… Oops

Timelines matter and so does the truth. Although this is carefully scripted and edited, Chantel says “Everybody was there”. She means me, Brett and his family. But our names were wisely omitted because it doesn’t fit this narrative.

After watching this segment, you can now see that it is a lie. And the fact that they can lie on camera & twist this event & timeline so freely and convincingly, told me everything I need to know.

As Dan Reed said.. “he had a narrative to tell”. But truth has its own narrative.

A shot from the clip

The scene of the whole Robson family lying on camera is indeed powerful, but a much more powerful side to it is that it reminds us of Michael’s children who due to this devilish campaign against their father must be living in sheer hell now.

What brand of stone are these people’s hearts made of if they allow themselves to lie so horribly with no regard for Michael’s children? And why doesn’t anyone care for Michael’s kids while embracing and siding with the two liars?

Lisa Croft  I cannot imagine what this must be doing to his children.. The whole way this was done was so unethical and it just damages believability of victims and sets the hard earned MeToo movement back.. Dan Reed was so arrogant and blindly insensitive about it..

Another Michael’s nephew TJ Jackson‏ was right when he tweeted that the world is sick.

TJ Jackson‏  This was my Uncle Michael’s hero. This is who he modeled his life after… is showing kids love now a crime?! My uncle was just too darn good for our sick, greedy & manipulative world driven by money and ratings. His heart was too big. Period. RIP Uncle Michael. I love you!

A short note on the above. Jesus Christ was indeed Michael Jackson’s hero and the one he modeled his life after. Another image of Christ was hanging over Michael’s bed and right at the time when the alleged “abuse” was allegedly taking place there. We’ve seen this image in the photo of Michael’s room and the same image over Michael’s bed in the outtakes of Oprah’s interview with MJ in February 1993.

The image of Christ over Michael Jackson’s bed

The image of Christ over Michael’s bed in the outtakes from Oprah’s interview with MJ

Well, probably others also have a cross or image of Christ over their beds, but what surprises me most is that no one in the media ever mentioned it when describing Michael’s bedroom. They would talk for years about some secret closets and every speck of dust there, but they will never tell you who was Michael’s hero and that there was an image of him in the very center of Michael’s room.

This detail about Michael Jackson was simply not to be known by the public. The public was to know the “official” version about MJ propagated by the media, prosecution and various con artists – the version which had nothing to do with the truth.

But as Abraham Lincoln said,

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time” – Abraham Lincoln

There is a limit to people’s patience, and this seems to be the moment when people start saying “enough is enough”. At least this is what the Schleiter family from Germany said just several days ago.

“Enough is enough. Today we speak up for Michael because he deserves better and because he was the best friend we could have ever imagined”

Here is their letter in full:

An Open Letter

From the Schleiter Family

Hi, we are Franziska, Anton, Marlies and Wolfgang – brother and sister and our parents. We were close friends with Michael Jackson from childhood on. What we are about to say comes out of a place of great love and appreciation. If you would like to quote this text, please do not take it out of context and always link back to this page. We won‘t be giving any interviews to the press. Thank you for understanding. This is all we have to say:

04.03.2019

Enough is Enough.

In 1995 we first met Michael at a German TV Show. That day, something that we could never have imagined in our wildest dreams happened. It was the start of a unique friendship. A friendship so normal yet so unusual and magical. One that would last until the very last day of Michael‘s life and will continue forever in our hearts.

From the beginning we knew that what we were privileged to experience, was a treasure worth protecting. Especially regarding the world we live in, with media that wants to make up stories that sell, rather than seeking the truth and people who want to read shocking headlines rather than knowing the truth. Over the years we were offered over a quarter million of Euros for interviews, but no money in the world could ever materialize a value that would stand above the value of our memories with Michael. This is the reason why we have never spoken a word publicly about our friendship.

Something has changed our mind about speaking up lately. The utter shocking news of a new documentary that would portray Michael once again as a child molester. Even writing this sentence, putting his name and that word together, makes us feel sick to our stomach. Michael never behaved inappropriately towards us and we neither witnessed nor suspected him doing it to someone else ever.

We have been angry with the public treatment of Michael many times in the past, but we chose to stay silent – hoping the truth to run marathons and protecting Michael and his privacy.

And we had good reason to be angry, for example when Anton was falsely portrayed in a German tabloid as having a homosexual affair with Michael. We witnessed first hand how ugly the media can be and how they make up most terrible lies just to have a story. When our father denied to talk to an inquiring journalist on the phone, the story read something like “Father refuses to defend Michael”. Unfortunately scandals sell much better than anything else.

Spending a lot of time with Michael, we experienced two-faced people more than once. When Michael was in the room, they acted most charming with seemingly good intentions, but once he turned his cheek they would become rude and you could sense that their intentions were not that good after all. In front of us, they didn‘t care showing their real face. We were only the shy German family in the background, not worth paying attention to. But we were observing and slowly but surely we started to get a glance at the often difficult world Michael was living in. It was a world in which it was so very difficult to trust.

And yet Michael was kind to everybody he would meet and believed in the good so strongly. Some would call it naiv, to us it was just one of his character traits that made us look up to him. Giving everybody a chance, even if you’ve been fooled by people over and over, really is remarkable. And it makes us even more sad to know, that many took and still take advantage of this.

Being around Michael made us realize that everybody wanted a piece of him. We often wondered why, from all people, he would let us into his circle of trusted friends. Now we understand it was maybe the fact that we didn’t want anything from him and simply enjoyed being together. When he offered to pay for our education, our parents denied because it was too much of a gift. It was a no brainer for us then, but looking back on it now, it was probably something that Michael didn’t experience often.

Those who wanted a piece of his fame or his money did not care about Michael as a person or about his kind heart and uplifting spirit. It is truly a shame and we almost feel bad for those people in a way, because blinded by money, they probably didn’t realize that they just had the honor to meet a person that has a uniqueness about him that the world would only witness every other century. His music, his message, his creative and genius mind was truly one of a kind.

While our friendship with Michael was very normal in a sense that we hung out, chatted on the phone, went to the movies just like friends do, it was also magical in the sense that Michael had a warmth about him that was captivating. You would immediately feel comfortable and safe around him. He was one of the most humble persons we’ve ever met, always putting the well being of others over his own. There was never a single moment of doubt of his pure heart and intentions, which also led our parents to allow us to travel alone with Michael.

Though we‘re speaking up today, we still want to protect and respect our personal stories. What we can say though, is that each and every time we had to say good bye to Michael, we all cried because we knew how much we would miss him. The times we spent together were the most fun. And while Michael was always up for a good water balloon fight, he was also a great mentor, teaching us about life and sharing his incredible knowledge. We can remember how excited he was to tell us about the Wright brothers when he learnt that we had never heard of them. He gave us books and movies of stories we could learn from and he was eager for us to develop our talents.

We understand that our story can only put a small piece of the puzzle together for those who are still in doubt of what to believe about Michael Jackson. To those who still doubt that he was innocent, we can only plea to simply do your own research. And if the fact that Michael had to endure every possible raid of privacy in his trial in 2005 and still was found NOT GUILTY on ALL CHARGES, if this fact is still not enough for you, then maybe you can simply listen to his music.

Meeting many of his fans over the years, we were astounded how much they “got him“ as a person, even though they never personally met him. Michael and his fans had a unique friendship of their own. He trusted them and it is no wonder why they continue to trust in his good heart. They simply listened to his music and to his words. If you listen closely you‘d know all of his stories and you‘d know what kind of person he was. You would know that his mission for his time on earth was not only to bring happiness in form of melodies and rhythm but also to change the world to the better.

Boy, how he could inspire us to be our best selves and to show more love and respect to each other! Yet people choose to blow up lies that threaten to overshadow all of the greatness this man has brought.

Enough is enough.

Today we speak up for Michael because he deserves better and because he was the best friend we could have ever imagined.

Anton and Franziska and our parents Marlies and Wolfgang

Email : contact@schleiter-family.com

The Schleiter Family – All Rights Reserved

https://schleiter-family.com/?fbclid=IwAR3hljAKeK5QQeCa3pgYrWHWhLbHfjNPh4JxjnmhVRmZnWxOtZ34qaX0rVg

This remarkable letter managed to convey to us a piece of the real him – the pure man we can hardly see now behind the thick crust of lies and a monstrous amount of mud covering his face.

Like Michael Jackson during his lifetime most of us are now immersed in studying innumerable lawsuits, debunking revolting lies abut MJ and even reading pro-pedophilia books about him written by personalities like Victor Gutierrez – and are sick and tired of the whole thing in the same way Michael was sick and tired of it too.

In the climate we live in now the letter from the Schleiter family is like a breath of fresh air and sip of clean water enjoyed for a brief moment before we have to dive into the mud again in the hope that telling the truth about Michael Jackson may produce something positive one day.

Mark Flear @MarkFlear

It’s an odd time to live in generally. I suppose this brings up old emotions for some. People can and do change their minds. The younger generation might be more wise to facts in this age. So keeping at truth seeking and dissemination might produce something positive.

~

And now comes the difficult case of Corey Feldman.

Corey is a survivor of child sexual abuse who has been consistently fighting pedophilia and the right of abused children to get justice for themselves. At the moment he finds himself between a rock and a hard place – on the one hand he has the fondest memories of Michael Jackson and can’t even imagine him do anything to a child, but on the other hand Corey is campaigning for the right of all victims of child sexual abuse, and is afraid to undermine his own cause by doubting these two characters.

His instinct didn’t let him down when he watched the film and wrote the following tweets:

The tweets had to be rewritten as otherwise they are virtually unreadable:

OK I watched it all. I know what I experiences, and yes every experience was the same .. right up to the sex part! That is where it becomes LaLa land, instead of Neverland for me.

We never spoke about sex other than a few warnings about how sex was scary and dangerous. MJ never once swore in my presence, never touched me inappropriately, and never ever suggested we should be lovers in any way!

I feel like if people could hear our tape, I’m thinking about releasing, which could give people a real look at what a 30-year old man/child and a 13 year old boy would discuss, so everyone could hear the innocence of a relationship.  

Again I wasn’t there when those boys were. But I was there around the same time as Jimmy, and I saw many kids around (girls included) who I am still friends with to this day, and none of us were ever approached by him in a sexual way at all! So as much as those 2 men deserve to have their voices heard, so do the thousands of kids who hung around him, that don’t agree!

Most pedos are serial offenders, they don’t have self control. So given the opportunity which he certainly had with me and others, being alone, with no parents around, how did he control those urges so well, while so blatantly sexual with those 2 boys? It doesn’t really fit the profile, but what motive besides $ do they have? Abandonment is a strong one!

However I do take issue with the fact that this whole thing is one sided with no chance of a defense from a dead man, and no evidence other than the word of 2 men who as adults defended him in court! But as we will never really, I only have my memories.

And thank God for me, my memories of MJ were mostly fond, aside from one and only fight because he incorrectly feared I would turn on him, and make up lies. I never did. I never would! Pray those boys can sleep with the same clarity of consciousness! Let God be your judge!

However then Corey Feldman was contacted by HLN of CNN and obviously offered a chance to speak about his fight against child abuse, certainly in connection with their Leaving Neverland film which required from him a “balanced” view on the problem.

In the elation that a major TV network noticed his lone fight against pedophilia Corey Feldman wrote the following:

I have just spoken with CNN to give a brief statement! This is important, as my position has changed as I continued to process everything. I will go on camera with the news network to discuss my decision and reiterate my support for all survivors! Heading to HLTV CNN to answer some important questions, live on 7am. Trying to make sense of all of this. It’s a difficult time for all of us. Let’s try and stay calm, and find out what God’s will is in all of this.

And this is what came of Corey’s plans and the way they were presented by HNL.

Here is the full tape with a misleading title “Corey Feldman: I can no longer defend Michael Jackson” and its transcript:

Actor, Corey Feldman, a long-time friend of Michael Jackson tells HLN’s Mike Galanos about the man he knew and how that jibes with the startling allegations made in the controversial HBO documentary “Leaving Neverland.”

HLN Host: …Now that actor is clarifying what he’s said, saying: “Michael was my friend, but that doesn’t mean that I condone any harmful behavior, physical or mental. This is new information to me too. It takes time to absorb and process”.  Let us pick up with that last line – absorbing, processing – where are you with all this?

Corey Feldman: Well, as I mentioned in my statement, it is obviously a very emotional time for me. And this is a very emotional process for any survivor of abuse, of anybody who’s been through these things.

First of all, I ask people to put themselves in my shoes. You are a kid who has endured sexual abuse. And during those times I am looking at somebody like Michael Jackson as a friend, as a big brother figure, and he was that person to me. However, as you’re friends with this guy you start to hear more and more accusations being thrown around by various people and it comes to a point where as an advocate for victims, as an advocate for changing the statute of limitations to make sure that victims’ voices are heard, it becomes impossible for me to stay virtuous and not at least consider what’s being said. And not listen to what the victims are saying.

This is very important. We must give them their voice. We must allow them to speak and therefore we also must consider all sides of this, even as uncomfortable as that may be.

HLN Host: Got it. Describe your relationship with Michael Jackson. What was it like?

Corey Feldman: Absolutely nothing inappropriate ever happened, and we were friends. As I said I have a tape of the two of us hanging out, and when you listen to it you can hear the innocence in the conversation, but again I don’t want to be perceived as I am here to defend Michael because I can no longer do that.

I cannot in good consciousness defend anyone who is being accused of such horrendous crimes. But at the same time I am not here to judge him because again he didn’t do those things to me and that was not my experience. So therefore my place is not to be the judge and is not to be the accuser and not to be the defender. My job in this is to focus on what’s most important – helping to reform the statute of limitations in every state, because if we can reform the statute of limitations we can prevent things from ever getting to this point.

The fact is, I started reporting my molestations to the police in 1993 while all they were investigating Michael Jackson for the first time. I’ve never had a shot at justice. I’ve never had a chance to bring my predators to the court system. I’ve never had that opportunity. I’m hoping that after decades-long battle that through the process of making my own documentary – which I am making right now and I hope to find a distributor for it – we can get my story heard, we can help abolish the statute of limitations and I can finally have justice for my own case. So I think it’s extremely important that we all take a pause and listen to all victims right now.

And I certainly want to apologize if anyone took anything out of context in those tweets because it wasn’t meant in any way to question the validity of the victims.

(the host has no questions about Corey Feldman’s campaign and proceeds with “Leaving Neverland” instead)

HLN Host: Did you watch parts of Leaving Neverland?

Corey Feldman: I watched the first part. To be honest with you it was very emotional, was very painful and I couldn’t watch all of it.

HLN Host: We are going to play – if it is okay with you – it is just a short clip. This is James Safechuck talking and he is talking about a marriage ceremony he had with Michael.

(Safechuck talks about the “mock marriage ceremony”)

HLN Host: James Safechuck. You can tell he is still processing. They both tell compelling stories.  What are some of your reactions and thoughts?

Corey Feldman: Shocking and disturbing. There can be nothing else that can be said other than shocking and disturbing. Very compelling stories. And both of these guys sound very believable, because they are talking about a cycle that’s called grooming and the grooming cycle, the grooming process certainly fits the mold. And that is why this case must be taken seriously and that is why all cases must be taken seriously.

And again, my issue – when I wrote those tweets – was the way that documentary had laid it out, because as a filmmaker I was making a judgment in the sense that I know that to stay journalistically proper, to stay true to form we must investigate all sides, so certainly to have credence in my own film we are going to make sure to reach out to the people we are accusing and also to people who knew those people, so I think we have to have an all-rounded conversation.

That’s all what I was trying to say. And I really hope that with raising this awareness, thank God that they are doing this, and getting it out there, and all I can say is I wish it had happened when Michael was alive, so that he could have been in trial and faced it, and defended himself, and that can’t happen today. So I don’t know where this leads, but I do know that we keep talking   and we keep hearing each voice and each victim.

(the host is not interested in hearing other voices, all he wants to hear is Safechuck and Robson)

HLN Host: We should say that to James Safechuck and Wade Robson who are featured in the film. [..] Back to you when you were watching this – what were the conflicting emotions? Did you begin with the premise “these guys are not telling the truth” to the point “I need to rethink this”. Has this been that kind of process for you?

Corey Feldman: I would never come out initially thinking that anybody is lying because obviously you cannot even open the door to watching it if you don’t come to it with an open-ended interpretation of what you are about to witness. So I would never go into something, assuming that they are lying. But that said, as I’m watching it, I’m going “this doesn’t make sense to me”, “this isn’t the guy that I knew”, but look, I am a guy that as a 14-year old was molested! Did that pedophile completely lie to me about who he was? I trusted him, I believed in him as a friend and I thought he was a good person, and then he molested me. It all proves that I am not the best judge, that’s why I shouldn’t be the judge in this situation, especially given the fact that I am so close to him.

Again, if he were my brother, my own flesh and blood, and all these accusations being said against him, I would not be able to judge it. I would have to stand back and look at all sides. And if my brother is guilty of something, then I am going to go against it, because what matters most is to preserve the innocence of children. Children must come first. We must do God’s work and protect our children on this planet – it is the most important thing, so I have to bring it back to please help me in my fight to abolish the statute of limitations in every state so that we can get victory and justice for all survivors of sexual abuse. And there is a lot of it. It is out there in a massive way. If you really start to recognize the amount of kids that have been abused in the system and ignored, it is staggering, so we’ve got to focus on making it better. We’ve got to get justice for all kids.

HLN Host: Corey Feldman, thank you for your thoughts and emotions as you go through this.  Let me say that the Jackson Estate is suing the HBO over the documentary Leaving Neverland and I also want you to know that HBO and HLN share the same parent company Warner media. We’ll be right back.

You may have guessed that I perfectly understand Corey Feldman’s dual problem – protection of children is indeed the most important thing in the world and he hopes very much that the more people talk about child abuse the easier it will be to fight the problem.

However he is making the same mistake as in 1993 when he spoke of his own abuse to the Santa Barbara police hoping for their help – to only find that they didn’t give a damn about the genuine victim and were interested in Michael Jackson only.

And now he is falling into the same trap and the same illusion. HBO and HLN are absolutely not the right people to address his appeals to.

In his genuine passion to fight child abuse, in Hollywood in particular, Feldman talks about the staggering number of victims, but his HLN interviewer couldn’t care less – all he is interested is Safechuck and Robson and their film about Jackson, and this makes me afraid that when they make good use of Corey to support their two so-called “victims”, they will discard him as scrap and Corey’s hopes for his own documentary about pedophilia in Hollywood will be in shambles again.

The Hollywood predators will hardly ever allow a film exposing themselves, so over here Corey’s hopes are almost doomed – unless a miracle happens.

But there is one more point in Corey Feldman’s interview which is exceptionally important for understanding what Dan Reed’s film is all about.

You have probably noticed that for Corey Feldman as a survivor the most important part of their tales was the so-called “grooming” period which the film so convincingly portrayed.

Quotes:

“…they are talking about a cycle that’s called grooming and the grooming cycle, the grooming process certainly fits the mold”.

“Did that pedophile completely lie to me about who he was? I trusted him, I believed in him as a friend and I thought he was a good person, and then he molested me.”

This grooming process can be likened to a courtship between two adult people during which they grow to trust and love each other. And it seems that for pedophiles set on molesting their victims a similar kind of courtship is essential too – the predator first wins the trust of a child and then molests his victim as a “friend”. This is why Safechuck’s and Robson’s stories which seemed so convincing in this respect, were crucial for Corey to think that they “fit the mold”.

However Corey hasn’t read the documents, doesn’t know the timeline and didn’t compare it with what Dan Reed actually told his viewers.

And we have read the documents and that is why know one extremely important point. Here is this point:

THERE WAS NO GROOMING.

NONE AT ALL.

The terrible thing I noticed in the seemingly innocent first part of the film is that Dan Reed deliberately changed the timeline and devoted the major part of those first 45 minutes to artificially construct the grooming period which in reality was never there.

This is the real reason why the first “innocent” part of the film is so long.

Its goal is to groom the viewers, yes, groom them into thinking that there was a long friendship between Michael Jackson and those families during which he got closer and closer to the boys and won their trust, only to betray it months later when the whole thing allegedly began.

However the truth is that the film presents a totally false picture to its viewers and the first “innocent” 45 minutes of the story is actually where their big lie about Jackson already starts.

In Robson’s case Michael Jackson didn’t see the family for two years before they came on their fist visit to the US, and it took Robson’s mother another week to get Michael’s phone number, after which they met him and were invited to Neverland the same day, where according to Robson’s complaint the alleged molestation took place on the very first night.

And as to Safechuck the timeline the film presents is a different, visual kind of a fraud – Dan Reed first shows Safechuck happily dancing with Michael Jackson all over Europe and only then gives the aerial view of Paris by night and tells us that it is then that the molestation started.

However there was no “then”.

Safechuck’s complaint tells us that Paris was the first place where the family joined Michael Jackson on a tour, and this means that the alleged molestation came after months of not seeing Jackson and also on the very first day they joined him there.

For those of you who think that the absence of the grooming period is not that important, let me say that it is the basic element of their “friendship growing into love” story imposed on the public.

According to the film the alleged “sexual love” is the main reason why Robson and Safechuck supported Michael Jackson for so long – for them it wasn’t abuse, but “love” and this is why they “protected” him, and realized that “rape was abuse” only when their good therapists explained it to them … well, you remember all that bullshit.

They want us to regard their film as an example of a tender friendship between an adult and child developing into a “consensual love” which they saw to be the abuse only as grown-ups.

So the “friendship-turning-into-love” line is the whole foundation of their story, the fundamental element to it without which their careful construction of “love between an adult and a boy” will be something different – it will turn into a plain sexual assault, and this will deprive Robson and Safechuck of their main argument of a “loving relationship” in their wholly fake story.

Imagine yourself being sexually assaulted by a complete stranger, say somewhere in the street or at a party in someone’s home, and ask yourself a question – will you happily dance around your abuser the next day and forever after, and declare that it was a tender friendship growing into love?

Whether you are an adult or a child your answer will be a flat NO.

Even if you terribly liked someone on television two years ago and he suddenly exposes himself to you or touches your genitals the very first time you see him in person, you won’t turn into his die-hard supporter for years ahead. Instead you will feel confused, scared, dirty and dismayed because someone who was your idol did to you something inexplicable, frightening and extremely disturbing…..

In short one of the keys to their big lie about Jackson is found in the lullyby first part of the film and its distorted timeline, which needs to be studied in much detail. The rest of it is just their free fantasy on the “love and grooming” theme introduced to the public at the very beginning of the film.

The timeline I am talking about will have to be analyzed in another post.  In the meantime I suggest that you simply  imagine that Safechuck is happily dancing and jumping around Michael Jackson after the alleged sexual assault and not before as Dan Reed makes you believe in his fake film.

Initially this post was titled “What you should know about insight-oriented therapy before you watch Leaving Neverland” and was to preempt that documentary movie airing on TV. However the first reviews after the Sundance film festival became a distraction and the post had to be put aside.

Now I wish it hadn’t been postponed as it deals with what seems to be the main problem in handling Robson and Safechuck’s stories – the fact that they look credible to some people and questions “how can they be so credible if they are not telling the truth?”

Well, the paradox is that they may look credible even if they are telling complete lies, and it isn’t only due to good acting, but for other reasons too.

As to their acting, it is actually not that good when seen by a professional and expert eye. In a recent video by a body analysis expert from Toronto Jiovanni Maccarrone who commented on Robson’s and Safechuck’s TV answers to the first uncomfortable question (about changing their testimony) after their debut on TV, the expert made a negative conclusion about both.

However irrespective of what you or anyone think of the two guys’ performance the focus of this post will be on a different matter – the fact that even when people tell outright lies like Robson and Safechuck do, there are psychological techniques commonly known as ‘insight therapy’ that help them believe their own lies and thus make them look much more credible in what they say.

Moreover, in the process of this ‘therapy’ the false accounts of some events may grow so detailed, elaborate and colorful, that the end result will impress the viewers even more.  Salvador Dali once famously said about it:

• “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.”

Indeed, the colorful and graphic lie that “he made him stand on all four and licked his anus” will strike your memory much harder than the boring truth that the above simply never happened. If nothing happened there is nothing to describe, so a simple “no” will never replace a colorful fantasy produced by a liar, especially if certain techniques helped him to make his lie look believable.

The recent article in Business Insider says that this brilliance alone “could help explain why we are so quick to believe false accounts of something that happened.”

Elizabeth F. Loftus, researcher and professor of cognitive psychology and human memory says that our memory can be easily distorted and this happens to all of us on a daily basis.

“It’s pretty easy to distort memories for the details of what they actually saw by supplying them with suggestive information,” Loftus told Business Insider. “But then later we began to ask just how far could you go with people. Could you implant entire false memories into the minds of people for things that never happened?”

The answer was yes. Loftus and other researchers such as Julia Shaw have successfully planted memories into the minds of otherwise healthy people. For example, in one study, 70% of subjects were made to believe they had committed a crime such as theft, assault, or assault with a weapon, simply by using memory-retrieval techniques in interviews.

Well, telling a lie about others is a common phenomenon alas, but telling a lie about yourself and admitting to committing an assault with a weapon though you never did it?? This is something unheard of, but nevertheless it is this far that certain “memory-retrieving techniques” can take you.

And the most disturbing thing about these techniques is that according to Dr. Loftus there is no way you would be able to tell that the resulting memory is false just by listening to the false account.

Nowadays, it is quite well understood that false confessions happen under intense interrogation for crimes, like murder. This is what a lot of people think happen in the Netflix series “Making a Murderer,” for instance.

Loftus said that unless you have reason to suspect somebody’s memory is distorted, then there’s no way you would be able to tell they are recounting a false memory just by listening to them.

So the biggest trouble with false memories is that firstly, they tend to be much more colorful and richer in detail than real memories, and secondly, by just listening to them there is no way you would be able to tell that they are false.

Scientists have long noticed this phenomenon and this is why the retrieved/repressed memories are not accepted as evidence in court and are not covered by medical insurance – this kind of “therapy” has already led to the creation of so many false memories that almost everyone now shuns it like the plague.

Now, what does the recovering memory therapy have to do with our two guys Robson and Safechuck? After all Robson specifically said that his story was not about repressed memory, didn’t he?

In Safechuck’s case the fact that this technique was used on his mind may be assumed as fact almost by default. He claims that he didn’t know about his “abuse” until he watched Robson on TV with Matt Lauer on May 16, 2012. Several days later he went to Dr. Lindsay Merrill and it took her just 13,5 hours in 4 sessions to make a ground-breaking discovery that the many years of Safechuck’s psychological problems had been due to his “child sexual trauma” he realized only now.

As to Robson, it seems that he is much better versed on the subject, because when Matt Lauer asked him about the alleged abuse the very first thing Robson said was that this wasn’t the case of repressed memory.

You will agree that beginning your story of abuse with a statement denying repressed memory is absolutely unnatural for a genuine survivor (compare it with Corey Feldman’s interviews, for example), so it shows that Robson studied the subject inside out and knowing that repressed/recovered memories are not credible, he assured the viewers in advance that this was not his case.

Wade Robson speaks to Matt Lauer on Today show, May 16, 2013

Matt Lauer: What happened?

Wade Robson: First of all I want to clear up that this is not the case of repressed memory.

Matt Lauer: It has been reported in the press….

Wade Robson: I never forgot one moment of what Michael did to me.

Repressed or not repressed, what Robson did not tell you is that the insight-oriented therapy, mentioned in his complaint as a starting point for the realization of his “abuse”, is not much different from the process of recovering memories and is simply another word for a similar technique.

The insight therapy also faces a ton of criticism, and exactly for invoking the so-called ‘placebo insights’ which is simply the polite scientific word for false memories.

Please don’t regard the subject of false memories as my attempt to justify Robson and Safechuck.

Whether you see them as simple liars or liars assisted by some form of therapy, we should be equipped at least with the basic knowledge of what this insight therapy is all about, just in case some howbrow pundits come on stage and tell us how ‘valid’ these psychological findings are.

HOW IT WORKS

Insight therapy is known under many different names as it springs from at least four schools of psychotherapy. This diversity shouldn’t surprise anyone as unlike mathematics psychology is not a definite science and its findings depend on method and interpretation.

Contradictions between researchers may be so big that even Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, the key figures in psychology and psychiatry who were once good friends, eventually grew so apart that never talked to each other till the end of their lives.

Many consider insight-oriented therapy junk science, but some think that this method helps “to explore the deepest layers of the unconscious to discover some early, often salient experiences that lead to the current anxiety, stress and discomfort.”

In the opinion of these therapists the patient may have the memory of the events that are the root of his present discomfort, but they are buried so deep in his subconscious that it is the role of the therapist to retrieve them from there and thus heal the client.

There is a belief that your problems and general discomforts are rooted in something that is occurring inside you, but about which you do not yet know. The primary method of therapy becomes making the unconscious conscious. In this manner you become free of the heretofore unknown blockages that prevent you from your best level of functioning. http://drs–oleary.com/Insight–Oriented.htm

Insight is described as an “a-ha” or “light bulb” moment when the patient comes to realize the problem in this earlier life that resulted in his present distress. The therapist helps the client to arrive at the insightful moment – attention please – by asking him guiding questions and giving him verbal prompts.

During each session, the individual receiving counseling will recall situations from his or her life. Through guiding questions and verbal prompts, the therapist helps the client to come to “a-ha” or “light bulb” moments in which insight to problems is gained.

https://cadywellness.com/insight-oriented-psychotherapy-mental-health-treatment/

Wade Robson claims that his “a-ha” moment came on May 8, 2012 when he suddenly realized that he had been “abused” by Jackson. And as the standard rules of this therapy tell us he must have come to that englightening moment through “guiding questions and verbal prompts” according to therapists’ own account.

From their experience therapists have determined that the time required by a client to reach those insights typically takes at least 2 years in sessions.

This is the first surprise for us as Wade Robson’s complaint says that he started his insight therapy in mid-April 2012, the sessions took place twice a week (later once a week) and approximately three weeks later, on May 8, 2012 he already arrived at his “insight” about Jackson.

This means that by that time Robson arrived at his “a-ha” moment he had had only three weeks in 5-6 therapy sessions though the usual period should be no less than two years.

How come he made it so early?

Robson and his therapist will give you an explanation, only I am not sure that it will sound satisfactory to us.

A more rapid process can take place if there is “one major focus for the therapy rather than the more traditional psychoanalytic practice of allowing the client to associate freely and discuss unconnected issues. In brief therapy, the central focus is developed during the initial evaluation process, occurring during the first session or two.”

In brief therapy, the therapist is expected to be fairly active in keeping the session focused on the main issue. Having a clear focus makes it possible to do interpretive work in a relatively short time because the therapist only addresses the circumscribed problem area.” https://psychcentral.com/lib/psychodynamic–therapy/

In other words if the client (or therapist) has a clear focus on Michael Jackson from the very start of it, the therapist will ask leading questions and give the client verbal prompts only as regards Jackson – and the process of reaching an insight and producing more and more elaborate details during this “memory evolvement” process will go much faster.

Suppose Robson comes to a therapist and says he knows Michael Jackson, and the therapist, well informed by the media about the allegations, immediately starts asking leading questions and verbally prompts the client if and how he was molested by MJ – in this case reaching the necessary “insights” will go much quicker in comparison with a case when the client was no friends with Jackson. This is what the therapists call “having a clear focus” and “doing interpretive work in a relatively short time.”

Of course the “insights” will arrive even faster if a client like Robson or Safechuck comes to a therapist with a ready lie and clear intention to develop it further – then it will be a matter of several sessions only to work it to perfection (and obtain the necessary certificate of merit for filing a lawsuit against the alleged perpetrator or his Estate).

Whether first or second, both reasons will do to explain how Robson and Safechuck reached their “insights” about Jackson so quickly, in 3 weeks or so, despite the usual two long years and hundreds of sessions typically required for this kind of therapy.

FALSE MEMORIES

Scientists are polite people and will never discredit the efforts of their colleagues by calling their findings false and labeling them junk science.  So when Dr. David A. Jopling of York University says that “insight therapy can generate illusions, deceptions and deceptive misunderstandings that only mimic the truth” in plain language it will mean that this therapy produces false memories and lies.

Dr. Jopling has given to this phenomenon the neutral term of “placebo” insights (here is the full text in Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 57(1), 19–36 (2001).

“… the insight-oriented psychotherapies are highly susceptible to generating placebo insights, that is, illusions, deceptions, and adaptive self-misunderstandings that convincingly mimic veridical insight but have no genuine explanatory power. The insight-oriented psychotherapies also are highly susceptible to generating therapeutic artefacts that appear to confirm the insights acquired by clients.

The “artifact” point is interesting as it shows that during the therapy the client can get relief from his false memories or produce artefacts like dreams about the events that never happened which may convince him and the therapist that they are on the right track.

Dr. Jopling explains that even if the client is convinced that his insight is authentic, it is absolutely no proof that this is the case.

First, the mere acquisition of insight is not a guarantee that the insight is true. This is the case even if the acquisition of insight is the culmination of months of hard work and struggle.

Second, the client’s level of conviction about the validity and authenticity of a newly won insight is not a guarantee that the insight is true. The client may be deeply convinced about an insight that is in fact psychologically and historically false.

The intensity of the experience is often enough to convince clients that the truth has finally been achieved—but this is clearly an unworkable criterion of truth: Intense feelings also can be generated by illusions and importantly false beliefs that mimic genuine insight.

The above is another interesting point – so even if the client’s experience is intense and he is tearful when he thinks he has reached his “insight” it still doesn’t mean that the insight is true. It can be false, illusionary and deceptive even if the client is sure of its authenticity and the therapist believes him looking at the intensity of his feeling.

Third, the therapist’s conviction about the authenticity of the client’s explorations, and the truth-value of the client’s insight, is not a guarantee of the truth of the insight.

Fourth, the occurrence of therapeutic change following the acquisition of insight is not a guarantee of the insight’s truth. One of the factors common to all forms of psychotherapy is that clients are supplied with a coherent rationale that explains their problems and provides a method of treatment.

The point about the client being relieved of his discomfort is also important. Usually such relief serves as a signal that the therapy was productive and the client is healed, which makes the therapist think that the root of the problem is found and truth has been reached. However according to Dr. Jopling a false belief can produce exactly the same result as a coherent (but false) rationale can also explain the client’s problem and may be even effective for his healing.

In general the insight-oriented therapy very often results in explanatory fictions and self-deceptions. Dr. Jopling likens this therapy to placebo sugar pills that have no therapeutic value but still relieve the discomfort due to belief in the method.

Placebo insights are explanatory fictions and therapy-induced self-deceptions that convincingly mimic bona fide insights. They are constituted by observations and explanations that appear to be authentic, but in fact they have no more explanatory power and descriptive validity than psychological sugar pills.

I use the generic term placebo insights to describe the range of therapeutically induced pseudo-insights, self-deceptions, explanatory fictions, and adaptive self-misunderstandings that clients in the insight-oriented psychotherapies mistakenly interpret as valid forms of self-knowledge and insight.

Such self-deceptions and downright fabrications are sometimes even deliberately induced in clients’ minds by their therapists – all in the name of healing the patient of course.

“More recently, Pierre Janet used therapeutic deception, explanatory fictions, and the psychological equivalent of sugar pills to great effect, curing his patients by fabricating stories about their condition and persuading them to believe that they were true. His therapeutic methods included hypnosis, suggestion, “monoideism,” moral education, guided imagery, and the deliberate manipulation and reconstruction of the patient’s memories (Ellenberger, 1970).

Dr. Jopling explains a very interesting phenomenon – self-deception and generally ‘life-lies’ often provide people with psychological crutches without which many of them would not be able to function normally. Numerous studies show that illusion, deception, oversimplification and even falsification are recognized as life-enhancing virtures that help to survive.

Oh, so this must be the reason why so many people don’t want to know the truth in general and about Michael Jackson in particular. Any reconsideration of what was hammered into their heads is akin to a life catastrophe for them, the collapse of their imaginary but comfortable world, sustained only by those ‘psychological crutches’ without which it cannot stand.

For some people oversimplification, persistence in blind stupidity and living in illusion are much more preferable than harsh reality and truth, and Dr. Jopling says that this is a common phenomenon.

…illusion, deception, blind stupidity, oversimplification, and falsification are recognized as life-enhancing virtues.  The plays of Henrik Ibsen (1884/1961) and Eugene O’Neill (1946) illustrate how existence for the average person is tolerable only with a veil of comforting and self-serving illusions that filter out the harsher elements of life. 

The plays of Ibsen and O’Neill focus upon a recurrent theme: When pipe dreams and life-lies are burst, in the name of an honest confrontation with reality, tragedy and despair inevitably follow.

So some prefer to live in illusion rather than face the truth because confronting reality will bring them only despair and humiliation.

For Robson for example, it is much more comfortable to blame Michael Jackson for the downfall of his career than agree that he is simply burned out and his creativity has reached a zero point.

Similarly, Safechuck feels much more relieved if the therapist explains to him that his life-long psychological problems were the result of a horrendous (though fictional) childhood sexual trauma and not the fact that he didn’t live up to his mother’s big expectations that he would one day make a brilliant career in Hollywood.

Dr. Jopling concludes that insight-oriented therapy works not because it attains the truth, but because it reestablishes for a client a more comfortable contact with reality, even despite the fact that it may be fictionalized.

If placebo insights can be said to “work” for clients, they do not work for the reasons that clients and therapists think they work, that is, because they get at the truth, and because they supply accurate explanations of the client’s target disorders and psychological make-up.

Rather, they work to the extent that they bring about a more fictionalized contact with reality, including the reality of the self.

Placebo insights help clients feel that they are more in touch with themselves than they would otherwise have had occasion to be, even if there is a clear sense in which they are significantly less in touch with themselves than they believe themselves to be.

As regards the details of the insight-oriented method, everybody of course remembers Robson constantly talking about the way his memory “evolved” – though no one understands what it means.

Dr. Jopling explains how this evolvement takes place.  The client and his therapist fall into a sort of a loop where the client’s relief upon reaching his first false insight confirms to the therapist that they are on the right track and through guiding questions and more false interpretations continues to form in the client’s mind more and more deceptive insights.

… this leads to a downward spiral. Under the influence of false or inexact interpretations, leading questions, and subtle cues, clients will make false discoveries, and will come to formulate for themselves false insights on the basis of evidentiary and interpretive criteria that have been progressively weakened by continued exposure to the pressures of the therapeutic situation and the therapist’s theoretical orientation.

As a result of this downward spiral the succession of self-deceptive insights leaves the patient with a conviction that he has finally arrived at the truth. And this conviction looks genuine to him, the therapist and all others because this is not a crude lie but is something much more subtle than that.

Just as therapeutic suggestion is considerably more subtle than crude persuasion, so placebo insights are considerably more subtle than simple-minded falsehoods or fanciful fictions.

The power of therapeutic suggestion is so high that the victims of insight-oriented therapy begin seeing dreams conforming to their new false beliefs and think that they have always thought what they discovered only recently. As a result their whole mind frame changes and this memory mess may alter their actual selves.

Dr. Jopling explains:

It would be a mistake to think that the acquisition of placebo insights leaves clients unchanged in all but their beliefs about themselves and their disorders. Placebo insights are not without psychological and behavioral consequences. They are not false in the way that false beliefs about states of affairs in the world are false.

False beliefs about the chemical composition of a brick of gold, for example, do not alter the gold itself or the kinds of evidence it yields. By contrast, importantly false beliefs about one’s own psychology, behavior, or life history have the potential to alter one’s actual self.

One of the more philosophically interesting instances of change occurs when the treatment methods to which clients are subjected in the insight-oriented psychotherapies generate some of the very psychological and behavioral facts that the clients interpret as having existed prior to the intervention of the therapy.

These are cases of “therapeutic conformability.” A simple example of therapeutic conformability occurs in Freudian dream analysis. Clients who have been sufficiently exposed to the treatment methods and therapeutic expectations of dream analysis begin to produce dreams that fit the models and expectations of the very dream analysis they are undergoing.

This is not an uncommon phenomenon. The dreams, which appear to clients to be spontaneous and naturally produced, are in actuality therapy-induced artefacts that would not have occurred without exposure to the treatment methods of the therapy.

This is how the vicious circle is formed. The first false memory – say, of abuse – is accepted as truth and forms the basis for producing more and more elaborate but unrealistic details. The client is inspired by the therapist’s leading questions and prompts, and the therapist is inspired by the ‘progress’ of his client. And all of it results in the client’s so solid belief in his fictitious childhood abuse that he begins seeing dreams about it in its most vivid detail.

Great, isn’t it?

Dr. Jopling likens the clients of such therapy to explorers in a strange land whose every step forward alters the landscape they are exploring.

The metaphor of insight-oriented psychotherapy as a kind of mirror of the soul, or as a kind of archaeology, is therefore misleading. Clients are less like archaeologists of the soul and more like explorers in a strange land whose every step forward alters the landscape which they are exploring.

Clients sometimes track the truth in their explorations, and sometimes hit upon the truth. In some cases, this is an accidental occurrence that has no significant causal connection to the therapy. Some insights may have elements of both truth and falsity. Whatever insights clients acquire in psychotherapy are a kind of cognitive window dressing, even if, subjectively, clients are convinced of their depth and value.

In the end, clients in the talking cures can never know with certainty to what extent their newly acquired insights are therapeutic artefacts or bona fide acquisitions.

Of course the above memory mess would be true for Robson and Safechuck only in case they were real victims of prolonged insight-oriented therapy and believed in those false insights themselves, however it looks like they are simply cold manipulators who fabricated their stories in the hope to get hundreds of millions dollars from the MJ Estate.

But what this therapy could help them do was adding the necessary authentic touch to their narration, because the method itself stimulates imagination, induces fantasy, helps to acquire the role of a victim and test it during the therapy, and gives a chance to freely fantasize on the subject – especially when assisted by the therapist’s leading questions and verbal prompts that would only be limited by the therapist’s imagination and his own experience.

And this will take us to the personal experience of one of the therapists, the one who dealt with Wade Robson and who this whole business started with.

THE DOCTORS

Robson mentioned three doctors in his papers. One was Dr. Cameron, a cognitive psychologist who helped him in March 2011 and whom he didn’t reveal anything about the alleged abuse.

The second one was an acclaimed psychiatrist, Dr. David Arredondo who provided him with a certificate of merit for filing the complaint in May 2013. Diane Dimond introduced him as follows:

“The filing indicates that Robson has been a patient of Dr. David Arrendondo, a Harvard-educated child psychiatrist who has written extensively on the effects of sexual abuse on children and the resulting depression and anxiety of adults.”

As usual for Dimond this is not correct – Robson wasn’t Dr. Arrendondo’s patient and visited him just once, prior to filing the claim and after a period of insight therapy he underwent under the guidance of another doctor, who is number three on our list.

Dr. Arrendondo’s duty was a one-time job – to evaluate Robson’s condition after the therapy and give a certificate of merit for whatever he described and claimed as a result of that therapy.

Dr. Arrendondo’s job was to evaluate Robson after the therapy

Then who was doctor #3 on Robson’s list?

Robson’s documents, the unredacted variant of which is for some reason available to a website of Michael Jackson haters, say that Robson underwent his insight-oriented psychotherapy with Dr. Shaw.

Dr. Larry Shaw lives in Los Angeles and is practicing in the South Californian area.

Surprisingly Dr. Shaw’s website doesn’t say a single word about him being a specialist in insight-oriented therapy.

His specialties include Somatic Experiencing (“feelings are communicated to the mind through sensations in the body”, so in theory body sensations can probably heal the mind), EMDR (study of eye movement) and relational psychotherapy (talk therapy about interrelations). And there isn’t a single word about insight-oriented therapy which conveys to us at least one fact – that Dr. Larry Shaw is apparently not trained for this kind of work.

Dr. Larry Shaw, screenshot from his website

Larry is a Los Angeles based, licensed psychotherapist, with a PhD in clinical psychology. His specialty is working with adults traumatized as children. He integrates Somatic Experiencing, EMDR and relational psychotherapy. [ ]

Dr. Shaw has been featured in national and local newspapers and television, such as Vanity Fair, The Los Angeles Times, Cable Health News and The NBC nightly news. Larry enjoys giving his time as a disaster mental health worker responding to local and national disasters with various volunteer organizations. He has been an avid surfer for 45 years, as well as a practicing Buddhist since his early 20’s. Larry has recently discovered the physical and emotional benefits of his own yoga practice.
http://www.drlarryshaw.com

The Hollywood reporter says that Dr. Larry Shaw is a go-to therapist for Hollywood personalities who work in high pressure jobs, feel washed out and think that they don’t live up to their families’ expectations. Their article quotes  Dr. Shaw saying:

“Everyone I’ve worked with, they all want to get out of the business. They’re at the top of their game and they’re miserable. One guy called it the golden handcuff. Another guy I worked with said when he was in Cannes, he was looking down on the red carpet and thinking, “I just feel so alone. Why am I here and why am I doing this? This has no meaning.”

Well, Wade Robson also felt washed out and needed a good pretext to get out of the business.

He had been working since age 5 or 6 with the Australian Johnny Young’s Talent group dancing fourteen times a week (the fact mentioned in this post about his childhood in Australia) and had no Saturdays or Sundays according to his own mother (listen to this interview of Joey Robson).

And when they came to the US, Los Angeles gave them an equally rough time according to the NY Times:

Mrs. Robson’s goal has been to propel her youngest son to fame.

“I knew if he was to fulfill his potential, it had to be in the United States,”Mrs. Robson said. In Los Angeles, Mr. Robson’s talent was put to the test.

“We had rough times,” Mrs. Robson said. “Sometimes we only had a few cents to our name. It was a lot of weight on Wade’s shoulders. He became our full support by the time he was ten, mainly doing commercials.”

The above of course contradicts Robson’s present story that he was always under Michael Jackson’s protective wing, but at the moment our focus is on Robson’s hard work under the pressure of his mother which was indeed hard, so no wonder that by the age of 30 he was completely burned out.

The job that eventually brought him to a breakdown was most probably his failure with the Cirque du Soleil Criss Angel show called “Believe” which was an embarrassing flop and not only because of Criss Angel’s poor performance but also due to the dances directed by Robson being unimpressive and strange (for proof you can google the viewers’ comments on the show).

Wade Robson was actually so afraid that he would fail again that he even called terrifying the opportunity he thought he had of directing the Cirque du Soleil Michael Jackson tribute show.

“I’m starting on Cirque Du Soliel Michael Jackson show, so it’s the equivalent of the Beatles Love Show they have..the Elvis show…but for Michael which is exciting, and terrifying all at the same time because it’s such a huge responsibility, but that is why I took it on.

Michael was such a huge part of my career and life. We were friends for 20 years before he passed since I was seven. So it’s an opportunity for me to give back a little bit to his legacy…it’s such a big part of his legacy and to make sure as much as I can that it’s done right and that it really represents his essence… so that’s kinda a really big undertaking…”  – Wade Robson, July 2011.

So on the one hand he badly wanted that job, but on the other hand was terrified that he would fail it.

And this was evidently his real anxiety problem with which he approached Dr. Larry Shaw in mid-April 2012. However whether intentionally or not, his therapy quickly shifted to the ‘main focus’ of his fictional abuse by Michael Jackson which he either initiated himself, or the therapist guided him into, driven by his own imagination and experience.

Considering that the ideas Robson is presenting now are pure pedophilia (“it was consensual love and not abuse”) it is essential to know of Dr. Larry Shaw’s own experience as a child and what leading questions and verbal prompts he could approach Robson with.

LARRY SHAW

When Dr. Shaw was a kid he had a miserable but memorable childhood.

Sheila Weller of the Vanity Fair called him one of Malibu’s Lost Boys in her big article of August 2006, where she described the wild days and nights he and his two friends spent on the beach with their guru and legendary surfer Mickey Dora.

Miki Dora and his band of boys were inseparable – they were his Sancho Panzas and they called him their Pied Piper. In German legend Pied Piper is a piper who rid the towners of rats by luring them away with his music and then, when he was not paid for his services, lured away their children to the mountain where they disappeared.

The Vanity Fair article describes the lifestyle of lost Malibu boys as “an underground culture of big waves and wild times, which ended in a blaze of Hollywood decadence, drugs, and death”. The main characters of the story are three 16-year-old Beverly Hills boys from broken, but well-off families —Mike Nader, Duane King, and Larry Shaw. Their guru, Miki Dora is described by the author as “a dark prince of the beach: a great surfer and a beguiling sociopath.”

Mickey was 10 years older than his teenage friends and he taught them to surf, steal, live fast, and possibly introduced them to drugs and much more.

The boys copied his every gesture. Who but Miki could have taught them to glide not just over the waves but also over their baroquely unhappy home lives? “We were a group of lost boys,” says Larry Shaw.

Larry lived alone, subsisting on Swanson’s TV dinners. His mother, Kathryn “Kay” Trapheagan, a stormy fifth-generation Californian, had married Nate Shaw (born Nate Schwartz), a rich clothing magnate who drove a yellow Rolls-Royce with a gold-plated dashboard, after romancing his son. (There was a lingering question as to which man was really Larry’s father.)

After Larry’s golden childhood in the largest house in Malibu Colony, with a staff of six, the family’s fortunes plummeted. Following an angry divorce, Larry and his mother shared a series of one-room rentals. From the age of eight, the boy took care of the histrionic, perpetually inebriated woman. He would grab the steering wheel when Kay passed out while driving. He would wipe her hair with napkins when her forehead fell onto her dinner plate. He called an ambulance the time she slit her wrists, the time she took too much phenobarbital, and the time she removed a pierced earring by yanking it right through her earlobe.

One night Kay started gagging when she was eating, and Larry ran for a doctor, who, before pronouncing her dead, opened her mouth, removed a piece of steak from her windpipe, and told the sobbing boy, “Just so you know, kid, for the next time: this is how you can save someone’s life.”

By that time Miki Dora had already been a legend. He was everything that a surfer ought to be: he was tanned, good-looking, elegant, charismatic and he was trouble.

Already a legend in 1961, Miki Dora has been canonized. “Surfing hedonist who became a hero to a generation of beach bums” read his London Times obituary. Miki Dora, the Black Knight of Malibu,” read one review of Dora Lives, the 2005 coffee-table book which describes Miki as “everything that a surfer ought to be: he was tanned, he was good-looking, and he was trouble.”

What set Dora apart from the other top Malibu was his charisma. First of all, he was elegant. “He was into the dance.” His balletic, feline grace on the waves earned him the nickname “da Cat.” Mike Nader calls him “the Cary Grant of surfers.”

And there was his provocatively unplaceable sexuality. In that homophobic time and place, Miki was at once extremely macho and undeniably effeminate. Many surfers thought he was not interested in women—or struggling with suppressed gayness. “His body language was feminine: his wrist action, his long fingers, the way he put his hands on his hips—it was a little bit fey,” says a woman who had a two-year relationship with him in the mid-60s, and who asks to be identified by her first name only, Jacqueline. She describes him as having been so sexually ineffectual and disinterested as to be “a eunuch.”

The adoration the boys had for their mentor was such that if Miki stole money from them this loss was worn by them as a badge of honor. He lived the life of freedom they wanted, the life where there was no school, no job, no families, just surf.

Miki lived by scamming. Working as a host at Frascati restaurant and as a parking attendant at the then brand-new Beverly Hilton hotel in 1955 were just about the last real jobs anyone remembers him having. He made the patently tacky petty theft a symbol of bravado and status envy.

“Mike, Duane, and I competed with each other to be ripped off by Miki—‘Miki stole my wax!’ ‘Yeah? Well, Miki stole my money!’—it was a badge of honor,” says Larry Shaw, today a psychologist who works with trauma victims. “We were a band of brothers—vulnerable, damaged boys—and Miki was our Pied Piper,” says Mike Nader, whose long, successful TV acting career was twice interrupted by substance abuse.

Duane King, who is now a banker in Santa Monica, sums up: “Miki had the freedom we wanted: no school, no job, no relationships, just surf. We paid for his food and gas because we wanted him to keep going. If he could beat the system that was ‘honest work,’ then maybe we could beat the one that was our families.”

The only girl in their boy community was a petite 15-year old Kathy Kohner who managed to enter their close circle by asking them to teach her surfing and bringing them free sandwiches as a bribe.

Meanwhile for Larry Shaw surfing and friends on the beach became his only solace. His mother was dead and father had a new family, so he preferred to squat in someone else’s apartment.

Meanwhile, Larry Shaw was escaping the stress of babysitting his volatile mother by wave-riding in Hermosa. After he saw her choke to death, surfing became his only solace. Refusing to move to his father’s house in Palm Springs, Larry squatted in an apartment from which he could hitchhike to the ocean.

The first time newcomer Larry went to Malibu [he] was blown away. “Malibu was a counterculture before the counterculture,” he says. “Those Beatnik athletes! And there was Miki, this man who’d mastered the sport, who’d mastered the ocean, this Fagin-like character who was 10 years older than us but was just as adolescent as we were.” Miki was living in a small apartment in Brentwood, and these boys from the rich kids’ school were in awe that he’d turned his anger into a quixotic sword. Only Brian Wilson—whose household, while broken, was stable—saw him as a cheesy scammer. The other three became his Sancho Panzas.

The lost boys were taught to steal, cheat and do whatever their guru led them into.

Every weekend the boys would get the addresses of Beverly Hills parents’ parties, and off they’d drive from the beach. “Miki would get in his car in his surf trunks—he didn’t even shower,” Larry recalls.

Miki Dora

“He’d park on the street in front of the party. He’d look at the people going in and figure out the dress code. He’d reach into the back of his car for the right outfit—maybe a stolen tuxedo, maybe a sports jacket. He’d change … not in the back of the car, but right there on the sidewalk! He could get away with it because he was so good-looking and his stance was so regal.”

Once inside a party, Larry says, “Miki might do his ‘And who are you, my lovely dahlink?’ routine with the women before heading for the loot,” but that ruse quickly bored him.

He’d head for the bedroom where the women had tossed their purses. “Miki was a cat burglar,” Mike says bluntly. “He’d go through every purse, take every wallet. His rules were: Sneak in, never dig for anything, go for the first thing you see, flip it, open it, take out the money, and ditch it.”

“After the parties,” Duane says, “we’d be driving off and he’d have a shit-eating grin on his face … and pull out a piece of jewelry. He knew that we were living vicariously through him. The more people loved how he got away with things, the more things he tried to get away with.”

Dora probably burglarized dozens of parties over a number of years, with scarcely a police report. He liked to cut it close. Jacqueline adds, “Whenever I see Hitchcock’s To Catch a Thief replayed on TV, I look at Cary Grant and think, If Miki had more savvy, that’s what he would have been. Miki did it the Miki way, with his band of boys.”

Miki’s apprentices learned from him how to search canyon crevices for where surfers hid their wallets. Miki taught one of them how to steal a car, and he used their parents’ charge accounts.

He showed up at Larry’s father’s Palm Springs house just in time to “borrow” the hotel keys of Beverly High teenagers arriving for spring break with their parents and charge expensive meals for himself to their rooms.

Sometimes when he went to kids’ houses, he’d unload all the food from the family freezer. “He did it all for a simple reason: freedom,” says Duane. “Every guy on that beach wanted to do nothing but surf all day, but only Miki had found a way to do it.”

In the mid-60s, as drugs came in and surfing merged with Hollywood, the beach scene grew more sophisticated. A gay interior designer had parties featuring LSD in his beachfront bungalow, which Mike Nader sometimes attended while he was working on a movie career.

At these bashes he often had to dodge his mother, Minette, who was going for increasingly voguish drugs and would eventually shoot heroin. The interior designer’s parties were considered edgy. “One afternoon it was all gorgeous women,” Mike says. “Then I realized they were lesbians.”

Jane Fonda and her husband, Roger Vadim, would sometimes have the new group the Byrds perform at their posh beach parties. The surfers liked to go to Ciro’s, the club on the Sunset Strip —and dance in the free-floating style pioneered by a dancer and sculptor named Vito Paulekas. The new dancing was as sensual as the waves.

There was a new guy at State Beach that summer of ‘65, a U.C.L.A. film-school student named Jim Morrison.. During one party at the designer’s house, Morrison, on acid, started to gleefully, methodically tattoo his girlfriend’s bare skin with a lit cigarette, but Nader confronted him and tried to talk him out of it. Another night, there was a head-on collision on Pacific Coast Highway right outside the house, and surfers in woodies were killed and injured. During one live performance, Morrison would use his acid-enhanced witnessing of that accident in an improvised lyric for his hoary “The End.”

There were other changes that year. [One of the girls] died of a heroin overdose. Duane King went to U.S.C., and Larry Shaw became a Buddhist. Larry eventually got a Ph.D. in psychology, and his patients now include some of the top names in the movie business, as well as survivors of Hurricane Katrina. Mike Nader made his way to New York and, like his mother, dabbled in heroin. His good friend Joe Zimmelman, another Beverly High surfer, often did heroin with another close friend, a vulnerable, hungry, un-pretty singer who would share the same fate as Morrison: Janis Joplin.

Miki Dora

As for Miki Dora, the scams he had so gloriously gotten away with began to close in on him in the mid-70s, but he continued to outrun them. He fled the U.S. in 1974, after violating his parole in a non-jail-time guilty plea for writing bad checks. While on an overseas whirl of capers and surfing, he doctored a credit card and went on a two-year spending spree. Caught re-entering the country in 1981, he was convicted and did three months in federal prison. When he died—at 67, in January 2002—of cancer discovered in a late stage, the Los Angeles Times gave him a longer obituary than it grants many famous solid citizens, two-thirds of a page.

Coming upon news of their guru’s death, Duane King called the other two lost boys. No one was surprised. They knew Miki would get off the wave just before he got old. The man knew about youth. After all, he had snatched the three of them from the jaws of family pain and helped them live a Technicolor dream of wet and wild and rebellious adventure.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/malibu-surf-scene-200608

The impression I get of Larry Shaw’s teenage years and his association with guru Miki Dora is that it is the blueprint for what Wade Robson is now fantasizing about Michael Jackson.

Larry Shaw’s vivid memory of Miki Dora could easily inspire him to guide Robson into his “insights” about Jackson through prompts from his own turbulent and wild past, his adoration of his hero and whatever other experience the love for his mentor could involve in his case.

Whether true or not about Miki, but the portrait of him emerging from this article is highly reminiscent of the way the media portrays Jackson, so when you read of an “effeminate elegant” man who was “into the dance” and had a “provocatively unplaceable sexuality”, was “ineffectual” with women, had a “band of boys” with no girls allowed, “knew about youth”, was “as adolescent as they were”, was a magnet for kids from broken homes who gave them all the freedom they wanted with “no school, no relationships and no job”, and got away with his misbehavior for so long – when you read all that you don’t even know who they are talking about, because this is the picture the media always portrays of Michael Jackson, though for him most of the above would be totally untrue.

In fact, in a roundabout way the article may indeed be speaking about Jackson because for some people it is necessary to establish a pattern and show that prior to MJ similar behavior was noted about Miki Dora (which does not necessarily mean that their account of Dora is true).

And look at all those hints dropped by the author here and there… Does the author suggest that the story of Miki Dora and his band of boys has something unsavory to it? Do these hints point to the secrets the three boys, now grown-ups, revealed or implied to the author about their friendship with Dora? And if there is indeed some seedy background to it, what leading questions and verbal prompts could Dr. Larry Shaw offer to Robson that turned his tale into so sordid a pedophilia narration?

PSYCHEDELICS

The author says that out of the three boys lost on the beach at least two were into heroin – the habit they took well into their adulthood. Larry Shaw is not mentioned, but it is difficult to imagine that he as a troubled boy who lived all alone in a squat could avoid taking drugs, being an inseparable part of the band.

And the fact that all of them were obviously into drugs reminds us of one more feature of the insight-oriented therapy – the horrifying fact that this therapy often involves the use of psychedelics.

Here is one of the papers by Lester Grinspoon a researcher from Harvard, and Rick Doblin representing ‘Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies’ who claim that psychedelics like LSD, amphetamine, etc. facilitate the process of acquiring insights and can serve as their catalyst.

The researchers even sound like they are recommending this practice to “improve the quality of understanding between the healthcare professional and patient.”

Psychedelics as catalysts of insight-oriented psychotherapy

by Lester Grinspoon, M.D. and Rick Doblin

Some evidence suggests that the process of insight-oriented psychotherapy can be improved by the use of drugs, which can be described as psychedelic drugs (meaning “mind-manifesting”). Psychedelic substances, such as amphetamine MDMA, can be used in psychotherapy to reinforce and enhance the relationship between the healthcare professional and his or her client (or patient). Such substances can be used to better manage abreaction and catharsisand improve the quality of understanding between the healthcare professional and patient.

Numerous clinical papers on the effectiveness of psychedelics in Insight-Oriented drug therapy have been published. These psychedelics were used to treat a wide variety of psychological issues, including “alcoholism, obsessional neurosis, and sociopathy“. A major reason for the clinical interest in psychedelic drugs for psychoanalysis was the belief of some experimental subjects that the experience of using psychedelic medication reduced their feelings of guilt and made them less depressed and anxious and more self-accepting, tolerant, and alert. This sense of comfort and release of confounding factors have been found to cause nominal increases in patients ability to rationally handle their situations. https://ru.scribd.com/document/344525869/Psychedelics-as-Catalysts-of-Insight-Oriented-Psychotherapy

At this point I am really lost for words. Harvard researchers recommend psychedelics to healthcare professionals as a means to make their patients reach those memory insights? And what will they get as a result?

Of course if their only goal is healing people from some horrible and persistent trauma, the use of psychedelics may probably be acceptable, but when it comes to obtaining true memory of the events and using it as evidence against an innocent man the use of psychedelics is absolutely out of the question. It is absolutely no means to reach for the truth … however there is no guarantee that it wasn’t used on the two guys who are telling their lurid stories about Michael Jackson now.

Can anyone here imagine what kind of “insights” may be derived from people’s memories as a result of using LSD and Amphetamine in addition to leading questions and verbal prompts from a doctor like Dr. Larry Shaw who experienced in his childhood only God knows what?!

Even if Robson and Safechuck weren’t liars, all of the above could result in so big a bundle of crooked memories, that they could lead even unwilling people to lie about their fictional molestation.

In fact, when you come to think of it, there are way too many mind-bending substances in this whole business of “victims” who made their accusations against Michael Jackson.

Jordan Chandler is known to have changed his story after the so-called Sodium Amytal “truth serum” was unnecessarily used on him by his father under the pretext of pulling his tooth.

Evan Chandler also gave Michael Jackson shots in his buttocks of a drug called Toradol, under the effect of which he questioned Michael whether he was gay or not. And this is what Evan said, while in reality it could be a narcotic drug which Evan continuously supplied to his Hollywood patients (according to Carrie Fisher) and under its effect Evan could easily interrogate Michael about his friendship with his son. However even if he did, that drug-induced interrogation produced no result.

James Safechuck also went to a therapist who just after 13,5 hours of therapy discovered “abuse” as the root of his anxiety and his all other problems. And we have no idea what drugs he is taking, what substances were used during his therapy and what effect they had on his psyche.

And now it is Wade Robson with his “insights” and a possible use of psychedelics during his so-called therapy.

The simple maths will tell you that there are too many psychedelic drugs per accuser in this strange case of allegations against Michael Jackson.

IS THERE A WAY OUT?

Now what are we supposed to do with this psychedelic insight-oriented mess on our hands?

If a qualified expert like Dr. David Jopling (for example) is not allowed to review Robson’s and Safechuck’s medical records, something can still be done on our side.

For example, Dr. Jopling says that to be able to differentiate the false memory from a true one we need to pay attention to the way the insight therapy client makes his descriptions – if they lack clarity, sound too complex and abide in technical terminology, this is the first red flag.

 “Placebo insights are characterized by a certain level of psychological complexity; and they are influenced by the therapist’s technical terminology.»

So wherever you notice that both guys entangle themselves in technical terminology this is where the devil is.

I did notice some, and here is just one example from Robson’s deposition that sounds technical – “remove the emotional and perspective repression of it all”, “compartmentalized for 22 years”, ” memories evolved”, etc.

excerpt from Robson’s deposition December 12, 2016

Another obvious conclusion is that the normal memory of a person will not contain mutually contradictory events. The two guys’ stories abide in examples of such contradictions however this may be the result of their innumerable lies and inability to build a more or less coherent story out of the too many false stories they told.

Another promising direction is finding such details in their narration that they could not see or hear for the simple reason that these details never existed. The example is Michael’s condo in Wilshire boulevard where Robson said the alleged abuse took place in MJ’s bed, though Michael’s personal maid Blanca Francia testified at the 2005 trial that the condo in Wilshire blvd (Westford) did not have any beds in principle. The condo in Century City was fully furnished, but not the Westford condo, and this is why the whole Robson family had to sleep there on the floor the first time they came to the US – in individual sleeping bags. If at least one bed had been in that condo there is no doubt that Michael would have surely given it to his women guests.

Small details like that may not convince the general public, but it doesn’t matter because the public doesn’t care and never looks into details (to its own detriment).

But strange as it might seem these grains of truth may be helpful to bring Robson and Safechuck to their senses. When they see that their lies burst like soap bubbles one after another, there may come a time when they will prefer to discard their stories altogether and shift all the blame to their “insight-oriented therapy” to save their faces and last scraps of reputations – of course if anything remains of them by that time.

Here is another review of the social media on the ever-shrinking ‘Leaving Neverland’ movie by Dan Reed.

Why it is shrinking is because as soon as Michael Jackson fans spot another inconsistency and easily disproven lie Dan Reed cuts out the respective episode and the movie gets shorter and shorter, so what was originally 4 hours in the US is already 3 hours 15 min or less in other countries.

Jonathan Moffett (and Razorfist) say the following about it:

Here is an example how manipulative “Leaving Neverland” was in how it was presented & edited, leaving real FACTS out with only distorted truths presented out of context. This is UNETHICAL Dan Reed! #MichaelJackson  Full video here: https://youtu.be/zYx0vLfpRYY 

To know the latest news about the Leaving Neverland movie you need to follow Twitter where it is reported at a cosmic speed, so my intention to make a review about Twitter reactions to it had to be given up as the torrent of news there is too quick to grasp it all.

Fortunately, on March 17 John Ziegler made an amazing podcast called Fraud and Fakes with a review of the most significant events for the past week and a diagnosis of the deplorable condition of the mainstream news media that failed to notice blatant Robson/Safechuck’s lies and director Dan Reed’s open propaganda.

Below you will find the rough transcript of the ‘Leaving Neverland’ part of his podcast which will explain a couple of things to those people who still think that they can get their facts off a movie.

It will also contain an occasional tweet from MJ fans here and there.

So here is John Ziegler, the host of Free Speech podcast, speaking on March 17, 2019:

John Ziegler:

3:40 The story I’ve been embroiled in for the couple of weeks is the controversy surrounding the HBO movie “Leaving Neverland” where two guys accuse Michael Jackson of horrific and extensive child sex abuse many, many, many years after it’d supposedly happened and they had supported Michael in many ways including testifying on his behalf.

Last week we did not one, but two interviews with key members of the Jackson family. One is with Brandi Jackson, Michael Jackson’s niece who dated Wade Robson for about 8 years during their entire teenage years. The other is Taj Jackson, Michael Jackson’s nephew who spent thousands and thousands of hours with Michael Jackson, knew Wade Robson and has a whole lot of other information about why the movie is a complete fraud, fake and phoney.  And that’s pretty much where I am now.

4:50 Like other people I watched it and was horrified by what I saw and was impacted emotionally, but the emotions from it wore off very quickly.

It is an interesting comparison to see how I reacted to it and how my wife did. My wife in a lot of these stories has been ahead of me in figuring out that certain stories are false or a fraud. She is a school teacher and she deals with a lot of kids at the age when these accusations tend to occur. With the film “Leaving Neverland” she bought it totally. The emotions of it made her very, very, very convinced that the stories were real. I quickly realized – no, Wade Robson is lying. If Wade Robson is telling the truth about Michael Jackson, then we might throw out the entire judicial system, because the evidence that he is not telling the truth is many mountains, not just one mountain. He is a complete fraud.

7:55 Wade Robson is so obviously lying about Michael Jackson, that if his story is allowed to stand, the rules will be created so that you can never, ever, ever question a high-profile accusation of child sex abuse, no matter how discredited, no matter how nonsensical, no matter how many years later, no matter how contradicted by their own words and actions – it can never happen.

8:30 For a cynic I am being naïve at times, but even the people who are promoting his story, including those who’ve interviewed him, including Oprah and her friend Gale King (essentially the same people, as there is no way one is going to contradict the other), I have a sense that even they don’t really believe Wade Robson and here is why. One of the main things getting lost is that if they are telling the truth, especially Wade Robson, there should be immense anger at him.

Where is the anger at him?

9:30 Let’s pretend he is telling the truth. His story is that in 2005 he engaged in a conspiracy to help Michael Jackson get acquitted in a trial where the accuser was a cancer survivor allegedly, supposedly abused by Michael Jackson. He prevented that cancer survivor from getting a fair trial because he perjured himself blatantly. Where is the anger over that? Where are the prosecutors in that case furious with Wade Robson for what he did?

10:25 The reason why there is no anger is because I don’t think that they really believe it. Deep down they don’t really believe it. But Robson is useful, it is a good story, it is a narrative they like, it’s a hit. I think there might be other things going on why Oprah is suddenly on the entire MJ bandwagon.

10:50 But back to my wife. So my wife usually has pretty good instincts on all this, but on Wade Robson she was way off at first, and I think it shows how emotionally manipulative that movie is, because even my wife bought it. And it took me days to finally bring her down to earth and I did eventually convince her that Wade Robson is lying. (Sometimes winning the argument is worse than losing the argument when you are married, at least in my experience). But even my wife took several days before she finally came down to earth.

11:45 One of the reasons why we did the Brandi Jackson last week is because in my opinion Brandi blows apart Wade Robson’s story better than anybody, because she was with him romantically at the very time he claims to have been sexually abused by Michael Jackson. And I have to say that the reaction to that interview has very much substantiated my belief in her story.

From the substantive standpoint the reaction has been exactly as I expected and hoped for. Lots of people have listened to it, it’s been widely disseminated, you can find it on Youtube or just can Google it, so from the substantive point of view I was thrilled. She was amazing, people got it, people were open-minded and said, “OK, come on, let’s keep this real. There is no way that Wade Robson is telling the truth, there is no way that Dan Reed has any credibility when he leaves Brandi completely out of the film, doesn’t even mention her because she didn’t know that she existed.” So that part has been gratifying and I expected it because I could tell how credible Brandi was and how powerful her story was.

13:05 The part though that was disappointing for me – the grizzled cynic who is still naive – I honestly thought that if we got out her story that is certainly read by certain mainstream media outlets, I thought once the mainstream media became aware of her story that somebody significant was going to interview her within the mainstream news media. But even I was surprised and disappointed that that did not happen. Let me give you some insights on what was going behind the scenes.

14:10 I know for a fact that Good Morning America, which she says cancelled her interview before the movie came out, under highly suspect and convoluted reasoning, I know that they were repitched in an interview with Brandi and they showed no interest., which is bizarre not even because of the substance of her interview but also because it allows people to talk about Wade Robson cheating on her with Britney Spears to the point where he broke up the famous relationship between Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake. I thought that that alone, they are not going to be able to resist that point because this has been rumored for years and this is the most significant substantiation of that rumor that you are going to get, right from Brandi Jackson who has reasons to know why that is true – from Wade Robson’s own mouth.

15:15 So the fact that no one picked on that and Good Morning America didn’t either, made me think that there is something else going on here. And I wrote a column  about what the censorship of Brandi Jackson’s story tells us about the news media in general. And that is that it is flat out totally broken. Fundamentally broken.  And it is really fundamentally broken when it comes to the issues of accusations of sexual abuse, especially child sex abuse, where people’s brains just explode.  The Brandi Jackson situation proved to me that there has now been a new rule that’s been created and this is a very, very dangerous rule.

16: 00 And that is once someone is deemed to be sanctified as a child sex abuse victim, especially sanctified by Oprah Winfrey, once they are deemed by the media to be sanctified a child sex abuse victim like Wade Robson, then from this point you are not allowed to directly contradict the story of the child sex abuse victim. You are just not allowed. Brandi has direct evidence, testimony, her story is incredibly credible and it is obviously relevant – it doesn’t matter. Sorry, you are allowed to defend Michael Jackson in general, which is so mind-blowingly frustrating. So you are allowed to say he wouldn’t do it, but you are not allowed to discredit people who say that he did do this, and he is dead.

Now, that’s “fair”, that makes a lot of “sense”. And that to me was one of the revelations over Brandi being censored in the mainstream news media.

17:20 But it might not be just that. It might go deeper than that. Because there was another situation involving TMZ. And TMZ have been awful on this. And I am going to get into what they did to Paris Jackson and her alleged suicide yesterday (Paris Jackson is Michael Jackson’s daughter). One of the outlets that I went on Twitter and challenged TMZ and Harvey Levine who runs TMZ – I challenged them to interview Brandi Jackson. If there is an outlet that is created in the mindset that they might be willing to pick it on it would be TMZ. First of all TMZ has a very strong Black audience and they defend all sorts of Black entertainers, and you would think that defending Michael Jackson and allowing Brandi Jackson to do this is something they would be into, plus they would love the Britney Spears/Timberlake element, so I went on Twitter and I challenged them.

18:40 And someone from TMZ, a producer contacted me about them interviewing Brandi Jackson. “We would do it by face time, like on the phone, like a ten minute interview and take out two minutes and put it on the website and maybe talk about it on the show”. And I’m like, No freaking way.

There is no way I’m going to recommend to Brandi Jackson to do an interview with a producer and have it edited and talked about by people where she cannot defend herself or explain herself. No way. I said, I want Brandi Jackson in studio with Harvey Levine and he can find out for himself why he is wrong about this issue.

19:35 What’s really interesting about the Harvey Levine situation is that when Wade Robson told his story back in 2013 on the Today show, Harvey didn’t buy it! That tells me that something has fundamentally changed. The number one thing that fundamentally changed in 2013 is MeToo. Pre MeToo Harvey Levine was willing to say, “Wait a minute, this story doesn’t make a lot of sense.” And what’s interesting about that is Wade Robson’s story now is far less credible than it was then.

Why? Because his lawsuit required discovery where we learned about all these emails that he’d been sending  and where he is constructing his story and the judge realized that within those emails was proof that he had perjured himself in an effort to get around the statute of limitations to file his lawsuit, which was thrown out! As was his testimony in that lawsuit.  That all happened after the Today show interview. And Harvey Levine is a lawyer and normally these kind of things would matter to him, so he’s gone from effectively being anti-Robson to being very pro-Robson with MeToo in between, although there might be something even more sinister to that.

21:15 So TMZ said they would repitch this to see if their producers are willing to interview Brandi in studio. Fine. Then they got back to me, “No, sorry, we are not going to do that. We’ll do the face time interview,” and I said, “Don’t expect us to get back to you,” because this is ridiculous.

There is no way I’d recommend Brandi Jackson’s story to be told that way, because you are letting yourself to be manipulated, especially when the outlet has already shown that they are not on your side and not to be trusted.

22:00 What was really interesting about this – the next day the director of ‘Leaving Neverland’, Dan Reed  who appears to me a real dirt bag in every possible way, and that’s being as generous as possible, so one of the interviews that Brandi does do – she’s done a bunch of radio interviews, no mainstream TV, but some radio interviews, and I am not sure she fully understood the outlet.

The interview was with an Australian media outlet and apparently they were very rude to her and then they had Dan Reed to respond to her. Dan Reed is incredibly unnerved by the fact that his movie is torn apart from the substantive point – not by the mainstream media, but by people who actually looked at the facts. Every little detail of this movie, the timeline, the things he allowed to be said that are factually not true and are impossible, based on what we know – for instance, Jackson’s schedule and where he was, and things that don’t make any sense as far as the order in which they happened.

23:40 So Reed, what does he do? He attacks Brandi. By clearing showing that he had not even listened to the interview with her, didn’t know the basics of her story, he effectively claimed that she was having sex with Wade Robson at 12 years old, which she specifically said that it was not the case – she was dating him in a puppy love situation at 12 when he was allegedly being abused. And then Reed retweeted the story of the outlet where Reed is “slamming” (that was the word that was used), “Reed, director of the film SLAMS Brandi Jackson” and he retweets it!

Dude, you are bragging about slamming the story of a person you have never spoken to, clearly even didn’t even know about before your movie came out, who completely discredits your star accuser, and you do so not in a substantive way about the relevance of her story, but effectively trying to claim that she is a slut having sex with your star at the age of 12!

This guy seems to be panicked, he seems unnerved.  He also seems clueless.

25:10 Popularity and truth are often directly opposed, but I’m going against the grain here, folks. I’m not on the popular side of the story. My tweet at Dan Reed, mocking him for doing this, was retweeted hundreds and hundreds of times. And I’m not sure his original tweet gets twelve retweets.

I mean, there is no big fanbase on behalf of this movie.  I don’t think that people really believe it, at least in their hearts and souls. They may pretend that they do, because this is the politically correct thing to do.

26:05 Reed is a jackass. From the factual standpoint he’s been shown not done any research. His whole movie was about manipulating you emotionally which is why all the drone shots of Neverland, and that syrupy music and allowing his accusers to speak unfettered, incredibly slow talking. It is four-hours and is a movie production – this is not a documentary.

26:45 Back to TMZ. Yesterday TMZ dramatically reported that Paris Jackson, the daughter of Michael Jackson, has gone to the hospital because of an attempted suicide and this made huge news. I have no idea what the truth is with regard to [Paris] Jackson, and I am not sure TMZ has any idea what the truth is, but very soon after that report she tweeted at TMZ, “You’re fucking liars” or something like that. That’s a pretty emphatic response from someone who has supposedly just tried to commit suicide. That being said I do believe something happened with Paris Jackson. There is an indication that something happened, what I don’t know. Maybe this will be an opportunity for Paris to tell her story and clear the air, for she has been criticized for effectively staying silent

[I disagree, let us leave the children alone, it is hard for them the way it is].

John Ziegler:

28:30 There are so many examples how this movie in the last week has been discredited, I hesitate to even go into any of it, because as soon as I do, a leaf stuck out – that’s how bad it is. I mean just yesterday Mark Geragos who is Michael Jackson’s original attorney with the regard to the allegations way back then, he tweeted out that he had just been alerted that a quote of his, a clip of his in the movie is completely, totally, taken a hundred per cent out of context, where he is not talking about who and what Dan Reed is implying about.  He was talking about a ton of bricks to bring on these people basically saying “we are going to destroy them”– well, that’s all bullshit. He was not talking about the accusers.

John Ziegler:

29:45 This is one small example of how this movie was made. It’s propaganda. It’s not remotely a documentary. It didn’t remotely care about the truth.

And I’m not even a Michael Jackson fan. I presumed Michael Jackson was guilty before the 2005 trial. The trial made me question it because there was so little evidence and I thought the not guilty verdict was correct. To these days I have suspicions, but the more I learn about all this, almost everything people think about this case is bull crap.

Frankly, the Leaving Neverland movie has done more to convince me that Michael Jackson is innocent than anything else that happened in the last 20-25 years.

30:55 And to that end I had a conversation with Brad Sundberg. And Brad Sundberg was the technical director for Michael Jackson on several of his albums for a ten-year period in the late 80s –the early 90s. And they also did a lot of work at Neverland. I had an extensive conversation with him yesterday and he has been outspoken. Her personality is –  he is not an angry guy or a big fighter but he cares about the truth and he is obviously very credible. And the bottom line is, he says that he was in studio with Michael Jackson at least 300 times in his life working on these various albums. And out of those 300- maybe 400 times he was in the studio with Michael Jackson he says that there was a child or a kid with him a handful of times, maybe six or seven times. And of those times where there was a child or a kid with him, he thinks that Wade Robson was there at most twice.

32:25 This is important because Robson makes the claim that he was sexually abused during the studio sessions, which Sundburg says is impossible based on the way the studio sessions were set up and the situation that was surrounding the studio. There was a lot of people, and this is not something that you could easily pull off, not to mention that if it were your MO (modus operandi) it would be happening a hell of a lot more. One of Robson’s biggest problems is that he didn’t even meet with Jackson regardless of abuse that many times in his life! He claimed in the movie that he had been sexually abused over a hundred times which sounds an awful lot, but the point is that there is no evidence that Robson even met with Michael Jackson even close to a hundred times.

John Ziegler:

33:45 And what proves that is a lot of video tapes. There is a video tape of Robson and his mom standing outside a record store when he was 12 years old waiting for one of Michael Jackson’s albums to be released. Now let’s do the maths on this. He is in the midst of being sexually abused hundreds of times by Michael Jackson, but he has to stand in line to get his album? (laughs)  I’m pretty sure that if that had been happening, he would have probably gotten an advance copy of the album. It doesn’t make any sense.

34:20 And speaking of his mom. This is where we have the consciousness of guilt. They always say that the cover-up is worse than the crime. The crime here is a lie that the mom, Robson and sister provided to Dan Reed in “Leaving Neverland”. This is where I am now completely convinced that they’ve got to be lying because this stuff could not be happening if they were telling the truth.

[Here are just a few touches from Twitter on the Robsons family]:

John Ziegler:

34:55 In 2011 Joy Robson did an interview on a radio station here in Los Angeles. And in this interview she says a lot of things that are directly in contradiction to her son’s current narrative.

In 2011 Robson hadn’t been allegedly aware yet (laughs) that he was sexually abused by Michael Jackson. He wasn’t aware of it until May 2012, so it just magically started to happen 30 years later, that he suddenly realized that sex abuse was bad and that Michael Jackson did that. The reality is that it was the statute of limitations  and reasons of his  lawsuit, but I digress.

So in this interview Joy Robson says a bunch of things that are problematic. One is – she acknowledges that Wade Robson and Michael Jackson didn’t really spend much time together. That’s number one. Number two, she totally substantiates Brandi Jackson’s view of Wade as someone who is effectively a man whore, that he sleeps with everything, and chases women all over the place and it is consistent with Brandi’s story of him having cheated on her with numerous people.  She also seems to indicate that they didn’t come to this country until Wade was nine years old which is a problem because Wade says that the abuse starts at seven years old.

36:25 Now here is why this is all important. In a rational world all that would make people question the story  in a huge way, but guess what happened? I tweeted out a link to that video on Youtube and said, “This is interesting. Wade Robson’s mom, 2011, just apparently around the time when Wade thinks that he is going to get the job for the Michael Jackson Las Vegas show.” Guess what happens within a day, within a day of me tweeting the link to that video?

Let’s be clear. The Youtube account for this video hasn’t posted any videos in years. Their twitter account has been inactive in years.  All of a sudden, within 24 hours, maybe less – PUFF… GONE… Gone from Youtube.

But it gets worse than that. I’ve got to tell you – I’ve been amazed by the Michael Jackson fans. Michael Jackson fans get a very bad rep, including Dan Reed who compares them to ISIS. And this part that really infuriates me because anyone who fights against this narrative is somehow called a cult member and automatically discredited. Dan Reed actually compared the Michael Jackson fans to ISIS. I didn’t find that at all. These people are first of all, fervent and passionate in their desire to find and prove the truth and men, do they bring their receipts. In the last week all I had to do was tweet, “Hey, anyone got this?” and within minutes I’m bombarded by multiple people with that document, or that video and it’s amazing.

38:30 So when I tweeted, “Hey, guess what, the Joy Robson video is gone. Anybody saved it?” and within less than a half hour it is reposted on Youtube by multiple Michael Jackson fans who had saved it. WOW, these people are for real! This is awesome.

And then guess what happens? The same Youtube user, who has been inactive for years, not active on Twitter for years, is suddenly making copyright infringement allegations against those people who were reposting the video.

39:05 Now what does that tell you? That tells you that we have a conspiracy to cover up, that’s what that is – that is a conspiracy to cover up. I urged people to repost the third time not using the entire interview so that it can be used under what’s called “fair use”. To my knowledge that has not been taken down yet. If it has, it should be fought because Youtube doesn’t have the right to take that down, this is clearly a news story and to use part of that video to discredit a major news story is more than legitimate.

39:40 And what’s even not that important is the substance of it. The substance of it is interesting and I think it contradicts Wade’s story, but the taking down of the video in such a dramatic fashion, meaning the timing, and even going to the lengths of doing a lot of work to track down the reposted stupid interview of 2011 and making copyright infringement allegations against those people who posted it – that takes time and effort. That tells me that this is organized, it’s a conspiracy, and it’s a cover-up. That’s what it is.

40:25 And Wade Robson is the most obvious liar I’ve ever seen. And there is a zillion reasons why. Even after his magic date of May 2012 he was still doing interviews – one was in July 2012 where he was glowingly talking about Michael Jackson. [this is inaccurate as far as I know, the interview was in July 2011]

40:55 I’m sorry, but here are some rules for you, folks. If you are going to be taken seriously as a child abuse victim the first thing to do would be to tell a parent. How about a friend, how about a journal, how about something? When they go on trial, maybe not testify on their behalf, okay? That will be a good thing. Or maybe when they die, maybe not put out a statement saying that he is the greatest human that ever lived. Or maybe not write a chapter in the book saying the same thing. Maybe those are the things you shouldn’t do if you want to be taken seriously.

But not when you come up with that [coconut ?]  theory that you didn’t know – when you were sleeping with Britney Spears and lots of other celebrities – and you didn’t know what sex is and that man-child sex is bad, and once when that magic moment happens maybe you stop doing interviews, praising the guy who did that to you. These are just some helpful tips, if you want to be taken seriously.

This is one of the most obvious cases of a blatant lie that I’ve ever seen.

42:00 As far as his partner, James Safechuck, he is not that easy to disprove, but frankly, I actually think that if it wasn’t for Wade Robson – if it was just Safechuck –  Safechuck’s story would seem to be far less credible than it seems to be, this simply because Safechuck is benefitting from the utterly absurd Robson’s story. In comparison it seems just a little less crazy instead of totally nuts.

John Ziegler:

42:40 I went through this last week with Taj Jackson, but Safechuck’s story blows apart this way – Safechuck claims that in 2005 he didn’t testify because Michael Jackson angrily called him, upset that he heard that Safechuck was not going to testify on his behalf. First of all this doesn’t sound like Michael Jackson would do – why would he need to call him directly, why couldn’t he find a crony to do it?

But more importantly than that, we know that the story is absurd from the timeline perspective. In March of that year the judge declared James Safechuck to be off limits in the trial. He could not testify, so why is James Safechuck telling “Leaving Neverland” that during the trial, which goes into June of that year, Jackson was still angrily calling him and their last conversation cut off their contact because Safechuck isn’t going to testify? It doesn’t make any damn sense.

And Safechuck’s only claim is that he didn’t tell anyone about Michael Jackson in a negative fashion and he only says to his mom that Michael Jackson is a bad man and that’s why he is not going to testify. No, that’s not why he is not going to testify – it is because the judge says he is not eligible to testify!

43:50 And now we have a domino effect here. The domino effect is – so he is lying about why he didn’t testify, which then brings obviously into great question his statement as to why Michael Jackson is a bad man. Which takes us into 2009 when Michael Jackson died when the mom (and I urge you to take a look at it if you are interested in the truth) who does some horrendous acting, claims that when Michael Jackson dies, she is so happy that she is doing a dance.

Now the first problem with that statement other than the acting is horrific, she claims she is in bed and she wakes up and hears that he is dead – well, Michael Jackson died in the afternoon here in Los Angeles. But more importantly,  why is she dancing over the death of the guy she thought of as her own son, based on one comment her son allegedly made in 2005. And her own son says he didn’t realize he was abused until he saw Robson on the Today show when? In 2013!

How does it make sense? And to further substantiate that, his cousin Tony Safechuck tweets in 2013 that the whole story about Michael Jackson is bull crap. Literally, that’s what he tweeted. And they didn’t bother to tell their cousin Tony? In all these years? And he still thinks that Michael Jackson is awesome?

Marie Rousseau‏ @ml_roussea 12 мар.

Wow! Interesting how they adjusted their timeline accordingly when they realized there were inconsistencies in their lawsuit. Now Safechuck claims that they had that first dinner in Hayvenburst AFTER the Bad tour in Australia. No mention of Thanksgiving. Well done Jimmy!

John Ziegler:

45:40 Come on, people. This is about money.

They are suing – and that part of the movie bothers me most – just on a global perspective, there is nothing about this movie that qualifies it for being made. Jackson is dead, neither of these guys testified against him, one of them testified on his behalf at a trial, was the first defense witness, neither said anything about Michael Jackson while he was alive, or when he died – and they are both suing in a lawsuit that has been thrown out multiple times and the judge threw out Robson’s own testimony. It doesn’t get the first base for a story to be made into a national so-called documentary sanctified by Oprah Winfrey and embraced by all the rest of the news media.

John Ziegler:

46:40 So the bottom line is this. I am 1000% convinced that Robson is lying. I am about 95% convinced that Safechuck is lying. Unfortunately, I am about 90% sure that they are never going to be widely exposed as liars, because the media is on a lockdown on this. And it’s hard for me to imagine what’s going to happen [to change it] – lawsuits against HBO, or against them. A court of law is the only place where this is going to be properly judicated because you need more than a tweet to be able to combat it. You need a court of law and frankly, I think the thing that Jackson Estate is going to do is – if I were the Jackson Estate I would say, “We are going to drop all objections to a trial in this case. Robson and Safechuck, let’s bring it on. Let’s do this in court. Let’s put this in front of the jury. And let’s see whether or not you can really prove that you were abused by Michael Jackson.”

48:00 Because I think, frankly, if that ever occurs they would shit themselves. Especially now that it’s got so much attention, I think they would shit themselves. Because I think their entire strategy here was to get a settlement.  There’ve been settlements in the past, and the Estate does not have that huge incentive. I think they overplayed their hand and now there is not going to be a settlement, there can’t be a settlement now unless somebody is really an imbecile.

If I were the Jackson Estate – stop objecting.  I don’t know whether it is possible to do because of the statute of limitations. Let’s be very clear about this issue.

Everything about their stories is about getting around the statute of limitations. This is why this bull crap story “We didn’t realize we were sexually abused until 2012 and 2013”. That’s about the statute of limitations. That’s what it is. The statute of limitations in California is 15 years [since they moment of “abuse”]. They made the allegations way too late, so now they need a loophole. There is even a reference to this loophole in Robson’s own lawsuit, they actually reference that this [loophole] allows him to get under the statute of limitations in California, because it says that if you didn’t realize that you had been abused that the clock didn’t start yet.

49:40 What a load of crap. I mean, Come on. There is zero chance that any human being wouldn’t understand that they haven’t been sexually abused. He is not claiming repressed memories. This is a guy, who is very sexually promiscuous, and based upon the interview with Brandi there is zero indication that he suffered any kind of sexual repression, or damage to his psyche – it is all bull crap. It’s all bull crap that has been bought into by people who know better but who are afraid because of the political correctness in the post MeToo era.

John Ziegler:

50:30 I mentioned that Michael Jackson fans have been amazing. I’ve been struck by the difference they have reacted to the way Penn State fans reacted. There is a lot of reasons why.  I think the number one reason is because Jackson has been facing these kind of allegations for so long his fans have been like fire-tested…. I can understand why the difference is, but the difference has been stark.

I don’t know where I go from here on this, but I am definitely invested in seeing Robson and Safechuck exposed as liars as they are. So if there is anything I can do I’ll be there. I’m just not optimistic about it.

British journalist Charles Thomson made his contribution too.

And here is Thomson’s another phenomenal interview with Chris Lynch from New Zealand:

Anda Noel‏ @andanoel

Important, indeed. It marks the moment where journalism went into a coma, me too movement being stolen by impostors and people replacing judges with tv show hosts, basically abandoning reason. Dream world!

And here is the condensed version of major credibility issues of Robson and Safechuck, also by Charles Thomson:

More true journalism comes from Emmy-award nominated filmmaker Larry Nimmer who posted a one hour rebuttal documentary to YouTube, also in connection with “Leaving Neverland.”

For those who can’t see it on Youtube due to some viewing limitations, Larry Nimmer posted his revised new documentary on his Facebook account:

Larry Nimmer

Here is my revised new documentary, “Michael Jackson: A Case for Innocence”. Was he innocent or guilty? Let me know what you think. ThIs is an updated video from my older documentary, with details about the new 2019 accusers.

https://www.facebook.com/larry.nimmer/videos/10157128229088466/

And finally here is the latest statement from the MJ Estate:

The Estate of Michael Jackson:

We want to start by again thanking all of Michael’s fans and acknowledge and thank Michael’s nephew, Taj, his niece, Brandi, and his brothers, Jackie, Marlon and Tito, Grace Rwaramba, Aaron Carter, Brett Barnes, Stephanie Mills and all of the other individuals around the world who have spoken out on his behalf. We also want to acknowledge those in the media who have done their job as journalists by reviewing the facts, noting how they were ignored in Leaving Neverland because it didn’t fit into the filmmaker’s one-sided agenda of denigrating Michael’s legacy.

We also want to provide a brief update on our efforts, as well as share some thoughts with you from the past two weeks. We share your frustration and anger that a man who was found innocent in a court of law in life is being attacked, financially exploited and smeared by corporations and individuals who are only making claims now because he is no longer here to defend himself.

In addition to our public statements regarding our position on Leaving Neverland, our legal efforts continue. While it would not be prudent to publicly divulge our strategy and list our efforts, rest assured we are committed to holding HBO and Channel 4 accountable for their egregious, uncorroborated smear of Michael’s legacy. Many of you have asked why we are seeking open arbitration. The answer is simple: we believe the public deserves to know how Leaving Neverland really came about, why no counter opinion was ever sought, why so many facts were ignored and why individuals were smeared who should have at a minimum been contacted to get the other side of the story. It is outrageous that such a one-sided smear was ever allowed on the air without challenge. We all know that if Michael was still alive it would never have been aired.

We also have other non-legal initiatives that we will disclose at the appropriate time. What is important for us, and always has been, is that we continue to take the long view as we have over the last decade. That means not doing anything rash that would give HBO, Channel 4, the film’s director and, especially, the subjects of the film, what they most crave now. They want to engage in a way that focuses more attention on a film that has no doubt underperformed given that the media did everything in its power to sell this film to viewers. But given the enormous attention and free publicity the media gave this film, the numbers have clearly not matched the hype in the markets where it has aired, with many viewers opting to stop watching after the first part.

We recognize that the press often magnifies each affront related to this film. But from our view the actual impact of this documentary on the public and their behavior has not been as significant as the media want people to think. While some would like you to think otherwise, we can confirm that the consumption of Michael’s music has not declined and his streaming numbers have not decreased in the wake of this documentary. This tells us that in addition to those of us who know the truth about Michael, those who may not understand Michael’s eccentricities and the way he chose to live his life outside of society’s norms are still choosing to appreciate and enjoy the art he created. We have licensees worldwide who are proudly selling Michael Jackson merchandise. We have insight into a significant amount of data that the fans do not see and we are working 24/7 behind the scenes to synthesize all that information and act accordingly.

We are also seeing a sharp disconnect between the reception of the film by everyday viewers and the mainstream media. Despite being outright propaganda, many viewers see through the one-sidedness, the over-the-top salacious claims, the staged dialogue and other dramatizations. They see that what Leaving Neverland boils down to is a sales job aimed at convincing viewers Michael Jackson isn’t the man millions of people know and love, including the two subjects of the film and their families until they chose to sue for hundreds of millions of dollars. As people have had time to digest Leaving Neverland and review the facts, many are recognizing they can’t take it at face value. We are especially proud of Michael’s fans and those who continue to stand up for him by pointing out the numerous inconsistencies and flaws in the film. Numerous individuals who have studied every facet of these cases has poked numerous holes in the stories of the two subjects. Some critics and individuals are now courageously admitting publicly that, having studied the facts, their view of the film changed 180 degrees.

Michael Jackson cannot be silenced, and neither can his fans, whether it is those who proudly play his music in public squares to show their support, the coffee shop owner in New Zealand who played his songs all day long in protest of Leaving Neverland or those who put posters and signs around cities proclaiming his innocence. As Michael predicted 25 years ago, the truth will be his salvation.

The Estate of Michael Jackson

SOURCE: The Official Online Team of The Michael Jackson Estate
https://www.mjvibe.com/statement-from-the-estate-of-michael-jackson-4/

And here is the last-minute addition to the post.

This is a video made by @RobAger (Collative Learning) who points to the evidence of suspicious editing in the Leaving Neverland movie and multiple takes done while filming it. Robson and Safechuck haven’t been filmed in candid continuous interviews – a breakdown of the footage reveals that their claims are spliced together from multiple takes of their interview dialogue.

The different angles at which Robson and Safechuck were filmed were not one or two, but possibly a dozen. This is proof that the interviews were made in parts and on multiple occasions, especially the episodes where they described their “sex abuse”, after which the best parts were picked out to make the picture as convincing as possible.

And this in turn suggests that “Leaving Neverland” is not a documentary, but a carefully crafted feature film, a propaganda piece meant to create the maximal emotional impact on the audience with the goal of Michael Jackson’s character assassination, and where Robson and Safechuck do nothing but an acting performance.

Leaving Neverland – evidence of multiple interview takes

If you are attentive enough when watching this film and if you compare it with the two guys’ lawsuits, you will realize that it is not only Robson, Safechuck and their relatives who lie there, but it is also director Dan Reed who is complicit, because he makes their lies sound even more sinister than they actually are.

You can’t help making this conclusion when you see the free and willful way he edits the footage and changes the timeline of the events to the point of no recognition.

Of course these lies could be initially presented to Dan Reed in their wrong succession, but a real documentary film maker should still do proper research, at least as regards the timeline of the events he wants to present in his story.

So what you will see in this series of posts is not only the analysis of the two guys’ lies, but also the role of the film director in making their story even worse than his two main characters actually tell it.

Below is the partial transcript of the first half hour of the film with some of its segments compared with the court documents and thus setting the timeline straight. In my opinion even if the events are falsely described they should still come in the right order, and not turn into a separate weird fantasy of the film director.

HBO documentary film

00:43 Safechuck: When I was with him he was happy. (MJ and Jimmy are shown on stage smiling) He was at the peak of his creativity, his success. Everybody wanted to be with Michael. He was larger than life – and then he likes you (close up photo of Safechuck as a kid, music)

1:15 Robson’s voiceover (photos of him as a kid, music) He was one of the kindest, one of the most gentle, loving, caring people I knew. He tremendously helped me with my career, creativity, all those sort of things.

And he also sexually abused me (pause). For seven years.

(Footage of Michael Jackson smiling and looking straight into the camera, music)

Title: LEAVING NEVERLAND

2:00 (home video of the Robsons’ one-storey house in Australia. Children are sitting around a table with a birthday cake on it).

2:15 Robson: I’m Wade Robson (smiling, in a gentle voice). I was born in Brisbane, Australia (footage of him and other children at a Christmas party, music). I’m the third of three kids. My dad – he worked in construction for a while and then he got into what was like the fruit business (photos of dad).

2:30 Robson: So when I was young he had a couple of fruit shops (photo of Joy and Dennis together). And my mother used to work with him with those businesses.

2:44 Joy Robson: I’m Joy Robson, mother of Wade Robson (footage of the family in the garden). We were middle class Australian family, we lived on 3 acres. We had horses and goats and a dog named Sally (footage of children and animals, music). Shane was nine and a half years older than Wade (family photo) and his was well into elementary school when Wade was born.

3:15 Shane Robson: It was a three-bedroom single-storey house. We had a pool where we had like pool parties (footage of them playing in the pool, music). Pretty good memories from that place.

3:30 Joy Robson: Chantal was very close with him. Being three years apart they played together a lot (photos, music)

3:45 Chantal Robson: Wade was always a very sensitive boy. He played basketball as a little kid, but if he had a choice of doing anything, he would read a book, listen to music or dance (photo) versus going outside playing football with his friends (photo, music).

4:05 Joy Robson: He was the youngest in the area, so he had nobody to play with. He and I were very close (photo), we spent a lot of time together.

4:12 (footage of making Thriller) Joy Robson: I remember one day coming home with the video of making of Thriller. Someone has told me it would be a collector’s item (footage of Michael in the monster make-up, MJ’s music). I really wasn’t a fan of his, but I did like some of his music.

4:38 Robson (to Thriller music): Once I saw that tape everything changed for me. The music – I couldn’t help but move to it, it sent me on fire. It made everything tingle and it was so exciting (Thriller footage). I remember just watching the tape over and over again, pausing, rewinding, trying over and over again to really perfect (photo of Robson in “Bad” outfit) the complexities of Michael’s movements (MJ singing).

5:22 Robson: I slowly but surely started plastering my walls with images of Michael 2 They literally became like the wallpaper. So going to sleep, waking up in Michael Jackson land.

(drone footage of Safechuck’s home, intense music)

5:50 Newscaster: “Jackson’s world tour coincided with the release of his latest album entitled “Bad.” Sales are good. Half a million copies were sold the day it went on the market. Not since “Thriller” five years ago has the record industry been so focused on a single album.”

6:05 Joy Robson: He had just turned five (photo of Robson in “Bad” outfit), and people kept telling me, “He is really good, you should do something with him”. A friend of mine came to me and said, “You know, Michael Jackson is here on a Bad tour.” I had thought about buying tickets, but I thought he was so young. She said, “You should go, there is a dance competition, you should enter him, the first prize is to meet Michael Jackson.”

6:35 (drone scene of a big city, invigorating music) Joy Robson: The competition was like a week before the concert and it was held in that Target store. He had a little hat and an outfit my hairdresser had made for him (photo). 36

7:00 Robson: I was too young – it was like 7 or 8 and up. And I was 5 at the time. So they said, “He can’t compete because of his age, but we will let him perform as a special guest” (footage of Robson as a kid).

7:15 Joy Robson: When he got on stage, just everything changed. He wasn’t that shy little boy on stage. Everyone was screaming for him and at the end of it, the store manager who was the judge said, “I want to get out of here alive, so I’m going to declare Wade Robson the winner.”(footage of everyone clapping, quiet music) 37

7:42 Joy Robson: Michael Jackson’s people were there to interview and asked 6 him, if he could speak to Michael what would he say?

7: 50 Robson as a little kid: “I’m going to ask him to come over for dinner”. “Why would you want him to come over for dinner? You are going to see him dance?”  “Yeah”.

8:15 Robson’s voiceover (music): You know, this complete impossibility, this being from another world –Michael – we are going to meet now. I was excited beyond measure.

8:35 Joy Robson (looking inspired, music): I remember getting this clot that it was in my heart, it went into all my extremities. It was an amazing feeling. Something magical is going to happen when you get that feeling.

(music intensifies, a wide panorama of a big city)9:10 Safechuck (smiling): I am James Safechuck (drone footage of his house). I grew up in a little town called Simi Valley. I was a pretty happy and pretty outgoing performer, I guess. My father worked at a rubbish company (photo of father and son), a family rubbish company that my grandfather started. My mom had a hair-styling business (photo of mother and son) and I remember being in a beauty salon as a kid. I hang out there while she was working.

9:50 Stephanie Safechuck: My name is Stephanie Safechuck, I am Jimmy’s mother. When I married Jimmy’s father (wedding picture) he had two children that came with the marriage. At the time my husband had vasectomy and I didn’t think I could have any children (the photo of two of them) but three or four years into the marriage I really wanted a baby (another photo), so my husband had it reversed for me which back then guaranteed nothing (photo with a baby). I was so fortunate to have a baby, I remember having him and being overwhelmed and just crying over his crib, that he’s always alright. He is my love (her photo with the kid, music).

10:40 Safechuck: I have an older brother and an older sister. They are much older. They also left home early, so I was alone (music)

10:50 Stephanie Safechuck: (drone over Simi Valley) It was actually a friend of ours – her daughter was in commercials – and she ran into me and my husband in a grocery store and she said, “You’ve got to get him in commercials (photo of young Safechuck). He is so adorable” and gave my husband the agent’s card, so I called the agent and when she met him she said, “He’s money in the bank, I’ll take him”. So he did very well right away.

11:25 December 1986 (a fragment from the Pepsi commercial)

Safechuck: I met Michael on the set of the Pepsi commercial. I don’t remember being a huge fan of his at the time. I was probably more into transformers (smiles). This kid wonders around backstage (the commercial fragment) and then he discovers the dressing room and me going there and I see the jackets, and the glasses and the hat and I am trying it on and then Michael walks in and says, “Looking for me?” (MJ’s music) They were trying to get my reaction on camera. So the first time I see him is actually the shot that they use in the commercial (a fragment from the commercial).

12:30 Safechuck (looking worried): He invited me into his trailer ((the photo of mother and son).

12:35 Stephanie Safechuck: This was exciting for Jimmy and I didn’t want to be in his way.  I wanted Jimmy to have fun and have a good day. So I let him go to Michael’s trailer with Michael’s hair-styling, makeup artist Karen Faye. And I stayed outside. What she said to me was,” He’s like a nine-year old boy.” So that made me feel comfortable (music)

13:05 Safechuck’s voiceover (photo of MJ and Jimmy, music): How would you explain Michael Jackson? He is larger than life. There’s no stars like that now (another photo). Everybody wanted to meet Michael and be with Michael. He was quiet and he laughed a lot at me. And he’s giggly. To the stand-ins (we became kind of buddies) I said, “We are the luckiest boys in the world.” (smiles and looks aside)

It’s time we interrupted their smooth narration.

The above luck was actually a very brief moment with Michael Jackson that Jimmy Safechuck had during that December 1986 commercial. There were no rehearsals with MJ as he just opened the door and they captured Jimmy’s first reaction. Then he went to Michael’s trailer and that was it.

Then the long months of January and February 1987 passed by and there was still no contact with Michael Jackson. To remind Michael of himself Safechuck started writing him letters. The first letter was not answered, but on March 10, 1987 Michael did send him a polite reply. He explained that had been working on a new video and had been busy, and said it was nice to hear from Jimmy again (so Jimmy wrote to Michael at least twice).

Michael invited Jimmy to come and see him on the set “sometime” and if Michael had free time Jimmy could come and visit him at his house.

There was no special invitation, no nothing – it was just a polite reply.

We know all of it from Safechuck’s complaint which is also totally false, but if you really look into it you can still get some grains of truth there. And what we get is that it was Jimmy who sought contact with Michael and not Michael.

The lawsuit says:

Several months after the Pepsi commercial was shot, Decedent wrote a letter to Plaintiff on Doe 2’s stationery dated March 10, 1987. It stated:

“Dear Jimmy,

Thank you for your letter. It was nice hearing from you again! I’ve been working on a new video for my album and have been really busy.

It was fun working with you on the Pepsi commercial! Maybe we can work together again. I’d like to have you come and visit me on the set sometime or when I have some free time you can come to my house.

Keep sending me letters! I love to hear from you!

Speak with you soon, [Decedent’s signature]”

The Decedent also enclosed photographs from the Pepsi commercial that they shot together.

As you can easily guess Dan Reed says nothing about it in his film. Instead he drops Safechuck at this point and goes over to Robson, producing the impression that while we follow Robson’s childhood, Michael’s friendship with Jimmy is flourishing.  However our aim is to stay with Jimmy to see what’s going on there, so we will drop Robson for a time being and fast forward to the follow-up Safechuck segment.

(drone footage of Safechuck’s home in Simi Valley, intense music)

21:05 Stephanie Safechuck: One day the phone rang and I picked it up. “Hi, this is Michael. I’m calling from Australia.  I was in Jimmy’s commercial.” I thought, how touching! He doesn’t think it is his commercial, he thinks it is Jimmy’s! (photo of Safechuck). So I put him on the phone and I could hear Jimmy say, “People tell me at school that you are weird.” Michael said, “Don’t listen to what anybody says. You know me, you know I’m not weird” And that started the relationship.

A great conversation. However as regards the timeline it is a very big lie. First of all, it produces the impression that Jimmy “knows Michael” and by this moment they are buddies enough for Jimmy to talk to Michael about his “weirdness”.

And secondly, the “one-day-the-phone-rang” wording is exceptionally misleading. Put immediately after the March letter from Michael Jackson, it looks like the call came soon after that. However it absolutely did not.

The schedule of Michael Jackson’s Bad tour says that Michael’s first concert in Australia was … on November 13^th, 1987.

And that call was the first contact with MJ the Safechucks themselves mention after the March letter. Now do your maths and you will come to a conclusion that between the March letter and the telephone conversation with Australia at least 8 months passed.

So now you know why Mrs. Safechuck worded it so vaguely. This vagueness is not just a slip of her memory and not a chance occurrence as you might have initially thought – it is a deliberate cover-up of the fact that there was no contact between MJ and Jimmy for at least 8 months.

Right, Michael Jackson did not even attempt to contact Jimmy for full 8 months.

Okay, but who contacted whom after the long separation of these two big friends?

You won’t believe it but Safechuck’s own complaint suggests that it was the Safechuck family who called Michael Jackson in Australia, and not vice versa. The call was made on Thanksgiving Day, November 26^th, which was the day Michael celebrated with his crew in Australia.

But before you read the respective piece from Safechuck’s lawsuit there is one more note to make.

Same as the film, Safechuck’s complaint also messes up with the dates, so when you read it you won’t be able to make head or tail of what happened when. And this is done for a reason – the idea is to create the impression of a continuous “relationship” and Michael displaying an “interest” in the boy.

However there was no interest and no continuous relationship, and to be able to understand it you constantly have to solve the time riddles in Safechuck’s complaint. Here is just one sentence from its point 10 as an example of such riddles – it is worded so slyly that you won’t be able to decipher it without first conducting a proper investigation.

10. Shortly after their first visit to the Hayvenhurst house, on Thankgiving Day, Plaintiff was on the telephone with Decedent.

First of all the phrase ”Plaintiff was on the phone with Decedent” surely stands for Jimmy calling Michael and not the other way about, otherwise they would have told you a long and colorful tale about how “Michael called Jimmy.”

Another riddle is their remark that the call on Thanksgiving day came “shortly after their first visit to the Havenhurst house”. This makes it clear that before that call there was a visit to Michael’s home after all, and shortly after that Jimmy called Michael in Australia.

The riddle points to a period between Thanksgiving day in Australia and the time when Michael was still in the US and could invite Jimmy to his home before he left for Australia.

Let’s look up Michael’s schedule of the Bad tour and search for a moment that could fit the above description.

And yes, we do find such a period – it is month-long break between the two legs of Michael’s tour. He came home to Havenhurst after his last concert in Japan on October 12th and stayed there until he left for Australia where he gave his first concert on November 13^th.

Shortly after that was Thanksgiving day (November 26th), so the Safechucks’ visit to Havenhurst must have been sometime before Michael left.

The most suitable period that would fit the timeline is early November 1987. This was most probably the moment when Michael invited the family to his home in Havenhurst, just as he promised Jimmy in that March letter of his:

• “I’d like to have you come and visit me on the set sometime or when I have some free time you can come to my house.”

Surely, Jimmy answered Michael’s letter and then waited 8 long months for Michael to have free time and invite him to his home.

This was the real timeline of the events, but if you watch the film or read the lawsuit you will see a completely distorted picture. The complaint says:

9. After receiving Decedent’s letter, Plaintiff and his family were invited to dinner by Decedent to Decedent’s home on Hayvenhurst Avenue in Encino, California (“Hayvenhurst house”).

The above makes me speechless. They dare claim that the invitation to dinner came after Michael’s letter in March! Some people have the nerve…

The invitation was made by Decedent through Jolie Levine, Decedent’s then secretary/personal assistant. Ms. Levine later became Decedent’s production assistant on the “BAD” Tour, and his production coordinator on the “BAD” album.

Plaintiffs’s parents accompanied him to Decedent’s Hayvenhurst house for the dinner. After eating, all four of them watched the film Batteries Not Included in a small home theater in Decedent’s Hayvenhurst house. During the visit, when Decedent was alone with Plaintiff, Decedent gave Plaintiff presents – a globe and $700. Plaintiff’s parents were not aware that Decedent had given their son money at the time, and when they discovered it later, they asked Decedent not to give Plaintiff money. In response to their request, Decedent giggled and said that he could not help himself.

Bad as the above timeline is, Dan Reed’s film makes it even worse. As usual with the Safechucks, their story about the first visit to Havenhurst starts with “then his secretary called”. But then was when?

“Then” was in November 1987, eight months after Michael’s letter in March, and almost a year after Safechuck first met Michael when doing the Pepsi commercial in December 1986.

Safechuck speaks about that event as something routine and nothing extraordinary – just like another of those allegedly numerous events in his “intense” friendship with Michael Jackson, though in reality he as a boy was most probably counting every day of that long 8-month period while he waited.

23:16 Safechuck: And then his secretary or somebody called (quiet music) and asked if we would like to go to dinner at the Havenhurst house.

(magical music, a long drone overview of Havenhurst) 

23:44 Safechuck: Going to Havenhurst felt magical, the house is beautiful (drone over the house), they have a recording studio there and I think we saw his brothers and said Hi. We had dinner and watched “Batteries Not Included” (picture of the film poster). He gets movies before they come out, so he has a little movie theater there (drone footage of Havenhurst at night, music). I remember seeing his dance floor for the first time, kind of a magical thing to see Michael in it, at his private dance floor (Safechuck looks pensive)

24:24 Stephanie Safechuck: We were so excited – this was big for us. Nobody can befriend him – he has to befriend people. He is unapproachable. So for him to want to be our friend was “Oh my God, how lucky are we!” (photo of her and her husband together)

24:45 Safechuck (music): Mom and dad, I think they were in awe and just star struck. It is like this. (photo of MJ and Jimmy). And then at the same time he’s becoming a real person. He is not like this two-dimensional icon. He gives you focused attention. And I think at that age (speaks very slowly) you want to be important and you want to be noticed and loved, so it is a powerful attraction.

25:27 Safechuck (violin staccato, photo of MJ): We went into the closet and looked at the stuff and he told me I could get a jacket. I picked the Thriller jacket of course, and I took it home and wore it to the grocery store (photo of Jimmy in a gray suit, not in a Thriller jacket) and as I was leaving he gave me like an envelope full of cash, several hundred dollars – which at the time was a lot. It is still a lot (smiles).

(drone footage over Simi Valley)

Okay. The first thing to do after reading the above is correct Mrs. Safechuck – Michael was approachable and the Safechuck family is the best example of it. They approached him again and again until Michael found free time for them and invited them to his home.

Secondly, it was the first time they saw Michael Jackson in almost a year and it is absolutely clear that Michael had no intention whatsoever to have any “special relationship” with Jimmy. Vice versa, it was Jimmy and his family who besieged him.

Thirdly, there was nothing special about that visit – they had dinner and watched a Steven Spielberg movie, and Michael gave him a jacket (he gave away his things to everyone) and also some money – most probably to compensate for the family’s transport expenses or just as a gift. And then he must have said to them, “Good-bye, nice to have seen you, have a nice day.”

However all was not that easy with the Safechucks, and when Michael left for Australia it was this family who called him on Thanksgiving day. The Safechucks are polite people, so now they wanted to invite Michael to make a return visit, this time to their home.

The court documents say about this nice invitation:

10. Shortly after their first visit to the Hayvenhurst house, on Thankgiving Day, Plaintiff was on the telephone with Decedent. Plaintiff’s parents suggested that he invited Decedent to come over to their home. Decedent said yes, and Plaintiff and his parents drove over to the Hayvenhurst house to pick up Decedent and bring him back to their home. On multiple occasions after the first visit to the Hayvenhurst house, either Plaintiff and his family, or Plaintiff on his own, would go over to see Decedent at the Hayvenhurst house.

Wait a minute, how could they pick him up at Havenhurst if they imply in the same paragraph that Michael was in Australia at the time? Of course that was impossible, and this is just another of Safechuck’s manipulation with the timeline which they hoped no one would ever notice.

Of course the earliest the return visit could be made was after the Australia tour ended.

Well, the schedule of Michael’s tour gives us the possible date for such a visit. Thanksgiving was on November 26^th, Michael’s last concert in Brisbane was on November 28^th so he came back to the US soon after that, and the earliest he could make a return visit to Safechucks’ home was early December (or later).

And now look at the fantastic somersaults done by these people in Dan Reed’s film. Do you know what they say in the film?

They simply say that he called them “the next day”.

See how “continuous” and “intense” their relationship was according to their false narration? All events seem to come one after another, deliberately pressed together in time and this is done with the goal to create the impression that the lovely boy was an irresistible attraction to MJ.

But in reality all we have is a brief meeting at a commercial, then Michael’s one reply to Jimmy’s several letters, then the promise he kept by inviting them to dinner at Havenhurst, and then a call from the family to Michael on Thanksgiving day. And that is all.

(drone footage over Simi Valley)

26:05 Stephanie Safechuck (intense music): He had a phone number and he called the next day and he was going by himself. And I couldn’t believe him – how could this man be by himself?

26:18 Safechuck: And so my parents offered to go and pick him up (drone footage of their house by night). We got in the car and we drove to the Havenhurst house, and there is always like reporters and fans, so we had to sneak him out. Michael was darkened with me in the back. Some people gave chase and we had to like “lose them.” I think my father was excited to like lose them. He had to drive fast or something.

 (photo of Michael in red pajamas sitting on the floor) 

26:50 Stephanie Safechuck (music): And he came to our house and went through Jimmy’s closets, through everything, he acted like a little boy.

27:00 Safechuck: We would watch movies and eat pop corn. He loved pop corn (photo of MJ with a football ball)

Michael would come to the house a lot Michael and I would take walks around the neighborhood just talking (photo of MJ, music) just talking and walking. It would be at night time of course, so that he could sort of hide (drone over Simi Valley). Soon somebody noticed and newspapers would be there.

~

All of it is very nice of course.  Only remember that it wasn’t “grooming” as they will tell you, but a polite return visit to Safechuck’s home, made at the invitation of the family.

And it was only the second time Jimmy met Michael in a year (after their brief interaction during the commercial). And if there were indeed several visits to Safechuck’s home during that time, this was indeed the period when they more or less became friends.

And the initiative was with the Safechucks, not Michael. It was Michael’s naivety and willingness to see what a normal family life of ordinary people was like. Mrs. Safechuck greeted him with homemade cookies and in the evenings MJ and Jimmy would walk together along the streets of Simi Valley. And everything was very nice and proper.

And then came Christmas time. As a Jehovah Witness Michael did not celebrate Christmas, but Safechuck and his family did. However Jimmy was probably ill at Christmas as his home video shows him sitting in bed at the time.

Whatever Jimmy’s condition was there can’t be any doubt that Michael sent Christmas gifts to Jimmy and his mom and dad, especially because the mom was so hospitable to him when he had earlier visited their house. Another present to the family was that Michael sent to their house a film crew who made a short video of Jimmy Safechuck dancing.

And all of it would be okay, if Dan Reed had shown these events in their proper order. But no, his incredible film places Christmas first and everything else later. And if it weren’t for a Christmas tree in one of the shots we would have never noticed this other manipulation with the timeline.

To grasp the goal of this deliberate time shift we need to go back to mark 21:40 of the movie.

21:40 Stephanie Safechuck: So Michael is still in Australia and asked him if he could send a crew to film Jimmy (video of Jimmy sitting in bed). So a crew came and Jimmy didn’t have any posters of Michael, so they put Michael’s posters all through Jimmy’s bedroom when they filmed it. It was exciting for all family.

22:07 Jimmy in the video (sitting in bed): “And I was thrilled like WOW, because it’s hard to believe that I can so much […] Michael Jackson when people just dream about him. Nice stuff, it’s really neat.”

22:25 Safechuck: I sat on the bed and put all my memorabilia there and they just interviewed me. And then I did a little dance performance (video of him dancing with another boy). Now that I look at it, it’s almost like an audition for him (gravely). He sends this film crew out (video of him dancing beside a Christmas tree). 

23:00 Stephanie Safechuck: They didn’t explain. I just figured – he is far away, this is part how he can be with people, and he made it clear that he was very lonely, he didn’t have any friends.

23:16 Safechuck: And then his secretary or somebody called (quiet music) and asked if we would like to go to dinner at the Havenhurst house.

(music, drone footage of Havenhurst) 

Oh, this is when we come to that “secretary called them” point again. So the Havenhurst dinner was in November, but the video was made around Christmas time, however for some reason Dan Reed distorted the timeline and did it in the reverse order, placing Christmas first and everything else after it.

The question is Why?

His big idea is to show that Michael was so “infatuated” with Jimmy that when he went to Australia and felt “lonely” there he sent a special crew to film his “special friend” and then enjoy the video of him while on tour.

Personally, I think that the idea to make this trick came to them when they saw that Jimmy was in bed (possibly ill). Dan Reed’s film is nothing but a chain of manipulations to force the viewer to believe the false narration, so the video of Jimmy in bed came in very handy just for the beginning of the film, because everything that comes after that will be perceived by the viewer in a much more sinister light (a visit to Havenhurst, a jacket as a gift, money to Jimmy, etc.)

Please shake off the illusion and remember the correct timeline and correct events:

• First came their brief interaction during the commercial (December 1986)
• Then Jimmy wrote letters to Michael
• Michael answered them in March 1987 and said that maybe they would work together again and if he had free time Jimmy could come to this home
• Jimmy waited for the invitation for 8 long months
• Michael kept his promise when he was free between the two legs of the tour (early November 1987)
• The family called him in Australia on Thanksgiving day and suggested a return visit
• Michael made a return visit (in early December) and then possibly several others visits to their home
• He sent a film crew to their home at Christmas time to make a video of Jimmy dancing.

This is how “intense” it was.

Why did Michael send a crew to make a video of Jimmy dancing? Most probably to keep his other promise to Jimmy to “maybe work together sometime” and certainly because the Safechucks wanted a career for Jimmy with the help of Michael Jackson.

And now this wonderful lady tells us that “they didn’t explain” why the crew came and she had no idea? Just think how meaningful all these seemingly unimportant details are and how masterfully Dan Reed is constructing the story of “abuse” just out of thin air. And we haven’t even come close to its main part yet.

27:30 Safechuck: (drone over Havenhurst) I think I went to Havenhurst a few times, the more I would visit the more I would get longer time with him. I bought him some toys, he gave me some gifts (photo of MJ and Jimmy jumping). It’s more like hanging over with a friend, that’s more your age, so it seems natural.

28:00 Stephanie Safechuck: (photo of MJ, Jimmy and his mom, MJ has a piercing look to his eyes)

I came to feel like he was one of my sons, by how he behaved. I loved him (her photo in the kitchen) He would spend the night, I’d wash his clothes. At the time I was thinking – should we get him into commercials? I prayed to the Lord that if this is good for Jimmy, open the doors for him and let this happen. And if it’s not, don’t let it happen. of course the door was open so quickly. And then when Michael came to our side I told him about how I prayed before it happened, and Michael tells me, ”I prayed too. I prayed that I could have a friend and then I met Jimmy”. Well, to me the two prayers came together and that was a friendship that was meant to be.

Above is exactly the explanation why that film crew was sent – she was thinking of getting Jimmy into commercials, and please don’t tell me that she never mentioned it to Michael Jackson. So that video allowed Michael to see Jimmy’s potential and the way he could use the boy’s dance skills in his own videos, concerts and commercials.

As regards Jimmy’s other visits to Havenhurst, there were two more and both are described in Safechuck’s lawsuit. The second visit was at Christmas time too, when Michael took Jimmy for a ride over the city and passed out $100 bills to homeless people, surely as Christmas presents:

11. On the second occasion that Plaintiff went to the Hayvenhurst house, Plaintiff was dropped off by his parents. Plaintiff’s parents went to dinner while Plaintiff stayed with Decedent. Plaintiff and Decedent drove off in Decedent’s Mercedes and passed out $100 bills to homeless people. Decedent said to one homeless man, “You do know how much this is,” and then landed him a $100 bill.

And the third one was in January 1988, right after Jermaine and his wife Margaret Macdonaldo moved to Havenhurst where, as she recalled, Jermaine began working in the studio.

12. The third time Plaintiff visited the Hayvenhurst house he was accompanied by his parents and they took a tour of Decedent’s recording studio which was located there. Three of Decedent’s brothers were in the studio working, including Jermaine Jackson, and they all exchanged a quick hello.

Another notable event described in Safechuck’s complaint is a detail which most probably echoed in Dan Reed’s film in the form of the so-called “wedding ceremony” and a certain ring allegedly belonging to Safechuck.

The lawsuit says that when Michael visited Safehucks’ home he and Jimmy went to a jewelry shop. And considering that all those visits revolved around Christmas, it is easy to assume that Michael bought some jewelry there as a gift to Jimmy’s mother.

The thing is that at the time there wasn’t even any talk about any molestation, even in Safechuck’s complaint, so there is no way the jewelry could be bought for Jimmy – which leaves us with only one alternative to it, that the jewelry was meant for his mother. And see what stories this grateful woman is now telling us about Michael!

Here is the part of the lawsuit about their visit to a jewelry shop, preceded by all that talk about “regular phone calls”:

14. Decedent began telephoning Plaintiff at home on a frequent and regular basis. Their relationship had grown to a point where Decedent had become part of Plaintiff’s family. Decedent would call Plaintiff at home when he was alone or lonely, and Plaintiff’s family would drive over to the Hayvenhurst house and pick up the Decedent and bring him back to Plaintiff’s home in Simi Valley. One time Plaintiff and Decedent went to the park in Simi Valley. They shot some video footage there that ended up in the closing credits of one of Decedent’s documentaries. On another occasion, Plaintiff and Decedent went to the Zales jewelry store in Simi Valley.

Then came the  year 1988.

In January that year Pepsi invited Michael and Jimmy to their annual convention. Mind you that this was an official event and all the arrangements for that visit (as per their respective contracts with Pepsi) were naturally made by Pepsi and not Michael Jackson.

Dan Reed has the following to tell us about it:

29:03 (the plane is landing, photo of Michael on the plane, photo of Jimmy on the plane)

Safechuck: I went to Hawaii with Michael for the Pepsi convention (jolly music, drone over Hawaii beach). The trip felt like an adventure. We went out there to an amusement park for the night and everybody was there, and everybody played.

29:34 Stephanie Safechuck: We were treated very nicely there. We had a helicopter ride which was nice (drone footage of Hawaii).

Safechuck: And I remember there were dolphins there (photo of MJ, mom and Jimmy walking about the Hilton hotel). We were from a small town, so this is bigger than I think anybody’s expectations (more Hilton photos) 

29:58 Stephanie Safechuck: I wanted them to have fun and I wanted my son to be happy and have a good time (photo of MJ at the Hilton), so I stayed my distance there in Hawaii during the day.

This is how she stayed her distance from Michael Jackson during that visit – picture by Alan Light

Safechuck: The hotel was beautiful of course (photo of all three standing on the balcony) and I remember really wanting to stay in the room with him and my mom wouldn’t allow it at the time.

30:20 Stephanie Safechuck: I didn’t think it was appropriate for my son to go sleep with him (photo of MJ sitting on the bed). I know he was a kind man and he was doing everything to make our trip there as good as it could be, but it didn’t feel right. You don’t allow anyone to sleep with somebody else you don’t really know. Jimmy was ”Please, mom, please,  you know” because he loved Michael (photo of MJ). But no, I wouldn’t let him and made sure I had my meals with them and Jimmy slept with me. That’s how it was the first trip (quiet music)

30:57 (footage of the ocean, piano playing)

By this point the film has already groomed you into thinking that the “relationship” progressed to such a degree that even a possibility of “sleepovers” was discussed.

No, my dear ones, it wasn’t anything like that. First of all, as you remember, it wasn’t Michael’s initiative to go there and take Jimmy at all – both were invited to Hawaii as both took part in that commercial.

As to the idea of staying in Michael’s room it arose under somewhat dramatic circumstances. They rented a helicopter for an air trip, but in 5-10 minutes Jimmy got airsick and the helicopter landed. Michael offered his suite for the Safechucks to stay there, but his mother refused. And that was all.

Safechuck’s lawsuit says about it:

17. While they were in Hawaii, Decedent rented a helicopter to take Plaintiff and his mother on a tour. Plaintiff got airsick 5-10 minutes after take-off, so they had to land. Decedent asked Plaintiff to stay in his room when they got back to the hotel, but Plaintiff’s mother said no. Decedent had also rented out an amusement park for everyone to visit. Plaintiff met Michael J. Fox at the convention, and for the entire time he was treated on a V.I.P. basis.

Then came the trip back from Hawaii.

Safechuck talks of the mock interview of Michael and at some point presents it as “infatuation” and as alleged evidence that he was turning into a “special friend” of Michael Jackson.

Well, see for yourself. Below is the transcript of what I could make of that mock interview. Michael mostly speaks about work and out of politeness calls his commercial with Jimmy his “best” because as Michael explains, “it has heart”.

Incidentally, we learn from Michael what aircraft they were flying – it was DC- 10 with a standard seating of 270 passengers. So it was nothing special and just a regular flight.

31:04 Safechuck (music): I remember the plane being quite empty, and I did this mock interview with him, he said I can ask him anything I wanted (photo of MJ and Jimmy on the plane).

31:15 Michael Jackson’s voice:  “We are in the air on our way from Hawaii. Thousands of feet [.. ], DC-10. I had a wonderful time with Jimmy.”

31:25 Safechuck: I was just playing reporter. And he never gave interviews, so it was kind of like, “sure, you can interview me”

Jimmy: “How did you like Hawaii?”

MJ: “The best thing about Hawaii? Being with you.”

Jimmy: ”What about performing and the stuff you like?”

MJ: “I love performing. It is the greatest thing in the world, because I feel at home on stage, I could live on stage, I am the most happiest when I am on stage, and when I am with Jimmy Safechuck. The Pepsi commercial you and I am in, is the best commercial. Because it has heart. Every time I see it, it makes me smile. And I want us to be friends for a long, forever. Good bye, signing off.

32:30 Safechuck (music): And it’s (pause) hard to listen to (pause). You can hear like the infatuation and how much I was attracted to him and also his (pause), his attraction to you, like making you feel special (music).

~

No, it is absolutely not hard to listen. It is a nice mock interview where Michael is partially serious and partially playing up to Jimmy, telling him how memorable the trip was due to his presence and calling their joint commercial “the best” because it has heart. In fact, it is the most innocent interview anyone can imagine.

And if you have a different impression of it, my diagnosis is that you are already groomed by Dan Reed’s weird film and that now you know what grooming really is.

The next half hour of the film contains even worse distortions of the timeline than the first one, and this makes it even clearer that Dan Reed is part and parcel of the Robson/ Safechuck scam project.

The problem is that in addition to the two guys’ lies Dan Reed deliberately paints the picture of “grooming” which was absolutely not the case if you know the real timeline. So in order to fill the void Dan Reed builds the suspense artificially – by editing the footage and manipulating the dates. The goal is to present Michael Jackson’s normal interaction with the families as something utterly calculating and sinister.

In reality Safechuck had very little communication with Michael Jackson – after their brief meeting during the December 1986 Pepsi commercial he saw him again only 8 months later, and that was only because he kept bombarding MJ with letters and the polite Michael finally invited them to dinner at Nevenhurst in early November 1987 (during a break between the two legs of his Bad tour).

And Robson didn’t see MJ for two years which passed between their first meet and greet in Australia and the family’s arrival in the US when they spent a whole week seeking out Michael Jackson and struggling to find his telephone number. Their further interaction was not that intense either – in 2005 Joy Robson testified that in 14 years she recalled only 4 occasions when Wade and Michael Jackson were together at Neverland. At all other times the Robsons were there without him.

So not only Dan Reed didn’t check the facts, but he also aggravated the two guys’ lies by artificially “intensifying” their friendship with MJ and creating a continuous story out of the few bits and pieces the two guys had.

And in doing so Reed uses the usual Hollywood suspense and other professional tricks. For example, he drops Safechuck’s story at a strategic point where Safehuck pensively remarks that he thought they were “the luckiest boys in the world”, and then proceeds to Robson’s happy childhood in Australia – and by this contrast alone conveys to us how their bright expectations “were ruined by the horrible Jackson.”

Actually Robson’s happy childhood in Australia is where we also start now as this fragment of the film was omitted in the previous post in order not to interrupt Safechuck’s smooth narration.

13:35 November 1987 (intense music) Michael is shown arriving at the airport (footage of the city and concert)

Robson: He was performing two nights in Brisbane. We went to the first concert just to watch and this was the first time I’d seen him perform live (concert footage). I remember my mind just being blown. His energy magnified through all those thousands of people and through all those speakers, and the energy kind of shaking my whole body.

14:29 Joy Robson (looking enthusiastic): We went to the concert the Friday night and we had a meet-and-greet with Michael (photo of Michael, music) 

14:40 Robson: Here he was now, you know (music) as a seemingly real human being. He kept commenting on my Bad outfit (photo of MJ and Wade), how great he thought it was.

15:00 Joy Robson: And Michael said, “Did you go to concert tonight?” And he said, “I wish I’d known. I would have put him on stage with me”. I said, “We’ll be there tomorrow night”, because he had given us tickets as well, as the winner. So he said, “I’ll see what I can do.”

15:15 Robson: The next day I was on a TV show (clip from a TV show)

 (aerial view of a big city)

16:05 Robson: Music goes blaring, the lights are going this intensely, it is a wild sensation.

Joy Robson (looking fascinated): All of a sudden a huge Black man came with a big top hat and took Wade into his arms and told us to wait there and took him backstage.

Robson (fascinated too): The curtain is pulled back. Michael came up to me and grabbed my hand and gave me a signal, “come on, let’s do it”. I looked at this sea of people and then something clicked, like I was almost him, almost, for a moment (looking happy), with his audience. He got all these other kids and Steve Wonder was on stage.

Joy Robson: And then it was time for Michael to leave, it was the end of the concert and he called the kids to follow him off stage, and Wade didn’t see it and he is still dancing. Michael realized it and laughed. Michael just clapped and walked off, and Wade realized that everyone was leaving. It was very cute.

18:10 Robson (suddenly sounding technical): Each moment of that eye connection was like a bit of a shock to the system. The performance, that meet and greet were such dreamlike experiences and kind of sensory overload, emotional overload.

18:45 Shane Robson: I remember them coming home after the concert. He came into my bedroom, he was all excited. He was kind of teary telling a story about dancing with Michael Jackson.

19:00 (a drone shot of a big city, music) Joy Robson’s voiceover:

The next morning I wanted to bring a thank you letter because that was his last concert, he was leaving Australia. There were fans all around, they all recognized Wade, so he was a little celebrity, they were taking photos of him or talking to him. Michael (photo of MJ) had heard that we were in the lobby and invited us to come up to his room. And I remember Wade’s face lighting up “I’m going to meet a superstar and he was so excited (photo of him and MJ). Who gets to meet a superhero and this little boy do it twice now?

19:45 Robson: And I am spending about two hours in his hotel suite (clip from MJ’s video). He was in some sort of editing process for his Moonwalker film. There he was on the TV screen, as I was used to seeing him, and then he was sitting right next to me on the bed.

20:05 Joy Robson (smiling): Michael’s hand was rubbing up and down on the sheets beside my elbow as he was talking to us and I was thinking, “Oh, my God, I am on a bed with Michael Jackson.” No one was going to believe this. We all had an overwhelming weekend, that’s for sure (footage of MJ taking the kid’s hand on stage, music).

20:30 Robson: This little Australian boy who had this other worldly experience of meeting my idol and my mentor, my god – like I’ve been anointed, some kind of way.

The “anointment” is another of those points where Dan Reed makes a strategic pause. Sure, what else could it be but Robson’s “anointment”? Certainly not the usual meet and greet MJ had with thousands of people all over the world, or the customary dance he had with random children who joined him on stage in every city he visited.

There is one more point that draws our attention here. When Wade and Joy Robson came into Michael Jackson’s hotel room to thank him, he was sitting on the bed and editing the Moonwalker film with the video equipment in front of him. He didn’t mind both visitors sit on his bed too, which made Joy Robson feel exhilarated (she was on the bed with Michael Jackson!). For her it was an incredible thrill, while for Michael it was nothing special and he didn’t even notice the impression this familiarity produced on the others.

This is just an example of how little Michael Jackson knew of socially accepted rules, how much he behaved like a kid and what amount of attention others paid to things he didn’t even notice.

At this point Dan Reed switches over to Safechuck’s mother who says that her son often spoke with MJ on the phone.  Speaking on the phone during the tour was indeed Michael’s favorite pastime, only please remember that those phone chats could take place only after Thanksgiving Day on November 26^th 1988 when the Safechucks called Michael in Australia themselves and invited him to make a return visit to their home. The dinner at Havenhurst prior to that was the first time they met after the Pepsi commercial, so during that period they were still very much on official terms.

33:25 Stephanie Safechuck: A lot of our conversations were on the telephone. My son would be on the phone hours with Michael, hours. And he would talk to me, he would call me during the day. Long conversations is how we got to know people, I think (MJ’s short telephone message is reproduced).

33:53 Safechuck: We were talking on the phone pretty regularly (photo of MJ with a telephone in his hand on a plane). And I was dancing and taking dance seriously. And it was like, “Come, join me on tour”

34:05 Stephanie Safechuck: And he said, “You can choose whenever you want to come and stay as long as you want.” (photo of Jimmy, mom and dad).

34:13 Safechuck: So as soon as school ended, I joined the tour for the summer (plane at the airport, flying, footage of MJ arriving at some place, crowds of people greeting him).

My mother went (photo of MJ, Jimmy, mom and dad), my father would join, but he wouldn’t be all time .

34:40 Stephanie Safechuck: He flies you first class, he’ll have a Limo waiting for you at the airport. Amazing. It’s the life of the rich and famous (footage of MJ in concert).

34:50 Safechuck: I came at the end of the song “Bad”. He would pick kids out from the crowd, like ten or twelve kids, I had a Bad outfit that was just like his, and we like sidewalked and did a few steps together (a shot from a concert)

35:30 Safechuck: It’s hard to explain to people what tour is like. It’s pretty crazy (MJ at another airport, hysterical crowds greet him, Jimmy sneaks from a car to avoid mobbing. Another crowd – of Japanese fans ).

The excitement of just walking from his car is insane (another crowd in Europe now), people are snapping pictures, holding on to the tour handles and being dragged by the car, they are crying. It is unique experience.

36:40 Safechuck: That level of star power (MJ in concert). I am ten on the tour, we are having shows every night, it’s a bit overwhelming. There are all sort of amazing  moments on tour that you don’t get in normal life (MJ and Jimmy in another concert).

37:08 (arriving at Tokyo airport) 

37:15 Stephanie Safechuck: None of us were living a normal life when we travelled with Michael. I got to meet Sean Connery, that was big for me (excited), I was like, “Oh my God, Sean Connery!”

37:25 Safechuck (looking displeased): And at the shows the stars come in to meet him. Harrison Ford and George Lucas (photos with Harrison Ford and others), Steven Spielberg and we even went to the Indiana Jones movie and Harrison Ford took me outside and showed me how he uses his bow whip and then he gave me his bow whip (photo with Harrison Ford)

37:55 Stephanie Safechuck: I was on a bus with Tina Turner, the bus with VIPs that took us back and forth to the hotel (footage in Japan with Sumo wrestlers) and I heard her tell her boyfriend as I was sitting close, “That little white boy sure can dance” (broad, happy smile). I knew she was talking about Jimmy. Oh, I know he can dance (photo of mom and Jimmy). It was always a proud moment to see him on stage (more concert footage).

38:25 (more planes landing, photo of Jimmy and MJ leaving the plane) 

38:38 Safechuck: By that time you are already best buddies, so it is like two friends going on an adventure, or thing like that (bus Caetano arrives at a hotel). People are going off and are doing normal things when they travel. You are just a lot of time spending in a hotel room with him (French flag is hanging on the hotel) and the hotel rooms are the President’s suites, so they are quite large, so there is lots of room to play, so you just grow closer (photo of MJ and Jimmy smiling and shaking hands). I remember we would fall asleep together and then I would wake up and he would be in another room, and I would be hurt that he is in another room. So I’d ask him to stay (music).

39:30 Stephanie Safechuck: It seems like it was a natural thing that happened. My husband and I had to have said, “Yes, you should go sleep with Michael”.

39:40 (a beautiful drone footage of Paris by night, violin playing)

Safechuck: In Paris he introduced me to masturbation and that’s how it started (another footage of Paris by night, violin playing).

40:03 Safechuck (very slowly): Michael and I were in his room. He set it up like “I’m going to show you something everybody else does, and you’ll really enjoy it”. He is teaching you something new. Then I remember my penis swelling up because I did it so much the first time. I must have done it a few times. I remember dripping my penis in warm water, Michael filled the cup with water. It was hard to pee. 

40:40 Safechuck: I don’t have any unpleasant memories other than not being able to pee. (photo of MJ looking at Jimmy) It felt like your bonding in a way. It started like a couple relationship.

41:04 Stephanie Safechuck: He was with Michael for 24/7. I would go visit Jimmy, make sure he was okay, but Jimmy was always, “You can go, mom”.  He didn’t want me there. I missed him, I really missed my son, not being with him.

41:20 Safechuck: Michael would like it if you would bend over and like spread open your cheeks. That’s what he liked. And then he would masturbate (a darkened photo of MJ in bed). He liked if I rubbed his nipples. So we would do stuff and in the end when he wanted to ejaculate he would finish himself (photo of MJ with a toy on his shoulder).

42:00 Stephanie Safechuck: Our room started to get further and further away from Michael’s room. And when I asked about it we were not even on the same floor now – in Paris. And I asked them and they said, “We couldn’t get a suite close to Michael, there were no suites available. This is where we could get you the nicest room”. That made sense to me, so okay. But in Germany we were really far away from them. And same thing, “We couldn’t get you a suite near them”.

The above is pure fiction where every word and every shot is a big lie.

Why so?

Look at Safechuck’s mother, for example. According to her when they arrived in Paris after that long tour of theirs the parents’ room “started to get further and further away from Michael’s room.” This is meant to imply that before Paris the parents could have access to their son, but in Paris things changed for the worse.

FORGET about it. NONE of it is true.

According to Safechuck’s own lawsuit Paris was the first city where they joined Michael Jackson on tour (in late June 1988). So the parents’ room could not “get further and further away” from Michael’s room for the simple reason that the family had only just arrived.

By then Jimmy and MJ had not yet developed a close friendship yet, because they had met on rare occasions only.

The last time they met before the Safechucks arrived in Paris was in May that year when Michael moved to Neverland during a short break between the legs of the tour and invited the Safechuck family to show them the newly acquired property. The visit was nothing intimate as Safechuck didn’t even stay in Michael’s room (according to his own mother who said that sleepovers began only on the tour) and certainly no alleged molestation took place (according to Safechuck himself who said that it began only in Paris).

So judging by their own story as soon as the Safechucks joined Michael Jackson in Paris all those activities started immediately, and this makes a very big contrast with the picture Dan Reed portrays to his viewers.

Now, even if you believe Safechuck’s tale, just ask yourself a question – why do all of them lie about the succession of those events?

Safechuck’s mother lies that by the time they arrived in Paris “their room began to get further and further from Michael’s room” and this is where she finally agreed to allow Jimmy to stay with Michael because by that time “it looked so natural”.

Safechuck lies that prior to Paris they danced every night and sometimes fell asleep together and the next morning Michael was in another room and it “hurt” him so much that he asked Michael to stay. He lies that when they arrived in Paris they were already the best buddies, and this is why it didn’t take him by surprise when MJ allegedly taught him a “new thing”, “dripped his penis” in warm water, “spread his cheeks”, and so on. Imagine all of it happening to you on your first day of the tour and you will realize why Dan Reed had to “correct” Safechuck’s timeline by his thorough editing.

And Dan Reed also lies to his viewers by making all those “corrections” to the timeline. First he shows them in concert after concert in Europe, Japan and many other places after which “one day” they arrive in Paris and this is where the whole thing allegedly starts.

Haven’t you had enough of their lies? And how can you believe these people’s further claims if they tell elaborate lies even about the succession of those fictional events?

Moreover the obvious truth these people do not tell you is that after Safechuck joined MJ in Paris the first thing they did was rehearsing in order to synchronize their dance moves before ever going on stage together. When you look at their concert footage what really strikes you is that their dance moves are very well synchronized and well-rehearsed, and without much training (certainly in Michael’s hotel room) this would have been impossible.

Then came the following:

• After Paris came approximately 20 more concerts in Europe where Safechuck indeed took part.
• In August 1988 he returned home before school began while Michael continued with the tour.
• At the end of August Michael was joined by his mother Katherine (in London they went to the Madame Tussauds museum together).
• On September 12 both of them went back to Los Angeles where Michael took her directly to his new home at Neverland, apparently to show her his new property.
• Two weeks later, on September 26 Michael Jackson went on a tour again – this time in North America.
• The last concert in the US was on November 13, 1988.
• After a short break Michael was already in Japan (December 9-26) where Safechuck joined him again for several concerts during his Christmas holiday.
• After that, on January 16-26, 1989 Michael gave five more concerts in Los Angeles, US, and this is where the Bad tour finally ended.

So no matter what impression you get from Safehuck’s seemingly continuous story the correct timeline says that Safechuck joined Michael on occasions only, and his tour with Michael certainly not continued but started in Paris, where the alleged activities just struck out of the blue.

After brainwashing the viewers about the timeline Dan Reeds continues his drama by contrasting Safechuck’s horrid tales with his mother’s “naïve” story that they were “just playing games, doing kid stuff and reading poetry”.

The poetry point is actually absolutely correct because Michael was indeed an avid reader of Sufi’s ancient poems and usually read them after his concerts to bring his adrenalin down (Deepak Chopra was a witness to it, see this post for details). Reading was also surely done before the concert as on the day of the show Michael never talked and spared his voice (as Debbie Rowe said at the AEG trial).

Now that you will proceed to Safehuck’s graphic descriptions just keep in mind that all throughout his narration Safechuck speaks in exactly the same voice as before and the same vague smile on his face. There isn’t a single sign of embarrassment, worry or humiliation in his demeanor – just a somewhat weird and even playful look on his face, especially when he claims that there was nothing not to like about the alleged sex.

42:49 (photos of MJ and Jimmy sitting on a bed in Michael Jackson’s trailer which Safechuck visited in March 1988 during the filming of the Speed Demon video – even according to Safechuck’s own complaint the alleged abuse had not yet started then, so Dan Reeds cheats on us here again (see the discussion in the comments for details).

Safechuck: He would run drills with me where he would be in the hotel room and he would pretend that somebody would be coming in and you need to get dressed as fast as possible without making noise. So not being caught was just fundamental (another home photo, hardly a President’s suite). It was very much a secret and he would tell me that if anybody would find out, his life would be over, and my life would be over. And that’s something he tells you over and over again.

43:15 (footage of Jimmy and MJ leaving the hotel and getting into a car, piano music) And French kissing. He said I introduced that to him (footage of Jimmy happily jumping by MJ’s side) and it evolved from like French kissing to kissing different parts of the body. And then finally like kissing the genitals. He started with like “Can I kiss it?”  I remember one time I was sleeping and I woke up and Michael said that he had performed oral sex on me while I was sleeping. I said like, “Okay”. 

44:23 Stephanie Safechuck: I wondered what was going on in the room, (laughing) I would go to the door, try to listen, hear the conversation was going on and sneak away. I wasn’t worried that anything was going on. I guess I was more curious what they were doing there.

Dan Reed: What were they doing?

Stephanie Safechuck: Playing, reading. Michael is reading really good books. He’d read poems to him. Just kid things. They were just doing kid things.

44:58 Safechuck (smiling): He’d actually like ejaculate, there would be this like lubricant that would sort of leak out.

Dan Reed: From you?

Safechuck: From me, yeah. Michael would ejaculate (photo of MJ and Jimmy, MJ’s eyes have a piercing photoshopped look). He says that I was his first sexual experience (quiet music). And he would say to me all the time – he is the biggest entertainer, and he is the creative genius. And that you are special. What’s not to like? (queer smile on his face)

45:45 Stephanie Safechuck: Michael would always hold Jimmy’s hand (footage of MJ with a boy not holding hands) And he said. “Would you talk to Jimmy about holding my hand?” And people are going to have a wrong impression. You know how people think. They are going to think something nasty about it. Nothing is going on, but this is going to look like something is going on.

46:15 Safechuck: Myself and Michael would scratch each other here on the palms when holding the hands, and that meant like you are thinking of them – sexually. There are no thoughts of this is wrong, nothing like that. Just very accepted way of expressing your love. That’s what he would say.

46:40 (drone footage of Simi Valley) Stephanie Safechuck: He was very close to us, seeing us every day, staying at our home, we were the first guests he had to go to Neverland. I actually have the brochure that they use to market it, sell it (leafing through the album).

47:07 Safechuck (music): He said I’m purchasing house, it is going to be yours, like this place is for you. (photos of Neverland). Me and Michael would be a lot together, like for a week at a time (music, aerial view of Neverland).

47:20 Stephanie Safechuck: His property was massive, so nobody was near. The next ranch was quite away. They have the most beautiful guest rooms. This was the room I chose (points to the album). I loved this room. You could stay at any guest room you wanted and Jimmy stayed with Michael in the big house.  (Photo of the kitchen).  We had people cooking for us. He had a beautiful wine cellar, really good wine, champagne, there was something I enjoyed. It was a fairy tale – every night.

47:57 Safechuck: The routine was – we would get a blanket and lie down on the floor inside of a closet, next to his main bed, so that we could close the doors and have several sort of doors people had to go through (photo of door with locks on it). That’s the hall that leads to his room (footage of the hall). There were bells so that you can have a moment and hear them trip and at least alarm him that the people are coming.

Sorry to interrupt again, but this closet thing is ridiculous – it is enough to look at the picture of Michael’s quarters to see it. First comes Michael’s bedroom, then a corridor to the so-called “gents” bathroom, then the stairs to the second floor bedroom and then a closet with pillows, blankets, towels, etc.  A similar corridor is on the other side of the bedroom, which had another closet for MJ’s clothes and a walk-in safe at the far corner of it (built by the previous owner of course).

But Safechuck is talking about the closet with pillows in it. Yes, there are two more doors before you enter that closet but if the bell rings when somebody approaches the bedroom you don’t have to close the doors, do you? In fact, closing the doors is even less effective as they can mute the sound of the bell. And if the bedroom door is locked, closing two doors inside the bedroom quarters is totally unnecessary. So the bedroom was not locked? But why does Dan Reed focus viewers’ attention on the locks then?

Before you read the next fragment there are a few more things that need to be clarified. Safechuck speaks there about his numerous visits to Neverland and the various places the alleged “sex” took place.

To be able to spot his lies there you first need to know 1) how little time during the alleged 1988-1992 period of “molestation” Michael spent at Neverland and the fact that 2) most of the buildings where the alleged “sex” took place were simply not there at the time when Safechuck visited Neverland.

Joseph Marcus, the ranch manager who worked at the ranch since the previous owner, testified in 2005 that originally the ranch had only the main residence, the guesthouse with its four units, the arcade building (near the pool) and the office building with a garage (adjacent to the main residence):

5   … Now, did the main building —

6   the main buildings, which would be the residence

7   itself, the portion attached to it that now has the

8   garage and Mr. Jackson’s office in it, the

9   guesthouse with the four guest units and the arcade

10   building, were those buildings all there when it was

11   Sycamore Valley Ranch?

12       A.  Yes.

After purchasing the ranch Michael Jackson added a lot of facilities there, which included (among other things) the theater, train station, train depot and the trains, the amusement park with a teepee area to it and a castle.

18       Q.  Since Mr. Jackson purchased the property,

19   have there been improvements to the property?

20       A.  Yes.

21       Q.  Can you tell us what improvements?

22       A.  The number one main improvement would be the

23   trains.  There are two trains.  There’s a steam

24   train as well as a 24-gauge train.  There’s also an

25   amusement park, a zoo, a theater, the train depot.

26   There’s a teepee area that is also a water fort

27   area.

All of the above had to be mentioned because Safechuck called these areas the places where they allegedly “had sex”. Imagine “sex” in the places that were not even there at the time described by Safechuck and that will be the end of the vaudeville they are playing to us here.

More about those buildings later – now let’s look at the amount of time Michael spent at Neverland during that period.

From Mike Smallcombe, MJ’s biographer we learn that after his Bad tour finished Michael stayed at the ranch for four months (February -May 1989) – he was having a rest and writing new songs. But in June 1989 he was already in Los Angeles, beginning to record there and staying in his Hideout there to spare himself a 100-mile trip to Neverland.

Here are the details from Mike Smallcombe’s article about making the Dangerous album.

“Inspired by seeing the world, Michael had been writing songs while spending time at his ranch after the Bad Tour. Forger said Michael returned from his tour with certain impressions. “His social commentary kicked up a notch or two,” he said. The most prominent of these were later titled ‘They Don’t Care About Us’ and ‘Earth Song’. Michael and Forger began working on these tracks in Westlake’s Studio C on Santa Monica Boulevard in June 1989.”

…In the summer of 1989, after a few months of rest at Neverland, Michael returned to the studio to begin recording new material for Decade. With the ranch over 100 miles away, Michael would mostly stay at his secret three-storey condominium in Century City – which he called the ‘Hideout’ – whenever he was working in Los Angeles.

In the fall of 1989, Michael and his team began working on another environmental awareness anthem, ‘Heal the World’.  In early November Michael received a visit at the studio from a long-time friend, Buz Kohan, who was trying to persuade him to perform at an allstar tribute to Sammy Davis Jr’s 60 years in show business [ ] which was being taped for broadcast on November 13 at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles.

At the time, Michael was in extreme pain from the Pepsi commercial accident when his hair caught on fire. Kohan and Schlatter hadn’t realised just how much distress Michael was in. “He took us into a back bathroom at the studio and asked us to feel his head,” Kohan recalls. “He told me he was in constant pain and on painkillers. Because of this, he truly didn’t know whether he would be able to perform at all.” [ ] I said to Michael, ‘This man, whether you are aware of it or not, has done so much for you, and if you pass up this last chance to say thank you, you will never forgive yourself ’.”

Everything then went into gear to prepare for the dress rehearsal, which by then was less than 12 hours away. [ ] here he was, going on stage before an audience of millions to perform a song he had never sung before, which had an orchestration he would hear for the first time on the afternoon of the show. It was so out of character for him, but to his everlasting credit, he set the wheels in motion and went home with a piano track I made on a small cassette recorder to learn the song.”

Between November 1989 and January 1990, Michael and the crew switched from Westlake to the Record One studio complex, located in Sherman Oaks in the San Fernando Valley. They had exclusive 24-hour access to the studio, costing an estimated $4,000 a day. Matt Forger said at the time they required two studio rooms full time for a year, as Michael was entertaining the idea of recording a full album of new material rather than releasing Decade.

But by March 1990 Michael was still unsure about whether to go through with the Decade project – now due in the fall – or record a whole new album.  Michael was also going through personal difficulties. In April a close friend of his, Ryan White, died from AIDS complications at the age of 18. His grandmother Martha Bridges also died a month later, as did one of his idols, Sammy Davis Jr.

On June 3, Michael was admitted to St. John’s Hospital in Los Angeles with chest pains. Tests later traced the pains to inflammation of rib cage cartilage. Although Michael was released from hospital five days later, the illness kept him out of the studio for several weeks.

In the summer of 1990, Michael finally decided to shelve the Decade project in favour of an album of new material, due to an avalanche of song ideas. “Michael simply wasn’t interested in old material, he wanted to keep creating,” Matt Forger said. David Geffen was also said to have influenced the decision. The album was pencilled in for a January 1991 release. Once he recovered from his illness, Michael resumed work in the studio.

Michael and young producer Bryan Loren spent much time together outside of the studio; the producer was a regular visitor to both Neverland and Michael’s Hideout in Century City. “I remember once being on the 101 freeway coming from the Hideout on the way to the studio in my car, with Michael in my passenger seat,” Loren recalls. “At some point, a man driving on the passenger side of my car looks in the window at Mike, curly hair and fedora in tow. Does a double-take and shrugs his shoulders as if to say ‘Nah, couldn’t be’. Now that was funny.”

Bill Bottrell: “Michael was really sweet, nice, and looked me in the eye whenever we spoke. I liked that. He was definitely a fourteen-year-old wrapped in a thirty year-old body.”

By late 1990, Michael had been working on new music for 18 months, but he still wasn’t satisfied with the sound of some of the material.

An important note to add here is that sometime within that period Michael must have had an operation on his head with a balloon stitched into his scalp, because by November 1989 he was in very much pain as Buz Kohan described it.

On December 28, 1989 Michael invited his friend Ryan White, a young victim of AIDS to spend a week at Neverland together with Michael.

More visitors came at the end of January 1990 and these were the Robsons from Australia. They came with the Johnny Young Talent dance group to celebrate Australia day at Disneyland (January 26^th). A week later they finally managed to contact Michael Jackson and were invited to spend a weekend at Neverland (and stayed there for two weekends).

Add to it that besides the new album in February-May 1990 Michael also worked on the so-called secret Project M for Disney (the script of a fake Peter Pan movie, never meant to be made from its very inception) and scriptwriter Darlene Craviotto visited him at various places whenever Michael had a single spare moment.

Summing up all of the above you will realize that Michael had absolutely no time for the ‘intense” relationship with Safechuck. If they met it was for a weekend or two – same as for all other people who also came to Neverland to spend an occasional weekend there.

In June 1990, while still in hospital Michael began thinking of full renovation of the Neverland ranch, adding new buildings and a theme park to it.

In late summer/fall of 1990 the train rails began to be installed with all the required facilities added later (the main train station, local train stations over the whole ranch and a depot where the trains were maintained). Another team began working on the amusement park, with a castle near the carousel and an Indian village with teepees (also mentioned by Safechuck as a scene of crime).

All throughout that time Neverland ranch was a beehive of workers, according to the main contractor of the project Rob Swinson (imagine “having sex” with a beehive of workers all around you).

Rob Swinson recalls in his book “Maker of Dreams: Creating Michael Jackson’s Neverland Valley Park”:

“Soon after Neverland Valley Ranch  became a beehive of workers. The contractor’s team was busy pouring and stamping concrete walking areas, installing fences for rides and erecting the first buildings.

One of my teams was busily installing a 2 ½ mile track layout that reached the far points of the valley and incorporated a look for turning around at each end. I personally designed the train’s route so it would allow Michael in the future to transport his guests as old-time train passengers riding to various places of interest he would create around the ranch. These later attractions were not yet built nor even conceived of for the most part.

The amusement park was definitely “a project in progress” that eventually expanded to include other features such as a nearby Indian campground with carpeted teepees and music speakers, [] a luxurious 50+ seat theater complete with two “viewing beds” at the rear where special guests like Liz Taylor would come to watch movies, [] a train barn for storage and maintenance.

While the construction work was in progress Michael Jackson was still working in Los Angeles on the Dangerous album and spent much of his time outside the ranch. It is also interesting that in the year 1991 he was seen mostly with Macaulay Culkin and other people (and not Safehuck).

In June 1991 Michael went with Macaulay and his friends to Bermuda and then to Disneyland. In July he was seen with Emmanuel Lewis at the Community Youth Sports &Arts Foundation Center in LA. Also in July he gathered the whole Jackson family at Neverland to celebrate Joy Jackson Day and presented him with a boat. In August the Culkins celebrated at Neverland Macaulay’s birthday. In October Liz Taylor married there Larry Florensky. In November 1991 the Dangerous album was released and Michael was at last free to go back to his ranch.

In  February 1992 Michael was seen travelling with Brett Barnes – they went to Africa and then to London where they visited Benny Hill in hospital. In March he filmed the “In The Closet” video and in April 1992 he began filming “Jam” in Chicago with the participation of Michael Jordan and young dancers Brett Barnes and Wade Robson, and it is only at this point that we finally hear about Safechuck. Safechuck’s lawsuit says that during the filming of Jam he as a 14 year-old boy had to be put back on a plane as he was extremely jealous of Brett Barnes and sobbed that Michael spent more time with Barnes than him.

You will ask about the reason why Michael preferred Brett Barnes? Well, Michael invited those young dancers to Chicago to work with him on the Jam video. And looking at how tall Safechuck already was, you will realize that he was unfit for the company of younger children dancing in Michael’s “Jam”.

MJ and Wade Robson (left), Brett Barnes (middle), James Safehuck (right) on the Jam video set

Michael certainly had no time to argue with Safechuck and explain to him why he couldn’t let him work on that video – hence all the sobbing, jealousy and going mad with Michael on Safechuck’s part.

Now he is telling us that this was when he was replaced by Brett Barnes (in the most sinister meaning of this word of course), but the reason for that was primarily connected with their joint work – from the very start of it his friendship with Safechuck was more like a working relationship (same as with Robson) and at a certain point this cooperation ended which turned into a complete shock for Safechuck. Michael continued to be his friend, he still called him and even paid for his endeavors in filming, but there were no more tours, no concerts and no videos, and this became an extremely sore point for Safechuck.

After so long an introduction to the final fragment here it is at last:

48:30 Safechuck: There was like kissing, I think, just kind of rubbing on each other, and then (very slowly, as if recollecting) oral sex and then he would want me to suck his nipples and then he would finish himself (quiet music).

48:50 He also had like an Indian fort (photo), teepees and so we would lie down on sleeping bags, have snacks and then have sexual relations there (quiet music)

49:09 There is also a game room (photo) and then upstairs in the arcade there was another room and it had a bed in there, we would go into that room and have sex there.  (View of the main house) There is an attic, a third floor attic, which was kind of secluded, like you can really get there through steep stairs, you could tell if somebody was coming (music), so we would go in there and have sex. There’s toys everywhere, things to do, so they kind of mix together.

49:55 He had another house far away from the main house, and there he had a lot of memorabilia, his jackets, like the Grammies, like the rhinestone glove, and it was far away from people and you could see somebody was driving up that narrow road (music).  And then we would have sex there too .

50:20 The movie theater had these two like private rooms, and through big glass windows you can see theater and so we would have sex in those rooms (quiet music) It was a bit dangerous, but there was a bit of excitement there.

50:38  Stephanie Safechuck: So I didn’t tell him I was coming, and the door was locked. You have to knock loud because the movie is on. He came down and unlocked it and made some excuses. He didn’t mean to lock the door, he didn’t know the door is locked – that’s what he told me.  And they were in the bed, they were clothed. I still didn’t think anything.

51:14 Safechuck: There was a castle on the theme park and upstairs was a bedroom. You could see that somebody was coming. It had just a small bed and up there we would have sex.

51:25 (photo of Jimmy in the pool) The pool and the Jacuzzi – oral sex. Like holding your breath and going down, kind like a game (quiet music)

51:40 (photo of train station) At the train station there is a room upstairs and we would have there sex too (music). It happened every day. It sounds sick but it is kind of like you are first dating somebody and then you do a lot of it (smiles). So it is very much like that (music).

52:14 At the same time the sexual relationship is growing (photo of MJ and the whole family) he is working on you pushing you away from your parents, pushing you away from everybody else and it feels more like (scratches his neck), like you and him.

52:34 (photo of mom and dad, music)

Stephanie Safechuck: My husband and I are still together, however we have separate bedrooms. But our marriage was so bad, the whole situation, and I don’t even think my son knew because my son was so busy having fun – he didn’t know that Jim and I were in separate bedrooms, barely getting along.

53:05 Safechuck: We would listen to people’s phone calls. He would eavesdrop on my parents, sometimes they were fighting and he would tell me, “Look how mean your mom is, and how evil women are”. But at the time you just hear your mom yelling at your dad and Michael feeds into that.

53:25 (footage of MJ going into concert)

Safechuck: Your love for him is growing and relationships with other people are getting less.

53:35 Ronald Reagan: “Your success is an American dream come true.” (footage of MJ with Prince Charles and Princess Diana)

Safechuck: It’s constantly reinforced by everybody else in the world, so it is really an intense feeling that everybody else is loving him, so everybody is on board.  So it is very powerful.

53:55 Safechuck (his legs crossed and moving his toes back and forth) You start to think that your parents are bad and that Michael is good. (weird look on his face).

54:00 (a view of a big city, piano playing) Newscaster: “We might not have Michael Jackson on the program tonight, but we have the next best thing – Wade Robson.”

54:15 (Wade dances to MJ’s music, Wade’s mom and dad sit on a couch)

Newscaster: Joy and Dennis Robson are suitably proud of their son.

Father Dennis:” Everything he does, we haven’t taught him anything. The whole act that he does, it is all himself. Nobody taught him anything”

54:45 Little Wade: I started to like Michael, I started copying his moves, and then I started dancing.

Joy Robson: If he wanted to stop, there’d be no pressure. If that’s what he wants to do, that’s fine. 

Little Wade: I want to be a star.

55:20 Robson: The audition for the dance company in Brisbane, called the Johnny Young Talent School. This was jazz dance company, but I showed up as Michael Jackson, in the full outfit again. And they wanted me in the company, and I got in the company and I became their Michael Jackson. We started performing at malls and that kind of things, pretty constantly, every weekend at least.

55:50 Shane Robson: He had the full circles (laughs) (Wade dances)

56:15 Joy Robson: Every shot I did was around Wade. It was amazing how it would work into every scenario, even Christmas.

56:35 And then they announced that they are all going to dance in Disneyland for Australia day (aerial view of a big city)

56:45 Chantal Robson: Because it was a big America trip obviously my mom and my dad were going to go, and then my grandparents came as well.

56:55 Grandmother: My name is Lorraine Jean Cullen, and I am Wade Robson’s grandmother (smiles). He copied just all those steps, Michael Jackson did (photo of Wade) and he would be forever dancing, no matter where he was. It was my sort of dancing (laughs). We just all went on a plane together (aerial view of a big city) and we went to Disneyland.

January 1990 (music)

57:30 Chantal Robson: It was like hundreds of kids, like going to America for the first time. (photo of dad, mom, Wade and Chantal)

 Joy Robson: Michael had said, “If you ever come to America, look me up.” Oh, sure (sarcastically), you look him up in White pages and find him. I started calling around some of the television shows Wade had been on trying to find a number to contact Michael and we got passed around, passed around, passed around. Finally, someone gave me a number of Michael’s personal assistant. So we called her and she said, “Let me talk to Michael and I will call you back”. She called back and Michael remembered Wade and wanted to meet us. And asked us if we would meet him at Sherman Oaks at Record One where he was recording his new album (enthusiastic music, drone footage).

58:36 Robson: The impossible. You just don’t come to America and just call some numbers and get in contact with Michael Jackson somehow. And then you’re going to see him again. It was not just a normal scenario (drone footage, music).

58:55 Chantal Robson: My mom, my dad, myself and Wade, all went to Record One and that’s the first time I had actually met Michael (photo of them in the studio)

59:08 Robson: He was doing some sort of a photo shoot in the lobby area. My mother, father and sister got for a group photo with Michael and then we took some shots alone. I was in a full custom Smooth Criminal outfit (photo of MJ and Wade). We showed him some tapes of dances, performances, things I’ve been doing over the last two years that he wanted to see. I think it was a Friday and he said, “Do you and the family, do you want to come to Neverland for the weekend?” (music)

Music, the road, overview of the landscape.

1:00:05 Robson: Michael asked if me and my sister wanted to drive with him and of course I did. Then my parents and grandparents would follow behind (music). I remember him playing us some music, unreleased music. Just getting it, like secret access to him and to his world. 

1:00:30 Joy Robson: It was sort of surreal for us. The Hollywood and all this entertainment business was on another planet from where we were (more drone footage, music)

1:00:45 Robson: As we were getting closer and closer to Neverland, Michael was telling us, “Just fifteen more minutes, just ten more minutes”. The excitement was really building.

1:00:55 Grandma (aerial view of the gate): The guards came out and wanted to make sure that we didn’t have any cameras or anything out there, and it was a bit intimidating. I hadn’t met any celebrities ever and was quite lost. But my husband said, “yes” (smiles) 

1:01:20 Joy Robson: It’s like a fairy land, beautiful lakes, all lit up and the house is all lit up. It was just amazing.

As soon as you pull there, there is music going, there are flowers everywhere. You felt like you are driving into this little heaven. The car pulls up and there is everybody that works kind of line up ready to greet you. I’ve never been in that type of world before (music), such a big house – it was magical.

1:01:55 Robson: We were all tripping out on this place, just out of a story book, a fairy tale  (violin playing, the inside of the theater is shown with MJ dancing on its screen).

1:02:10 Joy Robson: Michael showed us around the house, at that time he only had the theater, he didn’t have all the other things. It’s like a child’s dream come true (violin playing), candy, you just help yourself to ice-cream and all the chocolates in the world, and pop corn and then the beautiful theater.

What a marvellous testimony from Joy Robson that at the time they were at Neverland in January 1990 the only new addition to the original ranch was the theater!  And this means that almost two years after Safechuck first went to Neverland (in 1988) there was next to nothing of what Safechuck is describing to us now.

The train station where they “had sex” and where “it happened every day” according to Safechuck, simply did not exist at the time he visited Neverland.

MJ fans have recently discovered proof that the train station was finished only in 1994 when according to Safechuck’s own claims he was long gone from Michael Jackson’s life.

Here is an AP image of the train station dated December 1993 and it shows that at that time the station was still under construction:

And here is the Indian village with its teepees which, as Joy Robson tells us was not yet there when they went to Neverland in 1990:

And here is the castle that was built around the time when the amusement park was constructed. And it had an office upstairs, and not a bedroom:

And here is the arcade building which was there when Michael purchased the ranch, but it has so open a structure that it is ridiculous to imagine that any “sex” could take place there without the beehive of workers or anyone else noticing it:

And as to the “sex” Safechuck allegedly had in the pool area in a recent conversation with Razorfist Brandi Jackson said that the pool (same as most of the ranch) was surrounded by surveillance cameras run for security reasons.

Brandi Jackson: They list the pool area as one…where the was a lot of abuse…[It’s] completely surrounded by cameras. The entire ranch has cameras…there’s cameras everywhere and it’s run by a massive amount of security guards.

And here is Brad Sundberg who explains to us why there were so many beds scattered all over the ranch and why they were found in most unexpected places there.

His story makes it clear that those beds were added much later, when the number of guests at Neverland required more room for sleep and bedrooms had to be arranged even at the train station. None of those bedrooms were initially planned and that is why the train station, for example, lacked even such basic facility as a bathroom and if the guests wanted to use a bathroom in the middle of the night they had to walk to the main residence.

 Brad:  There was something I was going to mention about the big train station a few minutes ago. Michael would have huge groups of guests, especially if his whole family came up. The ranch house itself was pretty funny because I think it only had four bedrooms, maybe five. There weren’t that many rooms. And there were only like five guest houses. Well, his family is huge, and then he’s going to have friends and different people. So [Brad] Buxer told me that they would actually have people sleep in the train station.

Willa: Really?

Brad: Oh, they’d sleep everywhere! They’d sleep in the theater – they’d be all over the place. But the train station was really just supposed to be a train station. There was never any forethought of needing beds in there. So I don’t know if they’d sleep on air mattresses or something. But there was no bathroom! And so Buxer talks about … I don’t know if it was the brothers, Tito or whoever – you know, if you wake up in the middle of the night you’d have to walk all the way down to the house to use the bathroom. Nobody ever thought about, gee, you might want to put a bathroom in here because people might sleep here. It was just supposed to be, come in, get some candy, and get on the train.

https://dancingwiththeelephant.wordpress.com/2016/05/12/a-tour-of-neverland-with-brad-sundberg-part-2/

~

At the last minute news arrived that Mike Smallcombe found that the permit for constructing the train station was obtained only in September 1993.

Twitter immediately reacted to it:

Mike Smallcombe: In the last couple of hours I’ve been given access to the Santa Barbara County construction permits for the Neverland train station by my source – approved Sept 2, 1993

A somewhat sarcastic tweet came from a MJ supporter: “Look who decided to report our train station story”.

James Safechuck’s Michael Jackson abuse claims ‘exposed as pure fiction’

James BrinsfordOvernight Showbiz/TV Reporter

• 05:07, 30 MAR 2019

James Safechuck’s claims of sexual abuse at the hands of Michael Jackson have been ‘exposed as lies’, according to a biographer.

Mike Smallcombe claims the accuser’s story of being abused in Neverland’s train station cannot be true as it was built two years after he said the assaults stopped.

Mr Smallcombe claims by looking into accusations made on the HBO documentary Leaving Neverland he has uncovered a significant flaw.

When describing the details of the abuse, Mr Safechuck alleges he was assaulted in an upstairs room in Neverland’s train station, which many will recognise because of its floral clock.

But Mr Smallcombe says this is seemingly impossible, as Mr Safechuck claimed in his lawsuit against Jackson’s Estate that he was abused from 1988 until 1992, when he was 14.

Mr Smallcombe told Mirror Online: “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 two year difference.”

Jacko was apparently away on the Dangerous Tour and then in rehab in London the entire time the train station was being constructed in 1993.

Mr Smallcombe added: “And then between February 1994 and December 1994, Jackson was living in Trump Tower in New York recording his HIStory album, and only making the odd trip abroad.

“Once to get married to Lisa Marie Presley. The train station opened in 1994, while Jackson was living on the other side of the country.

“The latter point is, by the time Jackson was at Neverland and the train station was actually open, it was early 1995, three years after Safechuck said the abuse stopped.

“And by then Safechuck was 17, and on the cusp of adulthood.”

Speaking to Mirror Online last week, Mr Smallcombe also claimed that Mr Safechuck lied about refusing to testify for Jackson in his 2005 trial.

It was reported that a judge banned all evidence about Mr Safechuck from the courtroom early on in the trial, as it was unreliable.

A private investigator who worked on the trial, allegedly added that Mr Safechuck was a ‘nonentity’ in the case from the beginning.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/james-safechucks-michael-jackson-abuse-14207115

Only imagine how many more magical discoveries are awaiting the media about Michael Jackson with every new coming day. We are living in a miraculous age when it is ordinary people who provide the media with facts and not the other way about.

UPDATE

Crista has sent us more of her marvellous drawings Here is one more – the text is:

Robson: “Really, dude? In a trainstation that was built 2 years later??”

Safechuck: “Oh, shut up!”

“Nothing binds you except your thoughts; nothing limits you except your fear;

and nothing controls you except your beliefs.”

Marianne Williamson

This post took much, much longer than expected (very sorry for that). When every new day uncovered more and more of Robson’s and Safechuck’s lies, but it still didn’t change anything, I will admit that it was somewhat disheartening to look for the truth.

In circumstances like these it felt like true facts are irrelevant, the feeling all too well known to me from other spheres of life, and it once again raised the question that constantly bothers me – what’s the point of telling people the truth if they prefer lies anyway? Is there a need for facts if all that matters is “who says what” and the impression it produces?

SAFECHUCK’S TRAIN STATION

Safechuck, for example, said that when he was a boy he allegedly “had sex” with MJ at many places at Neverland, including the second floor of the train station where it “happened every day”. The impression produced by his monotonous description of the alleged offense, his detached manner and a weird smile was indescribable:

SAFECHUCK: “At the train station, there’s a room upstairs, and we would have sex up there, too. It would happen every day. It sounds sick, but it’s kind of like when you’re first dating somebody, right, and you do a lot of it. (Chuckles.) So it was very much like that.

Now we know that every word in this story is fiction as the train station was built two years after the alleged relationship stopped, but when you say it to Oprah Winfrey she will answer you that the two years discrepancy is no problem – it doesn’t matter if “it was Wednesday or Thursday” as victims can simply forget.

Dan Reed, the author of the film, doesn’t care either that Safechuck’s claims are impossible and says that the error is simply in the year when the “abuse” ended.

Dan Reed

Yeah there seems to be no doubt about the station date. The date they have wrong is the end of the abuse.

Jim Clemente, a former FBI expert was even enraged with journalist Mike Smallcombe who discovered the documents that the train station didn’t exist at the time of Safechuck’s sex fantasies, and tweeted him that his discovery didn’t undo the “facts” of the case and that the journalist should “wake up”.

Jim Clemente

Do U know what was there B4 the current train station was built?Do U know whether the abuse went on longer than he remembered?This doesn’t undo the facts of the case.Wake up.Just because U loved MJ’s work doesnt make him perfect.He “loved” boys, fell in love w/ them & abused them

So according to these experts the timeline doesn’t matter, the documents are no facts while the two guys’ fantasies are, and it is the people who tell the truth who should be ashamed and “wake up”.

In short everything is upside down here and you feel like you are in Alice in Wonderland.

And all this absurdity is revolving around the year which is a matter of principle in this case. According to Safechuck’s own lawsuit the alleged “sex” stopped in 1992 and any continuation of it would contradict their carefully constructed theory that MJ “loved only small boys” and replaced them with others as they reached puberty.

So the year 1992 had to be final and Safechuck had to be no older than 14 according to their allegations scenario.

“From 1988 when the sexual abuse first began through 1992, DOE 1 committed ongoing sexual abuse of me” (excerpt from Safechuck’s lawsuit)

“When I fully reached puberty, DOE 1 began spending his time with Brett instead of me, and then his sexual abuse of me stopped.” (excerpt from Safechuck’s lawsuit)

But in 1994/95 when the train station was opened Safechuck was already 16 or 17 years old, was tall enough to tower over Michael Jackson and his wife Lisa Marie Presley (he was seen holding an umbrella over them during a video shoot in Hungary), and since 1993 Michael didn’t even stay at Neverland because he lived with LMP in New York.

“I have not lived in California for several years, dating back to approximately 1993” (from Michael Jackson’s declaration)

So if you shift the story by two years (from Wednesday to Thursday in Oprah’s terminology) nothing will fit in and the whole theory will collapse like a house of cards. However for the zealous anti-Michael Jackson campaigners none of it matters. They simply pretend that this little unpleasantness doesn’t exist as apparently they want to believe the two liars and no facts can stand in their way and stop them in their dedication.

The situation is funny, disappointing and utterly disgusting.

It is disappointing because it is much too obvious that no one cares for the truth. Even a fraction of this craziness would be enough for any normal person to discard the whole thing as fiction. At least in the courtroom the jury would doubt the whole story if a witness was caught lying just once. However what’s good for the jury is no good for the media and advocates of the film. They will give you a multitude of “explanations” why we should believe the two liars, and will ignore all the evidence why we shouldn’t.

It is disgusting because the mainstream media doesn’t report any facts disproving the two guys’ lies and flouts its lack of journalistic integrity openly and even flagrantly, thus showing their deep disrespect for their audience and demonstrating their confidence that they can direct the public like a flock of sheep. For the sake of appearance they will imitate objectivity but their loud silence when the liars’ stories are disproven speaks for itself.

But the situation is also funny because the missing train station story reminds me of a soap-opera parody called “Soap dish” where Woopy Goldberg, who plays the role of a film director, wants the scriptwriter to resurrect the main character of the serial despite his death in an earlier episode. The problem is a minor one – the man was decapitated and didn’t have a head. Actually, the film-makers’ dialog is not too different from Oprah/ Reed/Clemente’s reaction to the missing train station and total impossibility of Safechuck’s allegations.

Scriptwriter: Rod Randall is back from the dead? How dumb is this? The man was killed in an auto accident.

Director: So he wasn’t killed. He was maimed. We give him reconstructive surgery.

Scriptwriter: What are you talking about? The guy was decapitated. I looked it up. He was on his way to the Yukon in a pink convertible…to see his brother who was an ex-con named Francis…when a tractor-trailer came along and decapitated him. You know what that means. He doesn’t have a head! How am I supposed to write for a guy that doesn’t have a head?

Director: They froze the head, put it back on in a two-day operation. Use your imagination.

Scriptwriter: He doesn’t have a head!

Director: Never mind, never mind. I will work this out myself.

So the guy didn’t have a head, but they “worked it out” and in the next episode he was alive and kicking again. Same with Safechuck. The train station was simply not there, but they will still find a way. For example, they will tell you that in a book about Jackson his bodyguards mentioned the train station already in 1990: “Neverland’s visitors entered the ranch at its train station”.

The public will applaud the find, but no one will tell them that the bodyguards talked about an open train station which is located near the gate. This gazebo like platform was described by Michael’s sound engineer Brand Sundberg in an interview on this website. Here is an excerpt from it.

Brad: …there’s the security gate out by the road, and then there’s what he called the “ornate gate” inside … it had to have been a mile, or maybe even a mile and a half, from the first gate to the second.

Then there was a huge parking lot that was on the left-hand side of that gate. And they did that because when we had a lot of guests, most people were not allowed to take their cars or buses into the ranch itself. You would stop at that second gate and park there. And then you would generally walk through the ornate gate. People have seen all the pictures of the black ornate gate with the gold crest and everything. And so at that point, that’s where we would unload the buses. You know, there might be kids coming in from L.A. or Santa Barbara or someplace, or Make a Wish kids or different things. That was kind of the staging area. Then they would walk through that gate.

And that’s where the little train was waiting for them. So there was a small train station right next to the big gate… it’s smaller than a very, very small house – you know, like the size of a southern porch, maybe, or a very big gazebo. But this thing has a slate roof and architecture, and the railings and the pillars are just beautifully turned.

So at that point the guests would get on the train. … the train would, in essence, bypass the house. The house is kind of his private residence. But the train is going past the lake, and the swans, and the swan boat.

…You could walk to the main house, but I’m telling you – getting from one point at Neverland to another on foot, you were hoofing it! It was a good little walk to get from the ornate gate to the house.  …then from there, you can walk further to the left, and again, it’s going to be a hike, but you’re going to go past security and past the video library, and Michael had some memorabilia upstairs.  Then you keep going up the hill, and you’re coming up to the big train station. And people have seen pictures of that with the flower clock and the moving figurines. …That thing was gorgeous. You’d go in there, and that’s where the big train would go.”

So the bodyguards spoke about an open platform at the ranch entrance which certainly had no upper floor. And Safechuck’s story was about the central train station complete with a video and photos of its hall and stairs accompanying his woeful tale.

To once again prove the impossibility of Safechuck’s fantasies – neither in 1988 when the events allegedly began, nor in 1992 when they allegedly finished – Mike Smallcombe produced the photo made by a Getty photographer in August 1993, where you can see with your own eyes that the floral clock is there, but the train station is not.

Mike Smallcombe

This is a photo of the Neverland Ranch taken on August 25, 1993 by photographer Steven D Starr. On Getty. There is no train station, only a floral clock (top of image).

Of course it was not there during the supposed period of Safechuck’s “abuse” and the liar simply didn’t know it when he was going over the map and was generating his sex fantasies – the two-storey train station was built years after the railway began functioning as its final touch and a symbol of Neverland.

You could expect this photo to settle the matter of Safechuck’s lies once and for all, however I hear that Dan Reed simply cut out all inconvenient episodes and acts like nothing happened. The last time I heard about it the film was already one hour shorter with the most obvious lies removed and the rest presented as “correct”.

And this raises the question I started with – if people pretend not to notice this gigantic lie which is simply glaring in the eye, what’s the point of showing them much smaller lies told by Robson and Safechuck in their every sentence? If the media and public are capable of ignoring the elephant in the room and explain it by “trauma” and “memory lapse”, their case is hopeless and only some reconstructive surgery may indeed help.

The argument that “after so many years they can’t remember it all” doesn’t hold water because Safechuck’s and Robson’s problem is not in remembering things– their problem is in inventing things and substituting them for their real recollections of MJ.

ROBSON’S FANTASIES

Robson, for example, claims that on his first visit to Neverland in February 1989 he was left there alone with MJ while his family went to the Grand Canyon.

However his own mother derailed this story twice by testifying under oath that Wade went away together with them.

Not suspecting that one day it would be important she said that after their first weekend with MJ in 1989 the whole family including the kids left for the Grand Canyon. And out of the couple of times she ever left her son alone at Neverland the first time was not earlier than 1993.

We knew it all along from her testimony in 2005, but Mike Smallcombe also found her earlier 1993 deposition where she said the same.

Excerpt from Joy Robson’s deposition, 1993

https://twitter.com/mikesmallcombe1/status/1111992775673810944

However despite this rock solid evidence Robson performs in the film a half an hour long monologue describing how Michael allegedly cried and didn’t want to stay alone, and Robson didn’t want to leave him and this is why he stayed, and how the abuse happened every night during those five days, etc. And the audience listens to all of it with baited breath though the whole story is a 100% fabrication. And we have to listen to it too all the time knowing that Robson couldn’t “forget” it because you can’t forget and then recall something that didn’t happen.

Actually a lie should not necessarily be that big to prove that the two con artists are fantasizing. Even a microscopic lie may show that it isn’t a memory lapse but a well thought-out strategy and a staged performance.

I for one was greatly impressed by Robson’s story of their long drive to Neverland, also on their first visit in 1989, where he described how he and his sister were in Michael’s car while his parents and grandparents were following them in a separate car.

Robson: “Michael asked if me and my sister wanted to drive with him, and of course I did. And my parents and grandparents would follow behind. I remember him playing us some music, like some unreleased music. Just getting this, like, secret access, right, to him and to his world. As we were getting closer and closer to Neverland and, you know, Michael telling us, only about 15 more minutes or 10 more minutes, and just the excitement really building.”

Nothing caught my eye in this innocent narration until I reread his mother’s testimony at the 2005 trial and came across her own description of the same – and again, not suspecting that she was giving away a terrible secret, she mentioned in passing that on that first visit to Neverland she and her parents arrived there before Jackson. She said:

           3       A.  Well, actually, we arrived before Mr.

           4   Jackson, my parents and I.  And Mark Quindoy showed

           5   us through the house.

           6       Q.  Okay.

Michael came later, and even in the highly unlikely case the children were together with him, they were not alone and were accompanied by Robson’s father.  So at very least half of that story is a proven lie.

This lie about the two cars is small and even tiny, but why did Robson tell it? What was the point of inventing this detail, especially in case all of them arrived there before Jackson? I kept wondering about the seeming uselessness of it and why he spoke so long about it in the film. Tiny as it was this detail struck me no less than Safechuck’s whole missing train station and didn’t let go for some reason.

Could Robson forget it? Well, he certainly didn’t remember anything about their first visit to Neverland – he himself said that in his faxes to his mother and asked her to remind him what happened.

But forget he could not. This detail could be only invented and then added to the story for a purpose of its own.

What also struck me was how engrossed Robson was in describing the scene, as if he remembered every moment of it in its most vivid detail. But if he is capable of fantasizing so effortlessly about that drive, looking so genuine at that, doesn’t it mean that when he looks similarly genuine in other episodes he is acting too?

Eventually I did realize the big importance of that little fantasy and will share it in this post, however those who are unable to notice even elephant lies are requested not to bother – this analysis is only for those for whom the truth matters.

Michael’s detractors and the mainstream media openly demonstrated that they don’t need it. The media probably know the innocent truth anyway and certainly don’t want inconvenient facts from any of us. They’ve chosen a stance of openly showing their agenda against Jackson and are not even ashamed to act in accord with each other to suppress the truth.

And it doesn’t matter whether their reasons for suppressing it are the ratings, money, ignorance or conformism – what matters is that their anti-Michael agenda is too obvious and this time around they do not even make a secret of it. We are left only to pray that in other matters the media act in a less biased way, however the impact of their blatant manipulations around Jackson is so strong that it makes you suspect the worst elsewhere too.

WHAT IS IT?

Professor at an American university and an investigative journalist who writes under the pen name of Vivian Lee, thinks that this is a conspiracy against Jackson. She recently published a comprehensive two-part summary of the main events around the Dan Reed/Robson/Safechuck project, also covering the two cases of previous allegations against Michael Jackson, and came to the conclusion that all facts point to it being a huge multi-faceted scam.

The reason to think so is the number of so-called coincidences when the same people pop up again and again at different times and places around Jackson, too visible effort to do away with him and his legacy, the abundant evidence of media collusion and much, much more of it.

You are welcome to read her part 1 and part 2  to refresh some of those events in your memory and decide for yourself.

As regards conspiracy I don’t know (it is difficult for me to imagine all these people sit together and conspire against Jackson), but a scam it certainly is. Even in the past the media activity regarding Michael Jackson was not flawless to put it mildly, but their current pious respect for the two guys’ lies with no fact checking and no questioning is simply outrageous.

After all everyone can see that they say one thing in their lawsuits and another in the film, distort the timeline on every turn, contradict today what they said yesterday, and feel safe, confident and unembarrassed even when their fantasies are proven impossible. The absurdities around this case are so obvious that normally this kind of a crazy scenario would have flopped long time ago, however the media keeps pretending that everything is fine.

This type of thing is called mass propaganda and is only possible when some powerful players behind the project impose their agenda on the media and its readership. And this is a very dangerous sign because the media no longer does real journalism and anyone who has power may shape public opinion according to his whims and personal choices.

And please remember that today it is Michael Jackson and tomorrow it is everything else…

A ONE PERSON CONSPIRACY

However if this is indeed a conspiracy and despite other players also taking part, I see it as a conspiracy of just one person against Michael Jackson, supported by the media due to their servility, for the fun of it or fear of possible repercussions in case they don’t follow the proposed trend. The journalists’ and other actors’ participation in this campaign simply shows the magnitude of this person’s power and influence in setting the agenda and shaping public opinion.

My almost ten years of research has led me to believe that the whole thing is masterminded by David Geffen, who according to Michael himself sank his career (see this post for details), was apparently Michael’s implacable foe and is not known to give up his plans until his target is reached.

There are several posts on this subject, however the last straw was Geffen’s private screening of the Leaving Neverland film to Oprah on his yacht on the occasion of her birthday. Though Geffen never leaves his fingerprints, this time – quite uncharacteristically for him – his move was so open that it amounts to Geffen’s admission to orchestrating it. The peculiarity of it is that it looks like he doesn’t even mind the publicity, otherwise the event would have never been reported by the obedient press.

The motive why he flaunted his special interest in this campaign? It could be the vanity of triumphing over the legendary Michael Jackson (who can’t do anything about it now), the desire to show that his foes cannot rest in peace even after their death and a warning to others that the initiator of the project is not to be meddled with. And probably even a message to the media that they had better take the two guys’ tale at its face value and turn a blind eye to its flaws.

A dispassionate look at that private screening will tell you that only the author of the project could treat the top media influencer and her colleague to this kind of a film at a birthday party. No one but the author and initiator of it, because for all others this kind of entertaining their guests would be inconceivable.

Can you imagine Bill Gates inviting popular TV hosts to his yacht (if he had it) and showing them a 4-hour long heart-wrenching film about child sex abuse, say, by some clergy? No, you can’t, unless he was the initiator of the project and gathered the top media heads in order to launch its extensive public discussion. In all other cases a subject like that would be too unsuitable for any party and the idea why anyone would entertain his guests with a painful 4-hour story about sexually abused children would remain unclear.

Are there any other reasonable explanations for Geffen’s sudden whim other than those cited above? No, there aren’t.

And why didn’t he show Oprah the documentary about Harvey Weinstein and Hollywood morals in support of the current MeToo movement? From the point of view of Oprah’s show it would have been a no less interesting option – only imagine all those actresses come to her show to bare their souls and guarantee Oprah a whole new hit season.

However of all other entertainment in the world Geffen chose a monotonous movie about two guys who for 4 hours non-stop describe the alleged sex scenes, presenting no proof whatsoever. To me it is obvious that Geffen wanted Oprah’s impression of the credibility of their performance, her expert opinion on the quality of the job done and her assistance in its promotion.

And the impression produced by the film answered his every expectation – if Oprah is not pretending, it was too shocking and emotional for her not to believe it. Given the length of the film and Dan Reed’s reputation of a credible documentary filmmaker this reaction was probably unavoidable, however what’s really strange is that when the dust settled and many of those episodes were proven to be lies (for example, by witnesses like Brandi Jackson and even official documents), Oprah, Dan Reed and other “influencers” still refused to accept the truth.

The strange phenomenon of facing facts and still not believing them is actually what worries me most and not only in connection with Michael Jackson. I wonder, what has to be done to people so that they disbelieve facts even when they see them with their own eyes? And why does propaganda work even in the circumstances when it shouldn’t?

 “FACTS? NO THANKS, I’VE GOT IDEOLOGY”

The article by psychologist Gordon Hodson, Ph.D. says that this happens when people are biased by ideology.  You may think that ideology works only in political issues, but the way various people define it shows that ideology is simply a deep-rooted set of beliefs that can be formed about any subject at all. Here are just a few quotations.

“Ideology is “the imagined existence (or idea) of things as it relates to the real conditions of existence”.- Louis Althusser

“The function of ideology is to stabilize and perpetuate dominance through masking or illusion.” – Sally Haslanger

“Control the manner in which a man interprets his world, and you have gone a long way toward controlling his behavior.” ― Stanley Milgram, Obedience to Authority

“A [political] ideology is a very handy thing to have. It’s a real time-saver, because it tells you what you think about things you know nothing about.” – Hendrik Hertzberg

Imagined existence, imagined idea, masking or illusion, controlling the manner people interpret things and the handy function of ideology to tell you what to think without having to do your own research – all of it is absolutely pertinent to what is alleged about Jackson and propagated to us on every corner.

If propaganda is long and intense, and everyone (false victims, the media, so-called experts, etc.) constantly speak of “abuse” at the hands of the alleged perpetrator, the brainwashed public will always find a way to defy facts and look for some crooked “explanation” even in the face of the overwhelming evidence that the story is a lie and all of it is just the illusion.

Gordon Hodson describes the amazing reaction of people to facts depending on their ideology/set of organized beliefs.

Facts? No Thanks, I’ve Got Ideology

The consequences of preferring existing (ideological) beliefs over facts

Posted Oct 17, 2013

Compared to many other animals, humans are incredibly intelligent. Moreover, we have collectively accrued masses of data and facts, to the extent that we now refer to our present period as the Age of Information. Surely this large body of facts play a central role in our decision making about the world, right?

Well, unfortunately not. In fact, we often eschew facts for ideology [ ] – an organized set of beliefs that help us to make sense of the world.

The author provides examples of opposite sets of beliefs on politics, sports and climate change and describes people’s reaction to newly uncovered facts depending on their ideology.

Those for whom the new facts confirm their earlier beliefs “will acknowledge these findings, perhaps even feeling that they “knew it all along” (even if they didn’t)”. Psychologists call it the hindsight bias.

This reaction is predictable, so there are no surprises here. But if the newly uncovered facts contradict people’s ideology their response is not that benign and explicable. Gordon Hodson says:

“Those opposing (these views) are not likely to objectively read such information and dispassionately change their viewpoints to fit this new information. Rather, when faced with evidence disconfirming deeply held beliefs, we often ignore the new information, “doubling down” on the original belief. In psychology, we call this belief perseverance. … we don’t just reinvest in the original belief; we often go on the attack, challenging the credibility of the source of the information or facts.”

Amazing. So when facts contradict the deeply-rooted set of beliefs (ideology), people’s convictions grow only stronger and they react by laughing at the facts and attacking those who uncovered them. Here is Gordon Hodson’s example from sports (yes, even in sports people also have ideology):

”There is a belief in basketball that if a player is “hot” (i.e., just successfully made a shot on the basket) he/she is more likely to successfully make the next shot, relative to other players on the team. Sounds compelling enough, right? But the data simply don’t back this up. As interesting as it is that people hold such false beliefs, it is even more interesting how people cling to their original belief in the hot hand after learning that it is not supported by the facts. I’ve experienced this in class, where basketball fans become even MORE committed to their belief in the hot hand, even after I show them statistics and clear-cut demonstrations disconfirming the notion. After the first scientific papers emerged on this topic, basketball coaches actively disparaged the researchers, claiming that the researchers were clueless and that the findings were meaningless.

Unfortunately, being drawn to ideology over facts is an all-to-present feature of human psychology. The good news is that becoming aware of such biases can be the first step to overcoming them.

The best defence is education (formal or informal), and the best approach to understanding the world is through open-mindedness and a hunger for facts (where possible).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/without-prejudice/201310/facts-no-thanks-i-ve-got-ideology

Like all others I have also formed a certain set of beliefs on the situation around Jackson and the above article confirmed what I realized long ago – the thirty years of the media trashing of Michael Jackson was not accidental and has not been in vain. It was driven by a certain strategy and has formed a public ideology of him as a “molester”. And when those who do their research present the innocent truth, people can even “double down” on their false set of beliefs because it is difficult for them to agree they were in the wrong for long 30 years.

The ridicule of Jackson actually started sometime in late 1980s, most probably for racial reasons, well before the crucial 1993 when it was deliberately turned into a witch-hunt and has never abated since then. The time and circumstances when the smear campaign started are also described in the post about Geffen, so anyone willing can get familiar with that.

All I can say now is congratulate you, guys – the example of the long-suffering Michael Jackson has given you firsthand experience of what ideology is like and how effective it can be even in the face of true facts.

Many of you are already victims of it and all of it thanks to the whim and strategy of some, and greed and indifference of others. First jokes, then ridicule, then false allegations and boosted fake news, and constant rehashing of the same old lies have indeed turned the dirty fantasies about MJ into a public ideology. And this explains why people may be reluctant to accept true facts about Michael Jackson– like any other ideology, theirs is also difficult to eradicate.

However when Oprah Winfrey and Dan Reed reject the truth, their responsibility for it is incomparably higher. Journalists are obliged to present true facts, remain unbiased, do fact-checking of every story they tell, and when they fail to do so and promote fake tales instead, they turn into the makers of false ideology and commit not just a mistake – they commit a crime.

If Oprah’s and Dan Reed’s lies are indeed deliberate, it is a crime against humanity. This is no exaggeration, as the promotion of lies by those who shape public opinion massively corrupts people’s minds and takes them away from the truth instead of opening their eyes to it. It is a spiritual murder which some ancient religions place next to a physical murder of a human being. People may not realize it but it is actually the crime of insulting the Holy Spirit which is said to be an unforgivable crime.

But if we give Oprah and Dan Reed the benefit of the doubt (very little though), in theory they may also be victims of some kind of ideology. In this case it is interesting to see how their views were also taken advantage of and how this chain of deceit was formed from its very inception.

OPRAH’S BELIEFS

Oprah explained her set of beliefs as follows:

11 Apr 2019

Oprah Winfrey discussed that “After Neverland” backlash on Wednesday’s “The Daily Show”. The media maven came under scrutiny for her one-off special in which she chatted with Michael Jackson accusers Wade Robson and James Safechuck. Winfrey said that she’d done “217 shows trying to get people to understand that it’s not about one person, that it is about the pattern.” “People call it molestation, but there is a big seducing that goes on… and that was important enough for me to take the hateration for.”

30 Apr 2019

“I don’t regret it,” she says of her involvement with “Leaving Neverland”. “I saw it, and I was shaken by it. I wasn’t even shaken by the fact that it was Michael Jackson. I was shaken by the fact that [filmmaker] Dan Reed had done a really good job of showing the pattern, and for years, I had been trying to show people the pattern. I’d been trying to say, it’s not about the moment, it’s about the seduction. The first thing I said to Gayle when we watched it was, ‘Gayle, you’ve got to get those guys [on “CBS This Morning”].”

So for years Oprah believed that molestation is not a moment, but a process of seduction. And what shook her most in Dan Reed’s film was how clearly he presented this process and how much it confirmed her views. And in full accordance with the psychological science she needed no more proof and immediately ran a special to show to her audience the pattern she always talked about.

Dan Reed did indeed show the pattern, but the problem is that in real life the pattern did not exist and he simply assisted the two liars in creating it. He changed the timeline, adjusted their fantasies to wrong dates and edited the footage to compress the random and rare meetings with MJ into a much shorter time supposed to look as “grooming” of both children. This is how in Reed’s interpretation Christmas time came before autumn, Japan 1992 came before Paris 1991, occasional meetings always initiated by the parents turned into an intense and continuous relationship where Michael was the most interested party, and so on and so forth.

Oprah probably didn’t notice any of it, so impressing her was easy – she believed in a certain pattern and wanted a vivid illustration of it, so here came Dan Reed and gave it to her.

DAN REED’S PART

Now the question is why Dan Reed added his own share of lies to those already told by the two liars.

He makes it no secret that he is “a gun for hire”, so by definition does what he is told and handles the material he is given. He wrote the script, readjusted the dates to fit the required pattern, made numerous takes of one and the same episode to select the most convincing performance, removed anything that contradicted the two guys’ stories, and all this and much more was intentional and done to enhance the impact of the allegations.

However besides those deliberate distortions Dan Reed also has a certain ideology, and when he expresses it you understand that of all directors who could make a film about “consensual love” between an adult and a child Dan Reed was the ideal candidate.

Reed explained his beliefs in his 2010 interview in connection with the documentary “Terror in Mumbai” where he reconstructed the events that took place in India in 2008. During that terrorist attack 164 people were killed by 10 youngsters who followed their bosses’ instructions given to them over the phone. Surprisingly, these events made Dan Reed think about child molesters and their victims:

REED: Terror in Mumbai …it’s a kind of historic piece because we’ve never had the kind of material like to rival these phone calls. …You never heard the terrorist intimate conversations with their bosses….taken together with the other material I think it adds up to something unique not just an insight into the way the terrorists operate but also into the psychological relationship between the controllers and the gunmen. The controllers never shouted. There was never any hysteria. There was never even when the gunmen had been hit and were dying, they never raised their voices. There was complete calm. And I think that’s strange and significant. … you know I always kept thinking of children or youngsters who were groomed for abuse and the way the relationship is, we are told it’s not consensual but there’s a kind of normality that established itself between children, you know, young people who are groomed for abuse and the abusers. And there’s a sort of relationship that sets in and I kept being reminded of that.

Why would a young man like this let himself be sent to a certain death by this person sitting in an office miles and miles away? Why would they do that? The religious, the fanatical religious rhetoric wasn’t really there. There was something else. And these were people who had been groomed and psychologically shaped so that what they were doing had become normal.

Reed’s comparison of youngsters groomed to kill with children groomed for sex is extraordinary (though probably correct), but the fact that while making a film about terrorists he always kept thinking about sexually abused children, suggests that there is more to the story than he cares to reveal.

It is suggestive of his personal knowledge of the subject, and since these ideas plague him all the time it seems that his deepest trauma is that in his case it was consensual. So when everybody around rightfully says that an adult-child relationship cannot be consensual, he says that it can.

This follows from his talk about “the normality that established between young people who are groomed for the abuse and the abusers” as a certain maxim that doesn’t require proof. He seems to have no doubt that “there’s a sort of relationship that sets in” and is always “kept being reminded of that”.  In other words he knows what he is talking about and he cannot forget it.

This interview was nine years ago, in 2010, and since then Dan Reed has made at least two films about the same problem (“Leaving Neverland” and the highly controversial “Pedophile Hunter” film). So for him child sexual abuse is a recurrent theme and his constant return to it again suggests that Dan Reed may have gained the ugly experience of “normalcy of consensual sex” between an adult and a child in his teenage years.

Of course this is a supposition only, but it seems that the consensual aspect of it bothers him most, so to me his latest film looks like a partial autobiography where he intentionally (or unintentionally) structured the narration in a way to express his own beliefs, personal experience and possibly a deeply-rooted trauma.

Occasionally he even corrects the two guys so that they speak the way he wants them to. The film starts with a strange episode where Robson calls MJ an “abuser” and Dan Reed interrupts him and suggests “lover”, and Robson agrees with him with a somewhat bewildered look on his face as if he didn’t really mean it.

So Dan Reed was either instructed to convey the “consensual love” idea or jumped at the chance to express his own set of beliefs in this film (or both) – and seeing what specific story was wanted of them, here came Robson and Safechuck and gave it to him.

With such a chain reaction you actually don’t need a conspiracy – the two liars gave Reed what he expected to hear, the filmmaker gave Oprah what she expected to hear and the public received what they expected to hear about Jackson as their deeply-rooted ideology about him had made them ready for it long time ago.

THE METHOD

From the moment when these two guys realized what story was expected of them, inventing the tale and its florid details was a matter of sheer technicality.

So you want consensual love? No problem, we will play up to you – especially since it is the only way to explain why Robson lied at the 2005 trial and how his so-called molestation came hand-in-hand with his praise for Michael Jackson.

What’s interesting is that initially Robson didn’t fully grasp the idea. The essential detail of the “consensual love” concept is that it is a process of seduction (as per Oprah) which requires “grooming” for months or possibly years.

But being not aware of how it really happens, Robson initially claimed  that the abuse started immediately upon his arrival at Neverland – on the second night of his stay there, so just after one day of associating with MJ (according to Robson’s lawsuit in 2014).

When Robson realized that this version didn’t fit the required pattern, he shifted the beginning of the “abuse” to the time when the family left the ranch for the Grand Canyon. This was also a lie as Robson left together with the others, but at the moment we are just following the way his lies evolved.

But even a couple of days added to the alleged grooming period were not enough to fit the pattern, hence the need to maximally extend it. And this is when Robson invented his long drive to Neverland in Michael’s car with the parents following suit. The idea was to show that the process of “grooming” started immediately – MJ allegedly wrapped up his recording session, separated the boy from his parents and “gave him access to his secret world” (according to Robson’s definition) by letting him listen to his unreleased music in his car. A special emphasis was made on “building the excitement” as they were approaching the ranch.

A wake-up note for those who fell under the spell of Robson’s story again – none of it happened. The family came first and Michael arrived later, most probably alone and after finishing his work at the recording studio.

You will say that this is a very small lie. Yes, the lie is small but the reason for it is big – the allegations required a prolonged period of “grooming” and Robson had to deliver, and this is why he invented that little story and was so engrossed in its description.

Actually we should be thankful to Robson for this episode because it clearly shows the method of his fabrication and proves that the allegations are an artificial construct.

First came the concept and only then the story itself, with colorful details added later to emphasize the main idea. This is why the film is so different even from their lawsuits – it is a work of fiction and not a document, which is no problem though as only Michael Jackson’s supporters will bother to compare and no one listens to them anyway.

In fact, making all actors display one and the same idea required much preparation while producing the movie.  First someone had to work out the basic concept that “they covered up for Jackson because it was consensual love”, then all stories had to be coordinated so that all participants kept to one ideological line, then the skeletal concept had to grow flesh and acquire spectacular sexual details, then it had to be performed in a maximally natural way and when the shooting was over Dan Reed rearranged all the dates to enhance the impact and remove anything that clashed with the original concept (for example, changing the “abuser” into “lover”).

No wonder the project took so long in the making. The interviews with Reed started in February 2017 and the film was released only in January 2019. Even feature films do not take that long to make.

And after all that people still think that it is just a “documentary”?

From Twitter:

– Did Reed start to film in February 2017? Is this confirmed?

– Yes. It was in the LATimes interview. “Upon learning of their complaints, Reed immediately reached out to the legal teams for the two men and expressed his interest in interviewing them for a documentary. Though the filmmaker felt “it was a real long shot,” the accusers agreed to participate. In February 2017, Reed flew to Hawaii to interview Robson, then talked to Safechuck in Ventura County.”

NEW IDEOLOGY

And now comes the worst part of it.

No, it isn’t only in the ton of mud slung at Jackson for no reason, but the fact that the ideas promoted by well-wishers like Oprah and Dan Reed are extremely toxic for the health of the society.

The problem is that the concept of “consensual love” between an adult and a small child is false and exists only in the minds of sick perverts.

And those who repeat these ideas while promoting this fake documentary (supposedly for our common good) are actually propagating pedophilia views.

The views of pedophiles and not of their victims.

Inspired by the “Leaving Neverland” fabrication they present the problem the way real pedophiles see it – that small children may “like” sex and that a consensual sexual relationship with them is possible.

But there can be no such thing as a consensual love between an adult and a child, at least at an early age like 7 (Robson) and 10 (Safechuck). Older teenagers can possibly fall into the illusion of “love” depending on the circumstances and the seducing skills of the abuser, but for children of the age described by the two liars this kind of thing is inconceivable .

Much can be said to prove the point, but the message I received from a genuine victim of child sexual abuse will probably explain it best of all.

“Dan Reed continues to go on about how the boys ‘fell in love’ with MJ. They all claim that research in the area of sexual abuse proves that a victim can in fact fall in love with the abuser. That is true, unfortunately. However, they are making a big mistake that I have not seen anyone call out yet. Consider the fact that someone who is say 12 years old or up – or at least at the age where they would be capable of feeling romantic love for someone else, generally around the age of 12 is when that begins for most people. Therefore, if a young person is capable of feeling ‘love’ (romantic love, such as first boyfriend/girlfriend puppy love stage) then it is possible that they could be manipulated into falling in love with an abuser because they are already emotionally old enough to have those feelings even for someone their own age. However, Robson claims he started to fall in love right away.

That is not possible. A 7 year old does not understand ‘falling in love’ the way the ‘doc’ would have us believe. A 7 year old would have absolutely no concept of being able to respond to ‘this is how we show love’ (meaning the physical acts). If they wanted use that narrative, they should have had it happen later in the ‘relationship’, when the boys were around 12, that is the only time anyone could at least say, well, at 12 is when boys and girls do start to show interest in that way with their peers, so it is possible a predator could play on that natural evolution. But a 7 year old – it’s ridiculous. It defies any and all logic.

Safechuck also makes many comments about how they were lovers when he was 10 years old. Impossible that he would have felt that at that age. The alleged abuse for him started at 10 and he claims at the beginning it was like a honeymoon – that they ‘did it all the time’ like newlyweds? What ten year old has that frame of mind? Do two ten year olds who are boyfriend and girlfriend (in the cute, safe way) rush off to private places to constantly touch each other and have hand signals to each other so they know it’s time for sex? No. At most there’s some hand holding, maybe a few kisses. That’s about it for 10 years old. Yet we are supposed to believe that somehow these boys at these young ages were acting out in far more advanced expressions of romantic love and that they understood at that time they were ‘falling in love’?????

Safechuck says that when he was 10, Michael told him he was his first. Well, we know in the real world when someone says your my first it means they are a virgin and this is the first time I am expressing myself in a sexual way with another person in this manner. However, what pray tell did little 10 year old Safechuck understand MJ to mean when he said ‘you’re my first?” First what??? At ten years old he wouldn’t have a clue in hell what MJ was talking about. I think this part of the doc is being overlooked. It’s not getting the analysis that it should. They were too young to use that narrative of falling in love. They should have said that aspect didn’t start until they were 12+ when they would have naturally had those feelings starting even towards girls their own age.

I am a survivor of sexual abuse both from step-father and a high school teacher. I have done the police interviews, court proceedings social services – all of it. My step-father’s abuse was when I was between the ages of 6-12 years old. The high school teacher started at 14 to 16 years old. I had no ‘feelings of romantic love’ for the step-father. I didn’t even know what ‘romantic love’ was. However, I did develop romantic love for the high school teacher – why? Because I was at an age where I was old enough to have those feelings starting with people my own age. And so it was easier for the predator to play on that, and I did end up believing that I had romantic feelings for him. So, from my own experience, when I watched the doc and I heard both Safechuck and Robson claim those romantic feelings started so young, alarm bells went off (besides all the other alarm bells!!). It doesn’t make sense. They were too young to be able to feel that response. They could idolize MJ, be thrilled with attention, they could love all the fun at Neverland and going to amusement parks, and what not, however, they could not have been old enough to first of all understand and respond to this supposed romantic love that was building between them and MJ.”

I’m very sorry that the sender of this message had to go through so much pain, but am thankful to her for sharing the experience. Her conclusions are absolutely correct and you don’t need to consult learned pundits to make sure of it.  Just look at any child of age 7 – your son, daughter or grandchild – and you will realize that the consensual point of that theory is a delusion, a criminal delusion.

Children of that young age are the innocent little angels whose love for their friends, even if they are grown-up people, does not have a single shade of sexuality . They have no idea what sex is and will be frightened out of their wits if someone touches their private parts.

Any child victim will tell you that, but it will be enough to read this account of a genuine victim of sexual abuse (the poignant post by Linda-Raven Woods) to understand how a small child really feels about it. Her post will explain to you that the graphic acts described by the two liars will make the real child victim vomit instead of looking forward to keeping up this kind of “friendship” with the abuser.

Not to mention the fact that children never use the word “sex” when talking of their child experience even as grown-ups (unlike Safechuck who operates only in terms of “we had sex”). The vocabulary of genuine victims is that they were “playing a game”, “had a little secret” and this in addition to the fact that they avoid describing those activities in graphic detail at all costs.

The tragedy of what’s happening now is that the two bastards assisted by Dan Reed, who possibly had some kind of experience as a teenager, have introduced into public discourse the false idea of a possibility of sexual attraction at a very young age.

Their reasons are utterly selfish, practical and immediate – they simply want hundreds of millions of dollars from the MJ Estate.  Robson expressed his goal in a short but explicit way: “It’s time for me to get mine!” and initially asked for $1.5 billion.

Robson: “It’s time for me to get mine!” (an excerpt from his deposition 12.12.2016)

However this fabrication, which is simply a lucrative project for its main players, is being taken seriously by all others who are listening to this “love story” with horror and disgust, but are quickly acquiring the same beliefs and same ideology.

And the process goes even much faster when they hear iconic figures like Oprah say outrageous things like this one:

“If you’re 7 years old and someone is stroking your penis, it feels good. Even if you don’t have a name for what that is, it feels good,” she told the men and the audience. “That’s one of the reasons it’s so confusing for children. Everybody wants to believe it’s like sexual assault and you’re being thrown up against a wall and being raped, and I have said for years, if the abuser is any good, you won’t even know it’s happened”.

https://www.vulture.com/2019/03/leaving-neverland-oprah-michael-jackson.html

I had only one instance of this kind of experience and no amount of Oprah’s shows will convince me that a 6 or 7 year-old child may like it – sixty years later I still remember that horrible feeling. But the public, brainwashed by the two liars and the servile media, may indeed swallow the poisonous idea that young children may “feel good” and “be in love”, and all their further discussion of the problem will stem from this utterly wrong premise.

In fact, by repeating pedophilia views and imposing them on the public all these bastards are forming a new set of false beliefs, a new fake ideology, and if it is acquired by the society, people will see it as a revolting but real phenomenon and then rack their brains on how to cope with it.

So my congratulations to Robson, Safechuck, Reed and Oprah – you, in cooperation with the lackey media, are working for the cause of pedophilia and are breeding a new and monstrous ideology regarding children.

And all those who are lazy enough not to analyze this fabrication and choose to ignore the truth are actually complicit in creating this ideology, which may become a stepping stone to the unspeakable tragedy of accepting things which should never be accepted.

This is the dear price all of us can pay if people remain indifferent to lies and don’t want to know the truth thinking that “it is only about Jackson”.

No, it is not only about Jackson. It is about the future of your children. And surprisingly it is only Michael Jackson’s supporters who urge people to wake up to what is going on now.

Meanwhile Dan Reed’s „Leaving Neverland“ has aired in many countries and the dust has settled, presenting a clearer picture of the so-called documentary. The discrepancies and obvious lies in the fiction film have become visible, though not spread everywhere in the media, especially in the US. Apparently it is still not admissible for the mainstream media to talk about the contradictions and implausibilities in the film and explain why not all accusers of sexual abuse have to be believed.

Recently Helena and I have written on a post at the same time, and interestingly we found out that we have included the same topics in it without talking to each other. It showed us that we clearly have the same things on our mind and blindly can complement each other. Helena’s latest post is so important that I decided to add a few things which will corroborate her post and support her statements, especially regarding the propaganda and consensual love issues.
And I do it today on Michael’s acquittal day because in this trial in 2005 his innocence was proven, and Wade Robson had testified for this acquittal.

Generally spoken, the mistakes, contradictions, inconsistencies, questions and lies in this film are so many that it is futile to list them here again. They are already documented very well. Helena explained in her posts why this film is a piece of fiction, and other MJ “truther” blogs and advocates have published posts or Twitter threads on the countless proven lies. Numerous videos on YT have documented very well why the film and their protagonists are not credible. Journalists like Mike Smallcombe and Charles Thomson (and here) did some very good interviews to explain what is wrong with the film, and John Ziegler became a strong advocate for the truth about this film and Michael Jackson in general. A lot of people (not only MJ fans) were not convinced by the “memories” of Robson and Safechuck or even changed their mind after watching Leaving Neverland and voiced their disbelief on Twitter or in YouTube videos.

A long list of credibility issues is given here, but even this is not complete (for example the relationship of Brandi Jackson with Wade Robson is not included).

A documentary that provides only one side of a story, especially when it is attacking and defaming, is per se already propaganda because it automatically suppresses one side and so makes viewers taking a position against this side.

“Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented.”

By promoting one side, “Leaving Neverland” does exactly this: the information in the film is used “to influence an audience and further an agenda”.

In his interview with the Rolling Stone Dan Reed made contradictory statements on how he came to make this film:

 Q: The Jackson Estate issued a statement that said your film was a character assassination. But you don’t really talk that much about Michael Jackson’s character. Can you go a little more into that decision?
A: This is not a story about Michael Jackson. It’s a story about child sexual abuse that happened to two families whose lives intersected with Jackson. The fact that the abuser is Michael Jackson gives the film a reach and a relevance that I welcome. But it’s a story of grooming and pedophilia. That could be the story of any predator who inserts himself into a family and gets them to trust him.
(…)
Q: When you introduced the screening, you mentioned how the idea for this documentary came out of a conversation with your producers at the British network Channel 4.
A: I was having breakfast with a guy called Daniel Pearl, who ran a series called Dispatches, which is like a current affairs show on Channel 4 News. And he said, “What are the big, unresolved stories that everyone’s heard of?” I like to take a story that’s in the public sphere and go deeper into it to reveal the complexities of the truth. I specialize in “It’s complicated,” the antithesis of quick-fire news bites that are becoming more and more the currency of finding out about the world today. And this 4-hour film is the complete antithesis.
So Daniel said, “What about Michael Jackson? That’s a big story and no one really knows what happened.” I didn’t know much about Michael Jackson, to be honest. And I didn’t know much about his music. I was approaching this as a cultural phenomenon.
Michael was Wade’s lover and his close friend, to whom he owed a great deal in terms of his career and his life. As he says in the film, there was absolutely no way on Earth that he was going to say anything that might put Michael in jail. Period. And that’s a big point that the film builds up to over three hours to make you understand what happened there and why he then changed his story.

The first “question” of Rolling Stone’s Stephen Garrett is not really a question because the answer is already given (like if often happens with biased journalists): “But you don’t really talk that much about Michael Jackson’s character” – even implying that the Jackson Estate’s statement of the film being a character assassination is completely wrong. So Dan Reed’s answer was predetermined that the film “is not a story about Michael Jackson.”

But when he was asked a following question, how the idea for this “documentary” emerged from a conversation with a producer, Reed clearly says that Daniel Pearl suggested to him to make a film about Michael Jackson because “that’s a big story and no one really knows what happened”.

So what is it? Reed ridicules himself with saying that the film is not about Michael Jackson. His answer proves he didn’t plan to produce a documentary on CSA, but on the “big, unresolved story” of Michael Jackson. He started with the idea of making a film about Jackson and the film became nothing else but an anti-Jackson propaganda film with actors slandering Michael Jackson in the gravest manner.

(Of course, in reality “Leaving Neverland” is not about Michael Jackson, because the person they accuse in the film has nothing in common with the true Michael Jackson, but they meant to talk about Michael Jackson and once more convict him in the court of public opinion.)

This never “could be the story of any predator” because then Reed could have looked for a real pedophile who was convicted by a court of law and put to jail. There are enough child predators in prisons, so he could have made a documentary about a real and proven case of “grooming and pedophilia” to tell his story. But Reed chose to present the highly dubious and unproven allegations of two perjurers to a worldwide audience, when he could have told the story of a proven case of a real criminal to inform on the CSA problem.
It had to be Michael Jackson – a man who was tried and acquitted on all counts in a legal proceeding today 14 years ago and is now accused without proof – because only his name sells – or because somebody had a particular agenda to “mute” Michael Jackson!

But the film is not only propaganda against Michael Jackson, in my opinion it is also propaganda for a certain kind of pedophilia.

As Helena’s explanations on “consensual love” are so important, I want to go into it again. For this reason, I want to repeat in this post what was not discussed extensively in the public, but what should be a major issue to be discussed about “Leaving Neverland”. I already wrote about it in the comment section some time ago and it was also mentioned among MJ advocates at other places.

I am talking about the interviews Dan Reed gave to various media outlets and the statements of him and Robson and Safechuck describing the alleged abuse as a “love affair”. I am really wondering why the “love affair” argumentation of the director and his actors doesn’t make more people think about whether 7 to 10 year old children are able to have this kind of erotic relationship with adults as described in Leaving Neverland and whether they have a concept of what erotic love means at that age.

Why do viewers and supporters of “Leaving Neverland” accept this “ideology” unchallenged and uncritically? Why don’t journalists ask the necessary questions?

As Stereo Williams said in his excellent post of March 13, 2019, in which he talked about the questions that gnawed at him after watching LN:

“But I found myself surprised that seemingly so few had any misgivings or questions about what they’d just watched.”
…
“Someone needs to be more thoughtful than that. Instead of making pronouncements, someone just needs to ask better questions. That’s what journalists do.”

The English language has just one word for various forms of love. It’s just the simple expression of “love”, which doesn’t differentiate between the various concepts of love. But many other languages, for example the old languages like Greek and Latin, use several words for the different forms of love, for example in ancient Greek:
“Storge” -love between relatives and family members
“Philia” – friendship or platonic love
“Agape” – divine or sacrificial love
“Eros” – romantic or sexual love
“Xenia” – love towards guests

The people of some nations have a wealth of appropriate terms used for various forms of love. They don’t have just one word to express their love they feel towards somebody. What a contrast to the simple term “love” which is so superficial and can conceal the proper meaning!

Perhaps this makes clear what it means to differentiate. If Wade Robson had to describe in Greek the love he felt as a kid for an adult, which expression would he have used as a kid? As an adult you can say anything, whether you mean it or not, but which concept of love would he have had as an innocent 7 year old kid and which term would he have used to describe it?

Now let’s go back to the interviews Dan Reed did after the first airing of Leaving Neverland. This is what he said in an answer to interviewer Amy Kaufman of the Los Angeles Times:

Q: Both Robson and Safechuck previously testified in court that Jackson never abused them, and now they say they lied because they have since come to terms with what was done to them. Were you skeptical of their stories going into this?
A: When Wade told me that he loved Michael, then everything suddenly crystallized and made sense. This is difficult to say, but he 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.
Most people imagine the kid kind of being forced — that’s not what happened, and Wade makes that very, very clear. If you’re really going to understand what oftentimes child sexual abuse is like, you have to understand that the abuser creates an authentic relationship that if the person was aged 18 or older would be completely normal. The problem is that the child is 7, and a 7-year-old can’t make those decisions.
We have to face the fact that child sexual abuse isn’t a guy grabbing you in the dark and you scream and he runs off and you tell your mom. If this film can make certain ideas about sexual abuse current — if that can become part of the culture — then we’ve done a good job, because then people will be able to recognize symptoms and understand why Mark or Joe or whoever started drinking heavily in his early 30s and it turned out he had been abused by his schoolteacher.

Q: Why make this a four-hour docuseries?
A: The central thing you have to understand is that these children fell in love with Michael Jackson. Jackson wasn’t a kind of grab-and-grope pedophile — he was a romance, relationship pedophile. Wade started telling me how he had fallen in love with Jackson and how that love lasted for years — decades — and how that love motivated his loyalty to Jackson. And how that loyalty ended up requiring him to lie about what happened.
And also because the sexual abuse happened in the context of a loving relationship, it didn’t seem like abuse. It seemed like love.

Let’s repeat his words to make it very clear:
Reed said that Wade told him he “loved” Michael (which concept of love?) and that he suddenly understood and everything “made sense”. Wade allegedly “had a fulfilling sexual and emotional relationship at the age of 7 with a 30-year-old man […] And because he enjoyed it, he loved Michael, and sex was pleasant.”
Then he says that Wade made very clear that he was not forced. This means the alleged sexual relationship with a 7-year-old boy was consensual.
And in the next paragraph Reed says that his film wants to “make certain ideas about sexual abuse current”, which could “become part of the culture”, which then would be “a good job because people will be able to recognize symptoms…”
In his next answer Reed says that it was a “loving relationship” which “didn’t seem like abuse, it seemed like love”.

And this is one of the questions that need to be asked: How could it seem like “love” if according to Robson’s lawsuit the first abuse allegedly happened on the second day he saw Jackson in the US? When is the period of grooming and falling in love then?

Add to this the fact that these two grown men claim they liked and were not forced having a homosexual relationship and having a male lover as kids, when they had girl-friends in their teens and grew up to be straight men married to women.

In the interview with the Rolling Stone Reed made similar statements:

Q: What really struck me was that Wade and James really were in love with Michael.
A: Yes. People assume that it’s, what we call in the UK, the guy in the “Dirty Mac,” the dirty raincoat, who comes and offers sweets, and then does something disgusting with you. It wasn’t like that. These are relationships that, if they had happened between consenting adults, would be entirely normal. Loving, nurturing, mentoring. There are many relationships between a slightly older person and a slightly younger person that are fine, that are not illegal and that don’t involve any abuse. These relationships were between an adult and, respectively, a 7-year-old and a 10-year-old child. But they were characterized by all the trappings of love.
And that’s one of the moments when I really hit the level of belief. Because obviously, as a journalist, I approached the interviews and reserved judgment until I heard more. I was looking for credibility and coherence. Things I could identify as the way people behave, which I already knew in my 30 years of making films. And when Wade, and then James, said, “I loved Michael and Michael loved me and we were going to be together forever,” they spoke the way a loving adult speaks about their partner.

 (My note: A friend can say the very same without any sexual component to it, so again: which concept of love is it really? The boys may truly have felt this friendship kind of love – “Storge” or “Philia” – towards Michael, which they now as adults present as “Eros”.)

Q: Because he really thinks so. Even the kids would say, “We weren’t hurt. We were in love.”
A: Yeah. And that’s why Wade says, “I didn’t consider this to be abuse. I loved Michael and Michael loved me.” That persisted for many years, because that was embedded in his psyche when he was seven. And when we’re that age, we’re so malleable and we form our ideas of normality, right? So, for them, this was a normal, healthy thing. And it’s not until many years later — this is so typical of child sexual abuse — that that structure falls apart and they can no longer hold it together.

Dan Reed in all seriousness wants to make us believe that children at the age of 7 or 10 can understand the concept of a sexual relationship and can enjoy sexual acts like anal penetration and even regard this as “a normal healthy thing”?
We need more evaluation on this, but I highly doubt that scientific studies would support the idea that a 7-year-old boy enjoys and understands this kind of sexual acts with an adult, at least below the age of 12. I am aware there are different cases with different reactions of abused children, especially boys, and children don’t deal with abuse all in the same way, but, in general, all I have heard so far from children who were abused at that age is they experienced it as horrible and disgusting and are usually traumatized and confused. And if they remember it as adults they feel disgust!

What does Reed mean with his film making certain ideas about sexual abuse current? Is one of these ideas that small children can have “fulfilling sexual and emotional relationships” with adults? Is this a theory he wants to become part of the culture, like real pedophiles want to have this idea accepted?
He points to the fact that “a 7-year-old can’t make those decisions”, which is true, but according to him Wade made exactly this decision when he still today as an adult clearly says that he was not forced!

The big problem here is that Dan Reed’s sick conclusions are based on false stories, not on scientific studies or proven cases.

Drawing by Crista Bilciu

I am going to be somewhat cynical now with the following questions, but please think about it in all honesty!
If Wade Robson and James Safechuck enjoyed the abuse, then why did they sue and why do they want compensation? For not suffering at all?
If sex can be so pleasant for children, then why do we need a legal ban of pedophilia? And why do we need specialized therapists for traumatized children after CSA? Then we could treat children like adults and only prosecute the abuser (or sexual partner) when he raped them and the sexual act was not consensual.
And if the relationship with their abuser was so pleasant, then why should victims start “drinking heavily in their 30ies”? It doesn’t make sense to me! It sounds as if they didn’t suffer as children during the abuse – so why then should they start to suffer as adults? Is it possible that abused children don’t suffer from this kind of abuse as long as they are kids, but only later when they are grown up?
When children enjoy the abuse (as long as they are “not forced” with violence) and don’t show signs of suffering or strange behavior, how can their parents recognize the abuse? According to Reed’s theory people will only “be able to recognize symptoms” when the victims are grown up – so there is no way of knowing when children are abused. Does Reed know what he talked about here?

Doesn’t it sound like Reed and his protagonists invent and propagate a whole new science or ideology – on a public level instead of a secret NAMBLA convention?

No – this is exactly what we always have heard from pedophiles and their lobby. THEY always were the ones who wanted to have pedophilia legalized because in their opinion children can have “fulfilling sexual relationships” and enjoy sexual acts with adults, thus making sexual acts with children consensual. It’s their “ideology”.
So the question follows for me: Whose interests represent Dan Reed and Robson and Safechuck with this film? It sounds like horror to me.
I think this ideology is something that should be fought against by everybody who wants to protect children. Claiming that children can have this kind of relationships with adults without being hurt is grist to the mill of the pedophile lobby and supports their ideas.

If any experts on CSA read this, please give us your opinion and field reports to answer these questions. We are highly interested in expert opinions.

Dan Reed and his actors have done a huge disservice to the protection of children from sexual abuse. If they say, children don’t necessarily suffer from abuse and abuse cannot be recognized, then how can they be protected and get the help they need? Instead of telling and repeating gross, salacious details of the abuse for hours, they could have made parents aware, with the help of experts, how to recognize abuse and which behavior in their children could be an indication for abuse. But in the whole film there was never any telling of suspicious behavior of the two boys, because they never wanted to be separated from Michael, they never showed signs of stress or keeping themselves away from Michael, their families didn’t realize anything, and their main outrage always was about being “replaced by other boys”. How does this help anybody, if they want to inform about CSA and help victims?

And how can a theory, even if true, be proven on the basis of false or dubious or at least unproven information based on accusations of only two people (the family members talking in the film also can only speak about what they were told by these two)?

False stories like these lead to false conclusions entirely, and if this happens intentionally, we call it propaganda, in this case propaganda of pedophile views.

They didn’t think of any real victims and they were not interested in the real problems of victims. All of this just happened because they wanted to sell a story about the most famous name on earth for their own benefit!

Thanks to Crista Bilciu for her apposite drawings

“This is not a film about Michael Jackson. It’s about the Robsons and Safechucks and their encounters with Jackson,” said Dan Reed about his “Leaving Neverland” creation.

Following Reed’s example I will also say that this post is not about Michael Jackson – it is about the two film-makers whose films are the complete opposites and the only common feature and drawback they share is that both were produced by HBO.

This common production platform is indeed a drawback because the superb accuracy of Craig Mazin’s  “Chernobyl” may lead people to believe that “Leaving Neverland” made by Dan Reed is up to the same standard of factual accuracy. And the glorious effect of one film may reflect on the other though these two films are actually like poles apart – Reed’s so-called documentary is a blatant fake while Craig Mazin’s dramatization movie, which even has some fictional characters, is still breathtakingly authentic and true to life.

Craig Mazin

And this is not to mention the fact that Craig Mazin’s work is up to the highest standards of journalistic and human ethics, while Dan Reed is even unaware of these words.

If you put these films side by side you will also suddenly realize that the tragic but simple truth is much more harrowing than even the most sophisticated and horrible lies.

As a Russian viewer I can attest that Craig Mazin’s film is so true and close to reality that it makes your skin crawl. The way he depicts the life of Soviet people back in 1986 is so incredibly accurate that for those who know it firsthand it is a shattering experience – how could an American make it so authentic if he never lived here and never saw it with his own eyes?

Dan Reed

And conversely, how could the British filmmaker Dan Reed, who speaks the same language as his characters, make so twisted a job out of the vast materials readily available to him? And why is it so difficult for people to notice the fraud though every single thing in Dan Reed’s story clashes with reality?

Take for example, Dan Reed’s fixation on the “grooming” point he sees pivotal for his story about Robson and Safechuck.

“What I was fascinated about with this story is the picture Robson and Safechuck draw of the grooming sexual predator.”

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43znmj/he-was-a-sexual-predator-says-director-of-new-michael-jackson-doc-leaving-neverland-hbo

It was an opportunity to do what this documentary did, which was to take people on a journey right through two decades of two families’ encounter with a grooming pedophile—it’s really rare to get that opportunity. I don’t know if there are many documentaries that have done this—nevermind with a predator as famous as Jackson.

https://www.awardsdaily.com/2019/06/18/leaving-neverland-director-dan-reed-interview/

But what grooming is Dan Reed talking about if the Robson family sought out Michael themselves after two years of no communication with him and according to Robson’s own story the alleged abuse started the very next day they met?

Or look at the shameless way the two guys changed their stories even after they first made their allegations against Jackson. Not knowing how to explain the absence of that very grooming which so much impressed Dan Reed, Robson, for example, presented at least 4 versions of the time and circumstances when the alleged abuse started, though this is something the genuine victim never forgets.

Initially he didn’t remember a thing (as per his emails to his mother), then he didn’t remember whether his claims were his own memory or someone told it to him (the deposition), then he clearly remembered that it started the next day they met Jackson (the lawsuit), then he clearly remembered it was the next week they met Jackson (the film) and then the story finally landed at a point that the grooming began long before they met, when Michael Jackson didn’t even know of Robson’s existence, but the kid was already dancing to his videos  (so now you know that if you are a fan of someone this person is guilty as hell of grooming you via TV

And all of it is said by Robson with a straight face and reproduced by Dan Reed in a confident and condescending manner as if we are some nitwits unable to see clarity in so clear a matter.

At least one piece of this morphing “evidence” will be enough for any person of integrity to drop the subject then and there in utter disgust, but not for Dan Reed. On the contrary, Reed has the audacity to proclaim these continuous fantasies as fact and assert in his every interview that what he and the two guys say is the final truth. And from that point on, skipping the unnecessary stage of proving the claims, he immediately proceeds to feigning indignation at how everybody could overlook it before he came and opened the people’s eyes.

Acting like a spokesman for the two guys Dan Reed does not bother to explain why he starts off with a premise that Michael is a criminal, regards his guilt as a given and allows himself to freely speculate on the subject whichever way he likes.

I never met Michael Jackson, I never interviewed him, I don’t know what it was in his history or his psychological makeup that led him to molest little boys, and I don’t want to speculate on that.

It’s great music, he was a great artist and entertainer. He was also a pedophile.

I believe there were many other victims. I’m sure there are others out there who will come out when the time is right for them. We’ll see.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43znmj/he-was-a-sexual-predator-says-director-of-new-michael-jackson-doc-leaving-neverland-hbo

…what we can say for sure is that Wade and James were victims of Michael Jackson and so were their families. He’s the perpetrator in this story.

https://www.awardsdaily.com/2019/06/18/leaving-neverland-director-dan-reed-interview/

The maker of documentary Leaving Neverland has compared Michael Jackson to prolific paedophile and sexual abuser Jimmy Savile. The film-maker believes that Jackson had “at least a dozen” child victims who had been abused and could come out in the future.

He said he wants the film to inspire other victims of sexual abuse, adding: “My hope is that victims of child sexual abuse out there will see the courage with which James and Wade speak out, and how fearless they are in confronting a powerful abuser and will say, ‘If they can do it, I can.’”

Ian Katz, director of programmes, said: “Dan has ended the argument over whether Michael Jackson was a paedophile and given an insight into how families could be sucked into his celebrity.  “The way the Jackson estate have responded to this by seeking to discredit Wade and James is frankly despicable.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/michael-jackson-pervert-like-jimmy-14046320

In other words, Michael Jackson is guilty because Dan Reed and his boss on Channel 4 who ordered the product say so.

The approach of Craig Mazin who made the “Chernobyl” five-hour series is strikingly different. He doesn’t assert anything, doesn’t explain to us what we should think about his film and just presents the true chronicle of the grim events, based on his tireless personal research, the standard of which is simply staggering, and the phenomenal care for detail springing from the respect for the people who lived through the tragedy – all of which turns his dramatization movie into a truly historic document.

Here is the opinion of a person  who was raised in the USSR and same as me was a witness to the events in 1986:

First of all, it is almost inconceivable that a Western TV show would go to this amount of detail authentically portraying Soviet life in that era, knowing full well that its target audience (Western viewers) would never appreciate the effort or indeed even understand it…

Trust me, I try very hard to find inaccuracies, however minor…. Not here. Everything, and I mean everything so far has been incredibly authentic. The typical provincial babushkas talking outside, the kitchen supplies and utensils, the white “celebratory” uniforms of school children (the tragedy occurred just before May Day), the shoes, the hair…

Even the little buckets used by Soviet citizens to take out the trash. They even found that crap somewhere! But I’m impressed by much more than the mere minutiae of Soviet everyday life. Yes, in this regard, Chernobyl is much more true to life than any Western show about Russia.. But, what is more impressive, is the characters, their actions, their thoughts, their motivation. The deep, ruthless drilling of the Soviet mind, what governed us, drove us and shackled us. Chernobyl pulls no punches and lays it all bare….
And this is really the key to its magic, for me at least. Not only is Chernobyl more realistic than any Western show/film about Russia, it’s more realistic than anything Russians would have ever made about themselves, at least on this topic. I am not hyperbolizing. Not at all.

In fact, there have been several Russian films about Chernobyl, and only one, made in 1990, during final stages of Perestroika, does justice to the sheer brutality of this deplorable event. And even this one is more about a hero struggling against the odds, a melodramatic trope. As for the more modern product, there is a film about heroic KGB agents trying to stop a CIA saboteur, for example. Modern Russian cinema, unable to unshackle itself from political expediencies and the “glory of the Motherland”, could never make a drama like this one.

In conclusion, yes, the nit-picky Russian viewer in me was utterly satisfied. The initial “Wait a minute, why are kids going to school on a Saturday?” response quickly gave way to “Shit, that’s right! We didn’t switch to the 5-day week until 1989!” Pure delight, I tell ya… Also, my 17 year old son watched with me, and his first reaction was to immediately dive into the Google rabbit holes trying to research as much as possible about Chernobyl. I don’t know about you, but to me this is as good a testimony of the shows greatness as anything”.

Very well said, but how on earth did Craig Mazin and his team manage to do it?

Craig Mazin’s Years-Long Obsession with Making ‘Chernobyl’ Terrifyingly Accurate

…how is it that Craig Mazin, a 48-year-old screenwriter from Brooklyn, managed to tell the story of Chernobyl so well? I called Mazin to get answers. Ahead of Chernobyl’s finale on Monday, we spoke about his obsession with accuracy, the unbelievable lengths he went to achieve it, and the importance of telling the truth in a story about lies.

Craig Mazin: …I just started reading. I honestly just wanted to know, from a scientific point of view, what exactly went wrong that night. I used as many sources as I could find. I was looking at research articles in scientific journals; I was looking at governmental reports; I was looking at books written by former Soviet scientists who were at Chernobyl; I was reading books by Western historians who had looked at Chernobyl. I watched documentaries; I read first-person documents. And then there was Voices From Chernobyl, which is unique. What Svetlana Alexievich did there, I think, was capture an aspect of history we rarely see. We look at history from the point of view of the big movers, the big players, and she looks at history through the eyes of human beings. It really inspired me.

-And how long did that process of researching go on before you actually sat down to write Chernobyl?

-I would say about two and a half years. Of research, and preparing, and structuring. ..I was finally ready to dig into the writing in 2016.

I try my best to live by the principle that if you’re going to be telling a story that you didn’t live, tell it with as much respect as you can for the people who did live it. And this is one of the ways we show respect: by getting the details right. We were obsessive over it.

…We met with people who actually lived in Pripyat at the time of the disaster. We spoke to a lot of people. We spoke to former liquidators. But some of the most influential people I spoke to before I ever wrote a word were scientists.

-Why was it so important to try to nail the specifics of what went wrong on a scientific level?
-Because I respect science, and I respect the scientists who solved that problem. And I respect expertise, which I think is currently… I don’t know, not fashionable? …When it comes to the science, I want people to say, “OK, he cared. He cared enough to get it right.” If you don’t understand the science underneath a story that is scientific in at least one significant aspect, then don’t write it. That’s my feeling.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/j5wbq4/craig-mazin-interview-about-chernobyl-hbo-miniseries-on-how-accurate-and-what-really-happened

“Chernobyl” took more than five years in the making while the “Leaving Neverland” project was launched two and a half years later, but despite the difference in the year the films started fate has brought them together and apparently for a reason – so that the world could learn how to tell the real thing from the trash which is only imitating it.

Initially those of us who knew Dan Reed’s film the garbage it really is, wondered whether it was humanly possible to debunk the four hours of its non-stop lies. But what seemed impossible for humans turned out to be perfectly possible for the heavenly justice which smashed Dan Reed’s mockumentary in an easy and effortless way, by simply showing the standards of research a true documentary should be up to.

These incredibly high standards were set by Craig Mazin and his team, who showed the way to deal with the post-mortem reputation of those who lost their lives and whose deeds, whether good or bad, should be portrayed as they really were and not twisted to suit someone’s current agenda.

His film set the standards of respect for those who are still alive, and should be saved from the added wounds of lies and inaccuracies about the loved ones they lost.

It also set the standards of truth, care and responsibility of filmmakers to their viewers and besides everything else let the people feel the irresistible magnet of the top notch truth for which the film viewers quickly developed a craving no sensational tabloid story could ever do.

Craig Mazin cared enough about the truth to get things right. And Dan Reed didn’t care enough. In fact he didn’t care at all, because he did nothing to verify the two liars’ claims but had the cheek to present them as fact, and is so indifferent to the truth that when a new hole is found he simply cuts it out and arrogantly expects us to swallow the rest.

Now that fate has provided us with this splendid comparison with the “Chernobyl” highest possible standards Dan Reed’s film looks like nothing but a bad joke.

He wraps up his film with a theatrical gesture of Robson burning Michael Jackson’s most valuable memorabilia and when asked if those were the real sequin glove and “Thriller” jacket that Robson was burning in the final credits of the film, he says:

I wasn’t there when Wade burned those items, but the photographic evidence suggests those were the real deal, yeah.

However if Reed had checked up with the Julien’s Auctions he would have learned that Robson most probably never had a Thriller jacket at all as he sold his most valuable memorabilia items already in 2011 and the Thriller jacket was not among them. The inquisitive MJ fans asked the auctioneers and this is the information they received:

Julien’s Auctions, who handled an auction of Jackson memorabilia in 2011, responded to a few fans questioning the validity of the items Robson burned. The auction house responded by saying, “Wade consigned his collection to us directly. He was the person who we paid when we sold his collection. He needed the money.”

They added, “Wade asked to remain anonymous and said that he did not want anyone to know that it was him selling it the items in 2011. But we did not agree to that and listed it as the Wade Robson collection. He consigned multiple items and wanted us to sell all items of his that had value.”

According to Julien’s website, they sold two items that Robson provided them: a pair of black spandex, fingerless forearm gloves from the music video for “Bad” and a fedora from the music video for “Smooth Criminal.” The fedora sold for $49,920 and the gloves fetched $31,250. It does not appear Robson ever put the “Thriller” items up for sale.

Juliens Auctions@JuliensAuctions

Wade consigned his collection to us directly. He was the person who we paid when we sold his collection. He needed the money.

Juliens Auctions@JuliensAuctions

Wade asked to remain anonymous and said that he did not want anyone to know that it was him selling it the items in 2011. But we did not agree to that and listed it as the Wade Robson collection. He consigned multiple items and wanted us to sell all items of his that had value.

The further you go the better it is. The auction was in 2011 and Robson claims that he arranged the grand bonfire at the beginning of his “healing process” which was in spring 2012 – so now we will have to believe that a year prior to that, when Robson needed the money he sold only some insignificant memorabilia leaving the most valuable things probably worth a million to burn them in a fire….and Dan Reed doesn’t mind this craziness and demands that we should believe it too?

Robson:

Those images of me burning things are from very early on in my healing process — within the first two to three months…  [To Reed.] The burning of those things was what I needed to do at that early stage. And I remember, as I was doing that, I was looking at the fire and I started speaking to Michael. I said, “Michael, I’m going to take these disgusting, horrible things that you did to me — I’m going to take your manipulation and your lies and your perversion — and I’m going to turn it into something good. I have no idea how. And I have no idea what that means. But somehow, I’m going to turn this into something good.”

https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/magazine-feature/8503332/leaving-neverland-reed-robson-safechuck-billboard-cover-story-2019

The speaking to Michael point is a new twist to Robson’s story. So now he is telling us that when he was burning that priceless jacket he also spoke to Michael about the “disgusting, horrible things” he had allegedly done to him, and declared that from then on all that “manipulation, lies and perversion” would be turned into something good.

And what good did Robson turn all those horrible things into?

Well, six years later, when Dan Reed was filming Robson in a dance room in Atlanta (April 27-29, 2018) where he was part of the Jump 30-city dance convention tour, Robson had a conversation with the musicians who played live music to his dance class and spoke of Michael Jackson in glowing terms again. The sound engineer Kevin Lipsey was amazed to learn that the episodes shot by Dan Reed in his presence found their way into the “Leaving Neverland” film, and only now does he realize the reason why Robson’s demeanor changed into the image of victimhood as soon as Dan Reed’s camera started rolling. Even at that time he had the impression that Robson was playing a role, and now he assesses the chances of Robson being abused by Jackson as zero judging by what he saw and heard in that dance class (for details please go John Ziegler’s podcast interview with Kevin Lipsey).

Dan Reed could have heard Robson’s praise for MJ too, but as we already know he can’t care less. To explain any controversy in the two guys’ stories he has a ready pro-pedophilia answer that they were “still in love” with Michael Jackson – however even this crooked explanation cannot explain Robson’s dramatic promises to cope with all those “disgusting, horrible things” allegedly done to him by MJ in combination with his glowing praise for the same person. Something is surely not right in this combination.

But what accuracy can we expect from Dan Reed if he calls even Robson’s failure with the Cirque du Soleil bullshit and alleges that it was Robson who refused them?

Dan Reed:

“The Cirque du Soleil thing is bullshit, because it’s actually Wade in 2012 who writes to the estate and says, look, I’m sorry I’ve been to-and-fro on this but I really can’t do it, so he is the one that pulls out and it’s them who wanted him to do it. That’s factually inaccurate, and I’ve seen the email where [Wade] does it and it postdates all the other emails. …The fans are trying to find inconsistencies that aren’t really there”.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/leaving-neverland-director-dan-reed-compares-michael-jackson-truthers-to-corbynites?ref=scroll

For those who don’t mind the truth here is the real email where Robson implores the Cirque du Soleil director to give him the job (the year is 2011 when Robson sold his memorabilia as he needed the money):

From: Wade Robson

Subject: Francois

Date: May 21, 2011

Francois,

Whichever way it goes, this is a long overdue call.

My first mistake was that I imagined I had the capacity to give all of myself to the MJ Cirque Show, Directing my first film and being a brand new Father.

I always wanted to do this MJ show, badly. But then when I needed to come to that Montreal meeting with ideas, I knew that I did not have an iota of creative space to think about ideas for the show at that time. I was so 100% consumed by the directing gig.

I didn’t say anything to you when we spoke last because I was still trying so hard to convince myself that I could do it. Because I wanted to do it so badly.

But after we spoke, I came to the realization that because of the directing gig, I couldn’t give to the show as I needed to. So I pulled out of your show.

Now, I absolutely did the wrong thing by not calling you, explaining to you why and apologizing. I know that and I am extremely sorry. I was not myself for the last couple of months. That’s the only way I can explain it. But no excuses. My bad.

Look, the Directing gig didn’t work out. It was consuming me in an unhealthy way that I wasn’t ok with being  a brand new father. Maybe it just wasn’t the right time. Maybe I just wasn’t ready to direct a studio film. Either way, I removed myself from the project.

I am really sorry for the back and forth. But now that I no longer have the film conflict, I’d love nothing more than to choreograph the MJ show. I understand completely you being upset and nervous about that idea now.

But if you are at all interested in the possibility. I promise you 100% that this time, once I’m in, I’m in. You will not have to worry about my commitment level ever again. I have learned a lot through this process. I have learned what I did wrong.  Mistakes that I have made. This has all happened for a reason. I know that I am meant to do this show. I am passionate to do this show. I want to make it amazing for me, for you, for Cirque and of course, for Michael.

Why should I believe that this job is not going to be too much for you?

Because of all that I have learned through this process. Directing a film was a completely new realm that I ended up not being ready for. But dance and choreographing is what I have done my entire life. I know how to do this. And there are very few subjects I know more about than Michael Jackson.

Wade Robson

Director/Choreographer

Light Tree Productions

Waderobson.com

And Dan Reed is probably talking about this entry in Robson’s blog which he could easily write to save his face and cover up for his lies:

“In the meantime, Cirque du Soleil’s Las Vegas Michael Jackson show had fallen apart and been put back together with a new Director who also wanted me to be the lead choreographer. For reasons I couldn’t quite articulate at the time, I was very reluctant to get involved with the show again. But the Director was persistent and persuasive and I ended up agreeing to take the project back on.”

Nice research on Dan Reed’s part. Exceptionally nice research.

And do you want to know Dan Reed’s answers to even a mild doubt in his findings occasionally voiced to him by some courageous people?

Well, Piers Morgan asked for some proof of the credibility of the two guys but was brushed off by Dan Reed’s furious tirade starting with “Why should we not believe them?”

And why should we?

[Dan Reed] said: “Why should we not believe them?… You are swallowing the Michael Jackson hook, line and sinker. This is not about money. They are suing for justice. How do you know you have won in a civil suit.

Piers asked if the director was “100% sure” if the word of the two accusers was enough to prove Jackson was a paedophile. He said: “It is all very weird and odd and makes me feel uncomfortable. I’m just not as certain as you are that Jackson was proven to be a paedophile and I’m concerned about the credibility of the two people you so whole-heartedly rely on.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/piers-morgan-clashes-michael-jackson-14093747

Another damning argument from Dan Reed is that the people regarded by him as the MJ “cultists” cannot know the truth because “they were not there”.

But Dan Reed was not there either, so how is his situation better?And why doesn’t the fact that he wasn’t there prevent him from pushing his story?

Up till now out of all mainstream media only Piers Morgan annoyed Dan Reed with some inconvenient questions while the rest hang on each of his words and strictly keep to the party line… sorry, to the officially approved story.

“This is about children who were molested. What would the Jackson estate have to say about what happened in a hotel room in Paris, in 1988, between James and Jackson? Nothing. They weren’t there.” ….the only noise I’m hearing from the Jackson camp is the estate hurling abuse at children who were raped by Michael Jackson. I think that’s shameful.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/leaving-neverland-michael-jackson-hbo-channel-4-documentary-interview-dan-reed-a8791861.html

So there were no witnesses and none of us were there. And in the fantastic twist of logic Dan Reed turns the absence of any proof into the argument that we should simply believe the allegations as they are told.

Dan Reed: “What we’re talking about here is acts that took place between two individuals behind closed doors. To my knowledge, no one else was present when Jackson was having sex with Wade or with James. There are no eye witnesses, no one with direct knowledge of the central facts of Leaving Neverland—the sexual molestation of these two children by Michael Jackson. To people who say, ‘Why didn’t you include members of the Jackson family?’ [as some kind of journalistic balance], it’s apples and oranges. They are not journalistically equivalent. Having someone give the equivalent of a character reference in court is not the same as someone saying, ‘I saw him shoot that guy.’

https://www.awardsdaily.com/2019/06/18/leaving-neverland-director-dan-reed-interview/

And the more often Dan Reed repeats the word “sex” the more we are supposed to believe it, and it is no problem that there are no witnesses though hundreds of people were staying around and no one saw a thing. And following Dan Reed’s logic the very absence of any direct knowledge is supposed to prove his point. How is that, I wonder?

As to the Jackson family Dan Reed shouldn’t have been that dismissive.

Taj Jackson, for example, is an eye-witness to Robson’s lies. The thing is that in one of Dan Reed’s pivotal episodes Robson talked about the dinner at Neverland where he took the crucial decision to defend Michael in court (he was so shattered by the sight of his children destined to become orphans if he went to jail, that Robson-the-knight decided to sacrifice himself for their good, etc.). And what a surprise – Taj Jackson, same as Brett Barnes and other people happened to be present at that dinner, and this is how we learn that the dinner was after Robson’s testimony, and not before it. As a result of this unpleasant discovery one of the pillars of Dan Reed’s scenario crashed with a big bang and the poor author had to cut out the episode altogether.

And Brandi Jackson let down Dan Reed even worse. It turned out that she had a 7-year long relationship with Robson and right at the time when he was allegedly abused by her uncle. And there was absolutely nothing in his behavior to indicate to Brandi that he was in any way affected by the alleged abuse.  Add to it that the film script implied that Michael encouraged the boys to hate women, but it was actually Michael Jackson who brought them together as he knew that Wade had a crush on Brandi – and you will see why a sudden silence fell on Dan Reed and the rest of the media over this subject.

The ABC’s Good Morning America made a half-hearted attempt to invite Brandi to their program but quickly went back on their decision, apparently not to discredit Robson’s allegations.

In short there are so many holes in this incredible story that it will take another four hour film to list them all. Here is the first such hour and a good try:

Leaving Neverland: The Aftermath

Oh yes, there is one more thing. Would you like to know how Dan Reed chose to establish that the sexual activity did take place though he also tells on every corner that there are no witnesses and no one was there?

The method is simple like a piece of cake – you can establish that the sexual activity did take place by simply saying so and describing the acts in their most graphic detail!

This is no joke and is actually what Dan Reed constantly explains.

– It seemed like it was important to you that the film include a lot of explicit detail about the [alleged] sexual acts between Jackson and these boys, and not just rely on the generic statements like “he sexually abused me.”

– We had to establish that actual sexual activity was taking place. For so many years Jackson claimed that he shared a bed with children for completely innocent reasons. If we hadn’t had these very graphic, shocking descriptions of the sexual activity that took place people might just think that it was only hugs that were a bit intimate, or slightly inappropriate brushing of cheeks. We thought it was important to make clear that this was sex, not just affectionate touching.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43znmj/he-was-a-sexual-predator-says-director-of-new-michael-jackson-doc-leaving-neverland-hbo

 

Reed had no qualms about including these details in the film. …“We needed to establish, in the most graphic terms, that what Jackson was doing with little children was sex. It was full-on sex. It wasn’t slightly inappropriate touching, or a kiss and a cuddle that went a bit too far. It was deliberate, regular sex. That’s why we needed these very graphic descriptions, to leave people in no doubt.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/leaving-neverland-michael-jackson-hbo-channel-4-documentary-interview-dan-reed-a8791861.html

Dan Reed’s openness is charming and totally disarming – if you don’t have any proof, just make the story as revolting as it is only possible and the shock of it and natural human instinct will do the rest of the job and eliminate your last doubt. See how easy, simple and effective it is?

Certainly nothing like Craig Mazin’s complicated approach:

-The show is unflinching in its depiction of the physical effects of radiation poisoning. Was there anything you left out or were asked to leave out because it was too much?

-Yeah, we had to be really careful in episode three when we showed the final stage of Vasily Ignatenko’s body. It was the most extreme thing that we showed, and our makeup and prosthetic designer Daniel Parker did a brilliant job — so brilliant, in fact, that there was a concern that we lingered on it a bit.

…So we shortened that shot by quite a bit, because the last thing we wanted was to feel like we were trading on this man’s sad fate for sensationalist points on a TV show. What we wanted was for people to see the truth of what happens, but we didn’t want to feel like we were exploiting it. Those were the things we were dealing with all the time, because that man was a real person, and his wife is still alive, and the last thing we want to do is show anything other than total respect.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/chernobyl-finale-explained-creator-craig-mazin-interview-1215670

And Michael Jackson was also a real person and his children, mother and loved ones are also still alive (touch wood). But in contrast to Dan Reed Craig Mazin had well-researched facts to build his story on and he also adheres to human and journalistic ethics and this is why he shortened those painful episodes, while Dan Reed based his story on shock value alone and has neither facts, nor ethics to limit him in these endeavors.

Sometimes Craig Mazin also had to depart from strict fact, but each time he took care to explain his decision in a separate podcast:

-Chernobyl makes a few departures from strict fact. What was your rationale behind making minor adjustments to what actually transpired and what was actually said, or inventing a character here and there?

-We had a basic rule of thumb: If you had to change something to be able to tell the story, narratively, then that was the only reason we could change it. We couldn’t change things to make them scarier; we couldn’t change things to make them more dramatic, or more sensational, or more horrifying. I thought that the truth of what happened there was terrifying and distressing enough. But I made sure that HBO and Sky knew, before we even shot a frame, that my intention was to do a companion podcast where I would hold myself accountable for those changes. I never wanted people to think I was pulling a fast one, or trying to get away with something. None of the changes were there to ramp up drama.

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/j5wbq4/craig-mazin-interview-about-chernobyl-hbo-miniseries-on-how-accurate-and-what-really-happened

This old-fashioned and at the same time novel approach is what makes Craig Mazin so special. Just as he supposed, expertise and the adherence to strict fact are not fashionable with the current media. What’s fashionable is Dan Reed who uses graphic descriptions to “establish that actual sexual activity was taking place”, ignores the facts that are not to his liking and sings his own praises to the unheard of accuracy of his research.

“… I am kind of maniacally fussy about factual accuracy, and the authenticity of the stories that I tell, but I also want to give them impact and reach, and I want to make them engrossing and engaging like movies are.”

https://variety.com/2019/music/news/leaving-neverland-michael-jackson-sequel-1203142185/

Reed says he approached Leaving Neverland with “all the scepticism and rigour that I would approach a story about a terrorist attack”. He went deep into the archives of various criminal investigations, interviewed detectives, and read files and statements, “a lot of which directly corroborated Wade and James’s story.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/features/leaving-neverland-michael-jackson-hbo-channel-4-documentary-interview-dan-reed-a8791861.html

“I read a lot of the witness statements there and spoke to a lot of the investigators and I didn’t find anything that contradicted or cast any doubt whatsoever on Wade and James’s accounts.

I looked for anything that could cast doubt or undermine Wade and James’ story. I found nothing at all. I found their stories to be very, very consistent. I found their families’ stories to be consistent with what they had told me.I was looking for anything that might undermine their stories, because I knew if anyone else found it I’d be in big trouble, and I couldn’t find anything. And I did find a lot of stuff that corroborated what they were saying. …There had been these two very big police investigations done in 1993 and 2003, so I interviewed the investigators, spoke to the prosecutors in the 2005 case.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/leaving-neverland-director-dan-reed-compares-michael-jackson-truthers-to-corbynites?ref=scroll

So Dan Reed spoke to the prosecutors and their investigators only, and had zero interest in findings of the investigators for the defense – like Scott Ross, for example. No wonder Dan Reed didn’t find anything contradictory to the two guys’ stories – from their very start these fairy tales were structured along the prosecution guidelines and suited to fit the prosecution witness statements, which Dan Reed admires so much though all of them were derailed during the 2005 trial.

If you apply Dan Reed’s method of limiting research to prosecution documents only and passing them off for the final truth, it will be equivalent to Craig Mazin presenting only the Soviet government official version and speaking only to the witnesses approved by the authorities. What kind of a movie would that have made if Craig Mazin had followed that path? Oh, that would have been totally different cinematography to say the very least.

But this cinematography is exactly what Dan Reed did. For me it is a somewhat surreal picture to see how close Britain’s Dan Reed and the US mainstream media are to the Soviet officialdom and how far from it are the American former comedy screenwriter Craig Mazin and his viewers who gave his miniseries the highest possible score, at least for its final episode (10 out of 10).

What this surreal scene also makes you realize is that truth knows no borders and is universal for everyone, same as lies match each other everywhere they reign and know no borders either.

If we were to look for the moral of this spectacular fight between the truth and lies (the truth told in a feature film and lies told in a so-called documentary), all we need to add to this awesome sight are Craig Mazin’s words which are perfectly applicable to the situation around Michael Jackson though they were actually intended for the situation around the Chernobyl catastrophe.

“Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, the debt is paid.”

As depicted by creator Craig Mazin throughout the five-part project, the devastating 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl power plant was the result of a series of lies told by self-serving bureaucrats in service of a corrupt and incompetent government that prioritized its public image above the safety of its own citizens.

While this story is deeply specific to the Soviet regime, it also resonates in powerful and uncomfortable ways in modern America. Legasov and his colleagues — politician Boris Shcherbina (Stellan Skarsgård) and nuclear physicist Ulana Khomyuk (Emily Watson), the show’s only fictional character — are forced to constantly defend the truth against powerful people who willfully deny scientific fact, even as it stares them directly in the face. For Mazin, the relevance of this infuriating dynamic was a major reason why the story was worth telling.

“This is in us, a certain sense of denial, a certain sense of groupthink,” he tells The Hollywood Reporter. “We can say that all we want, but it’s not true, and it costs us. I want everyone who watches this show to consider how they themselves are complicit in a kind of conspiracy against truths that are uncomfortable.

Remove the word “scientific” and you will see how splendid is the above description for the groupthink and lies willfully spread about the poor Jackson.

-Have you thought about a follow-up to the show? Is there another historical event you’re interested in approaching in the same way?

-I want to do a million things. If every day could be 70 hours and I didn’t have to sleep, because I’m really just a student and I get fascinated with things. The one thing I can say is I’m going to continue in this vein of making a show about something that matters, that is real. I probably won’t try and duplicate what I did with Chernobyl — I think down that road is failure. We’ve actually had a tremendous response from India, and a lot of people have tweeted at me from India saying, “Tell the story of Bhopal,” which is an incredible story. That’s something that I would encourage somebody else to tell, because I just don’t want people to think, like, “Oh, he’s just trying to play his hits.” You have to write a new song! I know the next thing I’m going to do is something that is about now, and is about here, in the United States, and for better or for worse, I’ll approach it with the same insistence on truth over narrative.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/chernobyl-finale-explained-creator-craig-mazin-interview-1215670

So this is the person to make a true film about Michael Jackson! The subject fits all his requirements – it is something that matters and it is real, it is about now and is about here, in the United States and it is waiting for Craig Mazin to approach it with the same insistence on truth over narrative that we’ve seen in his “Chernobyl”.

I’m not sure that he will handle it, but now we at least know the name of the film maker who could be trusted with the job of telling the truth about Michael Jackson. Hopefully this time it will not take that long, though Michael sort of envisaged it by saying that “Lies run sprints but the truth runs marathons”.

After all we did have to wait for the truth to be told about the Chernobyl explosion for 33 years, didn’t we? And the long wait made this film only more precious as it reaches to the new generation and answers the new challenges.

And today is only ten years since Michael Jackson passed which is a mere fraction for eternity. So let us not worry and let us give the heavenly justice all the time it needs.

Honest people to whom the truth matters are doing so splendid a job of debunking  the lies of Dan Reed’s ‘Leaving Neverland’ film that I can only watch in awe the speed at which they are doing it. Great new videos have been released lately and more are still to come – the ‘Leaving Neverland‘ fakes are indeed an endless source for research and analysis for those who value the truth and reveal it to others.

The thorough shredding of ‘Leaving Neverland’ into pieces seems to have come as a surprise to its authors as well as the mainstream media – none of them expected Michael Jackson’s fans to watch the film in the first place, not to mention the fans’ determination to dissect it.  Of course all those involved in making this fabrication continue to play the old tune, but now they are definitely on the defense and sound more and more like a broken record. Their fake documentary is in rags now because of the numerous holes poked in it, but the liars in and around the film continue to pretend they don’t see anything wrong with it and don’t mind the stench. And this is what backfires most – the more they pretend and censor the voices of reason, the clearer Michael’s innocence is.

Out of the many latest videos debunking Robson’s and Safechuck’s lies the only one available to me is the one called ‘Lies of Leaving Neverland’, released in mid-August, almost on the eve of Michael Jackson’s birthday.

The video is a marvel. It takes only 32 minutes to show the enormity of falsifications in Dan Reed’s film – its numerous contradictions, provable lies, fakes scenes, restaged shoots, reconstructed memories, omission of critical information, manipulation of news clips, use of discredited source materials, key motives ignored and whatnot.

But to me the most stunning discovery of all were the fragments of Robson’s and his mother’s depositions videotaped in 2016 and released only now. Let me tell you – it is one thing to read the tapescripts and it is a totally different thing to see them saying it.

Watching Robson squirming like a snake on a frying pan during that deposition is an unforgettable sight. When facing inconvenient questions about his earlier testimony (in 2005) like “Did you tell a lie then?” Robson bends and almost spreads himself over the desk not to show his face to the camera and gain some time to rework its expression into something acceptable to the viewer and when he finally raises his head his answer is both defiant and uncertain: “I didn’t tell the truth.”

Another question, and another “I didn’t tell the truth.” One more question, more fidgeting and clasping of his hands and another “I didn’t tell the truth. I didn’t tell the truth. I didn’t tell the truth…..”

What a repelling one-man show of a liar bragging of his lies which is sometimes hilarious, sometimes pathetic and sometimes an outrageous sight!

His mother’s behavior is different – she is sitting with a stone face and is obviously afraid to say something that will not fit her son’s current narration.

But despite her fright she still chooses to tell the truth which she actually told many times before 2016. And the truth is very simple – during their first visit to the US in 1990 the family didn’t leave Wade alone at Neverland and all of them, including the kids, went to the Grand Canyon and returned to the ranch a week later to spend another weekend with Michael Jackson there.

To those who are not in the know this piece may sound trivial, however the importance of it is fundamental and should not be overlooked. For Robson’s current story his mother’s description of the joint trip to the Grand Canyon is simply damning as it ruins the foundation on which his whole pack of lies rests.

The problem is that in Dan Reed’s film Robson claims that during that first visit to Neverland “he was left alone there with MJ” and this was the very moment when the alleged abuse started. Then he tells a very long and horrible story about “what happened during that week” describing the alleged abuse in much detail and most graphic terms (“the grown man-size penis in a little seven-year-old’s mouth”, Oh my God!) thus making the whole thing the most dramatic and focal point of Dan Reed’s film.

However in her deposition Robson’s mother chose to tell the innocent truth and revealed that her son was not left alone at Neverland in 1990 – actually the first time he stayed there on his own was not until two or three years later. And the plain fact that Robson was simply not there instantly nullified his long and graphic “recollections” in the same way a soap bubble pops at a slight touch.

The “abuse” so vividly described by Robson couldn’t start and continue “every night” at Neverland for the simple reason that he left the ranch together with his family and was on his way to the Grand Canyon instead.

So not only Safechuck wasn’t abused at the train station which hadn’t been built yet, but also Robson’s abuse didn’t start and “continue” at Neverland because he was away from it at the Grand Canyon together with his sister, parents and grandparents.

The Grand Canyon

Robson’s mother testified about that innocent joint trip not once but three times – in 1993, in 2005 and now again in 2016, each time speaking under oath. Telling the truth in 2016 required certain fortitude on her part, but previously she spoke about the Grand Canyon episode quite effortlessly as she had no incentive to lie and the episode was regarded by her and the family as just a memorable event in their joint biography.

In other words, if you watch this tiny fragment of Joy Robson’ deposition you won’t need to see anything else and may close the matter of Robson’s allegations then and there, without researching them any further. This piece is crucial to Robson’s whole story because it destroys the basis for his lies, nullifies everything he invented about MJ from that point on and nips all his fabrications in the bud.

This precious piece of Joy Robson’s deposition is found at 10:14 – 11:47 of the ‘Lies of Leaving Neverland’ film. Here is the tapescript of that small episode:

10:14 Voiceover: But that is not all. Earlier testimony by Robson and his mother contradict the entire 1990 story told in ‘Leaving Neverland’ the director Dan Reed uses as a foundation for the film.

Robson’s mother Joy testified in 1993 that her son was never alone with Michael Jackson at Neverland until that year. And here she is seen confirming under oath in 2016 that her entire family – husband, parents and the kids – went on the trip to the Grand Canyon.

10:43 (a fragment from Joy Robson’s videotaped deposition on September 30, 2016):

Q: I understand that you stayed, then, two different weekends at Neverland during that trip, is that right?

Joy Robson: Yes.

Q. Then in between, you and your kids and your husband and your parents all went on a tourist trip to the Grand Canyon?

JR: Yes.

Q. So you were there, was it two nights the first time?

JR: Yes.

Q. And then you came back after your whole family had gone away?

JR: Yes.

Q. Did you spend another two nights?

JR: At Neverland, yes.

(end of the deposition fragment)

11:13 Voiceover: Robson himself testified as an adult that the first time he visited Neverland without his mother was in 1992 or 1993, which means he would not have been alone at Neverland with Michael Jackson in 1990 as ‘Leaving Neverland’ claims.

In other words Robson and his family over time have told multiple versions of a key story viewers heard in ‘Leaving Neverland’. So which is it? The version Joy Robson tells in her deposition or the version Dan Reed presents in ‘Leaving Neverland’?

Which version is correct? To normal people the answer is clear. The fantasy told in what is essentially a feature film cannot stand against three testimonies given under oath over a period of 30 years – though some bigots may disagree and still persist in their delusions. When the plain but precious truth is told in a tired manner, while the lies are striking and delivered with much enthusiasm, some will prefer what glitters most – much like those natives who exchanged pieces of gold for strings of glass buds centuries ago. In modern times the fakes moved into the information field where many are still unable to tell the truth from its cheap imitation though the difference between fantasies and true facts is “the same as for jewels: it is always the false ones that look the most real, the most brilliant.” (Salvador Dali)

In Dan Reed’s film Joy Robson presents the twisted version of the trip to the Grand Canyon which is in direct contradiction to her deposition. Or to be more exact, she doesn’t say anything directly (the film only implies it), and it is her daughter Chantal who claims that when they went away to the Grand Canyon they left Wade at Neverland. And her grandmother Lorraine, Joy Robson’s mother, also says something to that effect.

Why aren’t these people afraid to contradict what Joy Robson said in her numerous depositions? Apparently, they hope that few people will have access to those documents and will never have a chance or desire to compare.

Here is the transcript of the family’s revised story from the third half-hour of Dan Reed’s ‘Leaving Neverland’ which I don’t intend to place here in full to save you from the filth and falsity of Robson’s graphic descriptions. The transcript begins where we left off the previous time.

1:02:30 Robson: To the left was the dining room and then kitchen. Tons of beautiful paintings and statues everywhere (music). It’s more than just going to someone’s house that was beautiful. You know, it felt like a lot more than that, a lot different than that. It felt like travelling to another planet.

1:03:00 Joy Robson (speaking about their first visit to Neverland): And then we all came back to the guest units, and Michael came back with the children. They’d been looking at some other things. And they came in and they asked if they could stay with Michael for the night.

(music, photo of the inside of a guest house)

1:03:15 Robson: (music, footage of Neverland) The guest quarters is a separate building, essentially, kind of, across from the main house, with about, I think, four hotel rooms. “You can stay in the guest quarters with your parents if you want, “or if you want, you can, you know, you can stay with me, in my room.” And I was like, you know, I wanna stay with Michael.”

Note: Robson makes it sound like Michael invited him to his room, while in reality it is him and Chantal who begged their parents to let them stay with Michael. And Michael agreed only after the parents asked him if Michael didn’t mind it. He didn’t and this is how the kids came to spend their time in MJ’s quarters.

See Joy Robson’s testimony in 2005:

18   And then it was getting late, and my

19   children said to me, both Chantel and Wade, my

20   daughter, said, “Can we stay with Michael.”

21   And my husband and I sort of looked at

22   Michael, and said, “Well, if that’s okay with you.”

23   And he said, “Oh, absolutely.  If they’d like to

24   stay, that’s fine.”

Now back to Dan Reed’s film:

1:03:35 Joy Robson: So, we thought, oh, okay. We didn’t seem to think anything of it. We just thought that’s fine, and Chantal was with him as well.

1:03:45 Robson (music): Like, for me to look back on the scenario now, what you’d think would be standard, kind of, instincts and judgment, uh, seemed to go out the window. Even if we knew him, which we didn’t, at all. We’d known him for, I don’t know what, four hours maybe. Not known him. We met him four hours ago, you know? That’s the trippy part is because it felt like we knew him. Like, he had been in my living room every day (footage of little Wade dancing in front of TV). In my ears via his music and his posters like I had known him, I thought. And it, for some reason, it didn’t feel strange to let, you know, me, a seven-year-old, and my sister, a 10-year-old, sleep in this man’s bedroom.

1:04:45 (cello playing, the camera shows the locks on the door to MJ’s bedroom)

1:04:50 Chantal (music): Michael had an extra guest bed that was above his bed. It was basically like a staircase that just kind of took you up to this other room in his room. And so, he said that we could stay in his room in that guest unit, if we wanted to. And of course, we were like, “Please, can we?” you know (makes an energetic gesture with her hands).

1:05:10 Grandmother Lorraine (music): We went to his bedroom and sat on his bed and talked to him. And he had a train running around the bed, electric train running the bedroom, and he was just like a child. Yes. (smiles)

1:05:25 Robson (aerial view of the main house, music): There was pillow fights. I mean, just having a blast, like, no rules. You know, like, you can’t get in trouble, you know.

1:05:35 Chantal (music): We were just kind of all hanging out in Michael’s bed, in the same bed, like me, Wade, and Michael, and just watching movies and watching videos.

1:05:45 Robson (aerial view of Neverland at night): And then at some point, we just knocked out, all three of us on his bed. Yeah, and that’s as much as I remember that first night.

(a glorious morning with much sunshine, beautiful views of Neverland). (The visit was in early February 1990)

1:06:15 Joy Robson (music): The next morning, waking up and looking at the lake, and the flowers were just amazing. I mean, my mother said her first thought was, “Oh my God, I’ve died and gone to Heaven.”It was just so beautiful.

(view of Neverland)

1:06:30 Robson (music): Here we go, like, a day of adventure, right.

1:06:30 Chantal (music, views of Neverland): You know, it was a lot of just silliness, sort of like that chase each other and, you know, big water fights (photo of the family with MJ).  It seemed right away like he was family. It was like being with a brother.

1:06:40 Robson (aerial view of Neverland, music): We kind of loaded up in a couple of golf carts, and him driving us around and showing us everything, right. So this is the first time of seeing, um, the arcade. We walk in and flip a switch and boom, the whole room comes alive, right. One of the most amazing things that I could ever experience, and have total access to, to just go play whatever I wanted to.

And how I excited Michael was to kind of watch me and watch me react. (music)

1:07:20 Joy (photo of little Wade): He was fascinated with Wade. He said that, “It’s like looking at myself in a mirror. I see myself all over again. So, that was something to hear that, that was pretty impressive. And this little boy was just living the dream. He really was.

(music, the aerial view of the amusement park)

1:07:40 Robson: The theme park, which wasn’t as extensive then as it became, but still a theme park in someone’s house, you know. You know, seeing my mother, kind of just, high and giddy and playful and like children. And then on to the animals, right. I mean, chimpanzees, giraffes, elephant, tiger.

(a night aerial view of Neverland, suspense music)

You know, then it was bedtime, and it was just kind of unspoken, like it was set up already as to how it, you know, how we slept last night.

(another night aerial view of Neverland, music)

NOTE: In his lawsuit and deposition Robson claims that the “second night was when the abuse started”. But after recalling Chantal’s testimony in 2005 where she insisted that she slept on Michael’s bed on the second night of their stay at Neverland Robson shifted the time of his “abuse” to a later date.

Robson: At some point, I had fallen asleep. And I woke up. I could hear, like, crying, like, sulking and sobbing (crickets chirping, view of the Neverland gate at night). I could see a figure over in the corner, kind of scrunched up, sort of sobbing. It was kind of hard to get words out. ‘Cause we were supposed to leave the next day, the whole family.

“I’m just so sad that you guys are gonna leave me. “You know, I don’t wanna be alone. I don’t want you guys to leave”.

I mean, I felt the same way. I felt like I almost had this kind of burden and guilt to like, if I leave, like, what’s gonna happen to him? Like, he was so upset, you know? Then, the next morning, the plan was that we were gonna go on this kind of trip to the Grand Canyon and that sort of thing with an RV.

1:09:30 Joy Robson (aerial view of the main house, photo of little Wade): I remember going into Michael’s room to talk to him about it, and he said to Wade, “We can stay here. We can go to Los Angeles. We can go wherever you want, do whatever you want.”And Wade wanted to stay at Neverland.

1:09:45 Joy Robson (suddenly having shorter hair and a heavier make-up): I actually didn’t have a problem with it at the time. I didn’t actually have a hesitation.

1:09:55 Chantal: So then, that’s when I left with my mom and everybody, and we went to the Grand Canyon. We had, like, a motor home, and we went and camped and did all that, and then Wade stayed with Michael.

1:10:09 Robson: I was ecstatic about this. Michael was ecstatic about this. So, my whole family left, um and I had, you know, five days ahead of me, with just me and Michael, doing whatever the hell we wanted to do.

(cello playing, aerial view of Neverland)

1:10:33 Robson: There were no cell phones, or anything like that. So, my parents had– once they left, they had no direct access to me at all. They were really far away, in many ways (sniffles).

(the photo of little Wade, cello playing)

1:11:00 Grandmother Lorraine (the view of the Grand Canyon): We went right through the canyon. First time I’ve ever seen snow. That was exciting, too. And, uh we thought that Michael was teaching him all his dances. That’s– We thought, how lucky he was to have that, somebody to take their time and do it, in his position, to have somebody like that, to teach him what to do.

1:11:28 Joy Robson (with the original hairstyle again and less make-up):

I somewhat regretted it as we were traveling. I became a little anxious, at times, about it. And I remember calling once, and I couldn’t get through. I remember being absolutely hysterical on the phone at one point because I couldn’t get through, and I couldn’t find him.

(the photo of little Wade, slow music)

1:11:50 Robson’s voiceover: First day at Neverland was Michael making physical contact with me…(descriptions of the alleged abuse follow).

Well, looking into the detail is always worth it. If you give enough attention to the above transcript you will realize that Joy Robson is taking special care not to contradict her earlier testimony and depositions directly. All she says about the contoversy of the alleged week at Neverland are just three statements worded in a top careful way:

• “I remember going into Michael’s room to talk to him about it, and he said to Wade, “We can stay here. We can go to Los Angeles. We can go wherever you want, do whatever you want.”And Wade wanted to stay at Neverland.

Then, with a sudden change of her hairstyle and make-up, she makes a non-committal statement that may refer to anything:

• “I actually didn’t have a problem with it at the time. I didn’t actually have a hesitation.”

And this is her final statement on the matter, made after she assumes her previous image:

• “I somewhat regretted it as we were traveling. I became a little anxious, at times, about it. And I remember calling once, and I couldn’t get through. I remember being absolutely hysterical on the phone at one point because I couldn’t get through, and I couldn’t find him.”

There is no mention of the Grand Canyon in her narrative and if you question her about the discrepancy between the film and her deposition she can easily claim (in order to avoid the crime of perjury) that she was talking about some other place to which they also travelled. The Grand Canyon is only being implied here and there is indeed no proof that she is talking about that particular place and time, and not another.

So what does all this beating about the bush mean?

First of all the care with which Joy Robson and Dan Reed go about this potentially explosive point reveals that both of them know that under oath Joy testified to the opposite, and this is why they avoid speaking about this matter directly.

As to Lorraine and Chantal, none of them can be accused of perjury even if they tell a flat lie. The grandmother has never testified before and if someone points to her untrue statements the charming old lady she can always explain it by her memory fail.

In fact, the only one who tells the lie openly is Chantal:

• So then, that’s when I left with my mom and everybody, and we went to the Grand Canyon. We had, like, a motor home, and we went and camped and did all that, and then Wade stayed with Michael.

However even she doesn’t run the risk of perjury or even losing her credibility – in her testimony in 2005 she didn’t elaborate on the trip to the Grand Canyon, so you can’t compare her present story with what she said before, and she is free to claim whatever she likes now. No one will ever know.

Okay, but what about Joy Robson’s hairstyle?

The way Joy Robson’s hair changed right in the middle of her story is strange and is actually a big surprise as two of those three scarce remarks were made by Joy Robson when she had long hair and little makeup, and one more was made by Joy Robson with shorter hair and heavy mascara on her eyelashes.    

The most natural explanation for this unusual phenomenon is that, same as with Safechuck, Dan Reed filmed these episodes at different times and with a rather big interval between the two shots, because not only is Joy’s hair shorter on one of the occasions, but the outline of her face is different and she doesn’t look as slim as in the rest of the film.

But then another question arises – why did Dan Reed do it? I mean, why did he reshoot the scene with Joy Robson? Was it worth meeting her again in order to add just one remark to her previous story which isn’t even that striking in its content? In fact all she said was: “I actually didn’t have a problem with it at the time. I didn’t actually have a hesitation.”  

Is there anything in this remark worth taking a second trip to film Robson’s mother? Absolutely not. It doesn’t add anything to the story and if you cut the piece out, nothing much will change in the whole narrative. The only visible effect will be less evidence from Joy Robson about that particular week at Neverland, but Joy Robson is not the main witness here anyway – the story about Robson staying at Neverland is mainly told by Chantal and the grandmother, so what was the point?

 Is there a way to explain this mystification?

Yes, there is. Firstly, Dan Reed’s little manipulation means that he had very little footage of Joy Robson speaking about their trip to the Grand Canyon. Apparently she didn’t want to tell a story different from her deposition, so Reed had to use all the scraps he had recorded at different times to try and build up support from Joy Robson for her son’s narrative.

The reason for her unwillingness to confirm Robson’s story? Here we have only two options to choose from – she either knows that her son is lying or she herself repeatedly lied under oath on three separate occasions.

Each option is marvelous in its own way, and this is why Joy Robson is neither here nor there – she avoids mentioning her deposition version and refrains from openly confirming her son’s story about “his lone week spent with MJ at Neverland”.  As a result Dan Reed has very little material on his hands and had to put together the very few comments she made on the subject even at the risk of someone noticing that they were made on different occasions.

Secondly, the above compilation is another irrefutable proof that Dan Reed’s film is not a spontaneous interview, but is a series of staged and reshooted scenes. Same as with Safechuck, much care was taken by him to recreate the same scenery for Joy Robson – the same light, the same attire, etc. – and it was only due to the slightly different hairstyle that the imitation could not be complete. And same as with Safechuck Dan Reed’s working pattern shows that his intention is to fool his viewers and produce the impression that the interview is seamless and spontaneous while in reality it is a compilation of reshooted scenes.

To remind you of the same way it was done for Safechuck, here is the respective piece from the ‘Lies of Leaving Neverland’ film:

11:48 James Safechuck’s dramatic scene where he claims Michael Jackson gave him jewelry for sex, including an alleged “wedding ring”, was deceptively staged and edited to appear as one seamless scene, when in fact it was actually edited together from filming done on two separate occasions 17 months apart. And done intentionally – to pump up the drama of the scene. You can tell by looking at his clothes, essentially the same in both shots except he forgot the undershirt the second time around.And look out the window – it’s clearly different seasons with the plants trimmed in one shot but not the other.

Once people pointed out the changes, Dan Reed was forced to admit he went back and rented the same Airbnb to recreate and reshoot the scene nearly a year and a half later. Can viewers trust deceptive editing?

No, they can’t. Dan Reed’s documentary style is that of a feature film director – it requires reshooting to achieve the desired result and adding scenes for extra drama even if it means that he has to recreate the old stage decorations a year and a half later.  

Speaking about the timeline of Safechuck’s revelations, the moment when Joy Robson made hers is a matter of interest to us too. Indeed, when was Joy Robson filmed? Or rather, which variant of Joy Robson was filmed first – Joy Robson 1 or Joy Robson 2?

Joy Robson 1

Joy Robson 2

The question is not as silly as you may have initially thought.

If Joy Robson 1 (with longer hair) was filmed first and Joy Robson 2 was added later, it means that Dan Reed had to take the trouble to go all the way to Australia, or probably to Hawaii where Wade Robson resides now, to be able to add to the earlier footage just one little remark by Joy Robson already mentioned here ( “I actually didn’t have a problem with it at the time. I didn’t actually have a hesitation”.)

Does anyone believe here that this was the case? I don’t think so.

But if the above variant is illogical, the only other option remaining to us is that Joy Robson 2, the one with shorter hair, was filmed first and that little remark of hers is the only piece Dan Reed used from Joy Robson’s original story. And the reason why he had to reshoot Joy Robson was that the original story was very much different from the one we see now in the final version of his film.

If this explanation is correct, it means that originally Joy Robson was unwilling to take part in that project as she didn’t want to contradict her deposition and run the risk of perjuring herself, but during the break between the two shoots they managed to convince her that most of the talk about “leaving Wade alone at Neverland” would be done by other family members who didn’t risk anything by telling the lie, and that her part would be minimal and that the impression that she agrees with her son’s version would be created through clever editing and alternating her words with the words of the other participants.

In fact the result of this carefully built fabrication is what we actually see in the final version of Dan Reed’s film. The confirmation from Wade’s mother was their top priority for giving credibility to Robson’s story, and they did manage to create the necessary impression by putting together her minimal remarks and combining them with the statements of the supporting actors. If the worst came to the worst and she was accused of a criminal offense of lying under oath her non-committal remarks could be said to refer to something different and that is why there are no direct statements from Joy Robson about her son’s alleged stay at Neverland while they were away.    

And once the carefully constructed impression of Joy Robson confirming her son’s version was created Wade Robson could freely present any bogus story he liked. After all, “he was left alone with MJ the first time they visited Neverland”, wasn’t he?

Danny Wu did a remarkable job.

His SQUARE ONE documentary does away with the allegations against Michael Jackson in a very concise and clear way, and what amazes me most is that despite the documentary being only 1 hour and 20 minutes long he manages to cover it all and not miss a thing. Out of the vast exculpatory materials accumulated since Michael Jackson’s passing, Danny Wu managed to select only the most essential facts and documents that tell the truth about those allegations in their most condensed form.

From what I hear about the author he more or less believed Michael Jackson’s accusers after watching the “Leaving Neverland” fake but since it didn’t feel right for him to just blindly accept it, it triggered off his own research and after an obviously very deep dive into the MJ story he made his rebuttal documentary just in two months – a miraculous phenomenon in and of itself, especially considering how impressive the result is.

Even from this point of view it is totally unlike Dan Reed’s tedious shooting and reshooting of his “Leaving Neverland” scenes intended to present its characters in their most favorable light and give them some semblance of credibility through their endless repetitive lies, which are meant to pass off as “research” that actually never took place there.

It is also funny how Danny Wu manages to be slightly ironic about Dan Reed’s crooked job by imitating his signature aerial views and piano music which adds to this documentary at lot as you can’t help occasionally laughing even despite the seriousness of the subject.

In short the quality, accuracy and standard of research of SQUARE ONE are phenomenal, which make it a must-see for those who never heard MJ’s real story and are ready to leave the nasty media matrix to discover the sensational truth that Michael Jackson was an innocent man.

And even long-time researchers like us can also find in the documentary some new facts to carry on with.

NEW WITNESSES

First of all, we finally have an opportunity to listen to some of the people who were on the defense witness list for the 2005 trial. Their names didn’t mean much to us until Danny Wu contacted them and some (not all) agreed to speak for his documentary.

Jenny Winings recalls that she and the other fan were taken by Michael Jackson all around the house and were to his bedroom, bathrooms, memorabilia room which prompted Danny Wu to say: “It speaks volumes to how easily he trusted people to come into his life” to which she agreed, “Yeah. Unfortunately he trusted a lot of people he shouldn’t have trusted” (at 00:14:15) and adds, “Many people can’t believe it that he let us into his house like that”.

The reason why Jenny Winings was on the witness list for the 2005 trial was that she happened to be at Neverland on March 10^th 2003, right at the time when Michael was supposedly “abusing” Gavin Arvizo and she knew that it was not happening.

Caroline Fristedt remembers that she and her friends flew to Neverland from Europe and before Michael had to go he told them they could stay and enjoy Neverland as much as they wanted. When the ranch manager took them to the main house he told her that Michael had asked him to give them the royal treatment.

“And we sure got the royal treatment. When we went up to the main house all the staff  were lined up on the stairs welcoming us. They told us that we could move around as freely as we wanted to. There were no places off limits” (00:15:20) – another proof that Michael treated all his guests in the same way and gave royal treatment even to the people he hardly knew.

Caroline Fristedt (1:12:50) also happened to spend the entire day with Gavin Arvizo at Neverland, on February 19^th 2003.

“This was the very same day Gavin and his mother Janet accused Michael of inappropriate behavior”, she says. “The day they accused Michael of wrongdoing was the day when Gavin didn’t even see Michael. Instead he was with us, having fun.”

You remember that once Tom Sneddon realized that Michael was not even at Neverland at the time of “abuse” initially defined by the Arvizos, he shifted the timeline to a later March period, but oops, here came another inconvenient witness – Jenny Winings, who was at Neverland right at that moment and was ready to testify that nothing happened.

Remember that Ed Bradley was also there at the end of February and told Larry King that he had sat in the kitchen having doughnuts with the Arvizo mother and kids, and they were also telling him how wonderful Michael Jackson was.

But Josephine Zohny is probably the most inconvenient witnesses of all as she was one of those people who could have been put up by the defense had Jordan Chandler testified at the 2005 trial.

The fact is that several years before the trial she had made acquaintance with Jordan Chandler and she heard him speaking directly in defense of Michael Jackson.

She got to know Jordan Chandler in 2001 when she was 16 and came to New York University to study music business. She and Jordan Chandler regularly met at the university program meetings. At the very first meeting she wore a Michael Jackson T-shirt and the young man who came up to her and said he liked her T-shirt turned out to be Jordan Chandler (00:02:30).

At the university Jordan preferred to associate with people who were Michael Jackson fans and she remembers a party at his apartment where he played MJ’s music and made some MJ-like moves which got people cheering him on. His apartment was a sort of a shrine to Michael Jackson and was filled with a lot of his memorabilia (1:03:15)

But a much more important testimony comes from Josephine Zohny (at about 1:09:00) when she speaks about Martin Bashir’s film released in 2003 when it became a huge topic for conversation for all of them, especially at their university program meetings.

“Immediately after the Martin Bashir documentary aired there was a meeting and discussion about whether or not Michael Jackson was a child molester. [..] Those were the people who did not have any fondness for Michael Jackson, and I chimed in with my belief that I didn’t believe that MJ was a child molester and that the documentary was misleading and exploited him. During that conversation Jordan Chandler chimed in and said that he too believed that Michael Jackson wasn’t capable of all the things he had been accused of. He said that voluntarily and he said that without my prompting. And he wasn’t asked”.

“He wasn’t in the direct conversation. No. I was arguing with a group of maybe three other people. He was sitting close to us but he wasn’t in on this discussion. And throughout the semester there were different occasions like that where again he would sort of reaffirm things that I said in defense of Michael Jackson. And the very first time I remember catching his eye. It was shocking that he would speak up. And it reaffirmed my belief that Michael was innocent”.

“Given the things Jordan said separately, having nothing to do with Michael Jackson about his home life, it affirmed my belief that he was a victim of his parents’ greed, and that he was forced to say certain things. I really have a hard time believing that if he had been molested by Michael Jackson he would be going out of his way to say that he didn’t think he was capable of these things. And I didn’t address it with him. You know, I was very young. I didn’t really know how important it would have been to address it then.”

“These conversations happened before Gavin Arvizo made any allegations against Michael Jackson”.

In the later years Josephine moved on from her music business classes and lost touch with Jordan Chandler. But when she was asked to make a statement for the 2005 trial she did so and this is how she found herself on the witness list.

Another memorable episode of Josephine’s memories concerns Stacy Brown (1:16:00) who approached her when he still seemed to be a friend to Michael Jackson.

He was very effusive in his praise of MJ and urged Josephine to sort of pump up her Jordan Chandler story – like saying that she was his girlfriend and he had a crush on her. But she never felt comfortable to claim that and adhered solely to fact. In retrospect, knowing how Stacy Brown turned on Michael she feels like Stacy Brown did it as a preemptive way to discredit her – because if she lied about her relations with Jordan Chandler it would discredit her entire story.

“Of course I was never willing to say that”, she repeats again and again.  “I take this very seriously. I firmly believe in due process. [..] I don’t think I understood the enormity of it at that time. All I knew was that somebody’s life and livelihood was on the line and I had the information that potentially could help him, so I felt it was my obligation and my duty”.

And here is one more important remark from Josephine about Jordan Chandler (1:17:25):

“His name wasn’t widely known. From my discussions in the program I don’t think that there was anybody else other than very few people who knew who he was. So yeah, people could be sitting on information they don’t even know is relevant”.

“This doesn’t benefit my career at all”, she goes on. “This doesn’t give me access to anything. I am very much somebody who likes to be in the background [..] but I am speaking out because you asked me to and because all this nonsense is being rehashed [..] in the media, and it’s ridiculous. [..] If I had the slightest doubt that Michael Jackson was innocent I wouldn’t be speaking out. I heard directly from Jordie Chandler that he didn’t believe that Michael Jackson was capable of the things he was being accused of and that’s very powerful. You know, every allegation since is built on the original 1993 allegation. And I believe that if that one is false – which I do believe it is false – all the rest crumble”.

LA TOYA

Another great find in Danny Wu’s film is an episode concerning La Toya and the allegations against her brother fed to her by her husband-manager Jack Gordon. This episode was initially recalled by Charles Thomson and Danny Wu managed to find a rare video of La Toya talking on Australian TV in 1994 and leaving the show when the host found out that all throughout their talk someone in the background was literally telling her what to say over the microphone in her ear.

Charles Thomson says about it (0:36:20):

“All of a sudden LaToya who had been previously speaking in favor of Michael suddenly U-turned and started selling interviews claiming that her brother in fact was guilty. Early 1994 when La Toya appeared on an Australian TV show the host of the show realized that there was something wrong with the situation – he realized that all of the answers LaToya was giving were being fed to her by somebody else who he identified on the show as her husband Jack Gordon.

(video tape)

The host: “Well, Miss Jackson carried on with that nonsense for another 25 minutes all the time being prompted by someone in the studio but off camera – presumably her husband manager Jack Gordon”.

And when he questioned her about it on the air she looked like a deer in the headlights and suddenly stood up and stormed off the show answering no more questions.

(video tape)

The host to La Toya: “Who is talking to you on the micro?”

La Toya (taking off the microphone from her ear): “I refuse to sit here and listen to you talk this way. I have nothing to say to you whatsoever…”

This episode is a complete marvel. It will tell you more than anyone or anything could ever tell you to explain La Toya’s behavior at that time.

VICTOR GUTIERREZ

The very informative part about Victor Gutierrez is a thrill to watch even despite us knowing about this creature more than we would be willing to know. But when the documentary links him to Rodney Allen, a pedophile now serving a life sentence in prison in Canada, we suddenly make a new find.

The documentary quotes a letter sent by Rodney Allen to our fellow researcher Paula who started that correspondence by presenting herself as an acquaintance of “Victor” whom Rodney Allen immediately recognized as his friend Victor Gutierrez. And in one of the letters sent to her from prison Rodney Allen reveals Gutierrez’s own ways with children which up till now have been a closely guarded secret of his.

Here is an excerpt from Rodney Allen’s letter (at 1:00:49):

“Now let me clear up something else that is very important that the letter that was sent to Nambla was written by Victor Gutierrez and then fax to me to my home from the company called the Mail Box on Westwood Blvd just south of Sunset Blvd. I had no contact with Nambla until I met Victor and I was so stupid to fall for his game. I am against child pornography and the way Victor operated I did have great concerns of how he likes to hang around young children in private. At the house on Beverly Glen Blvd, Victor used to have all these toys like trains and things that children like to play with…”

When Rodney Allen says that he “fell for Gutierrez’s game” he means that at Gutierrez’s request he wrote to NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) suggesting that they include Gutierrez’s child pornography book about Michael Jackson into their reading list. And much to Allen’s dismay the fax reply from NAMBLA was later found at his home by the police and served as incriminating evidence against Allen while Gutierrez stayed unaffected (how very interesting that he was careful enough not to write that letter himself!).

But the rest of that piece is simply mind-blowing. It is a clear suggestion that Rodney Allen, a pedophile himself, disapproved of how Victor Gutierrez “operated” and that the latter possessed child pornography and liked to hang around young children in private. It is apparently for this purpose that Gutierrez’s home was filled with toy trains and other things children like to play with.

What a shame we can’t use Rodney Allen’s words as an evidence against Victor Gutierrez – Allen is said to be mentally impaired and have a propensity for embellishing stories. Otherwise his letter could be regarded as a damning evidence that Gutierrez was not only a NAMBLA attendee (as he admitted himself), but is a child predator who likes child pornography and hangs around young children “in private”.

Victor Gutierrez’s contacts: Joy Robson, NAMBLA, Diane Dimond, Blanca Francia, Maureen Orth, the Chandlers, Adrian McManus.

COURAGE

One more Josephine Zohny’s remark is very important for understanding where we are at the moment.  At about 1:04:27 she says in connection with “Leaving Neverland” and the fact that few people dare challenge it as an obvious fake:

“It doesn’t surprise me that people are scared to come out. I have some flexibility, I work for myself. If I were in a corporate job I may be scared too because we don’t really know who the powers that be are behind “Leaving Neverland” and to speak out at this point may [..] really harm their career. I am not surprised that people would be afraid to come out”.

This sent me pondering over a strange phenomenon that despite our totally different social environment the people in the West and East are both in a situation when it is dangerous to tell the simple truth. In one place the truthers risk their jobs and careers, in another place they risk their freedom and lives, but the common problem they face is that lies are so flagrant and powerful at the moment that it requires a good deal of courage to say a simple word of truth.

However there is another marked tendency also on the rise now – some people, especially a younger generation, seem not to mind these obstacles and prefer to do the right thing no matter what, like Danny Wu and Josephine Zohny, for example. Same as Charles Thomson, Mike Smallcombe and Dave Chappelle who are also ready to accept the challenge. Don’t know how they manage to do that but they do.

And what I also admire about Danny Wu’s documentary is that he made it available to his viewers for free. This selfless sharing of his professional work with others is very much in the spirit of Michael Jackson and is very rare in today’s world of sweeping commercialism.

In the long run it seems that this whole nasty business around the innocent Michael Jackson is all about money – from its extreme form of avarice in accusers’ cases to a mere going with the shameless crowd by others out of the cowardice to lose their comfort, means and worldly success.  And this seems to be where the roots of the evil are.

Few of us realize how real evil looks. No, it does not come in the form of extraterrestrial monsters the way it is portrayed in Hollywood blockbusters. Mass evil is here and all around us, is much more banal and conventional and comes in the shape of ordinary self-interest, expediency and justification of one’s cowardice, indifference and occasional betrayal. It is commonplace, opportunistic and is sleek and happy in its conformism, and it will always find an excuse.

Another popular video-blogger, in my country this time (Yuri Dude), recently addressed this problem when speaking to an assembly of journalists in Russia:

“When another [atrocity] takes place here, I beg of you to speak out and not to be silent. It seems to me that silence is no longer a safe haven. If you are silent it doesn’t mean that you are safe. And if there is no difference, I don’t understand why it is necessary to meet lawlessness with silence and not meet it face to face. Many will say to me: “We understand everything but we don’t want to lose our jobs”. But he who has brains and hands will never die of hunger and boredom. Even I could find some work, and you are much smarter and better educated than me…”

Yury Dude’s latest documentary on Youtube was viewed by almost 18 million people. I wish the same success to Danny Wu’s excellent case for Michael Jackson and to many others that will follow suit.

“The real story hasn’t been told. The real story is that Michael Jackson was the victim of an elaborate extortion scheme that launched the false allegations.” – Geraldine Hughes

Watch the documentary and raise your voice for the truth.

SQUARE ONE premiered at the Chinese Theatre on October 5, 2019

Rotten Tomatoes voting regarding Square One has finally opened to the public: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/square_one

By September 1993, when Mariano “Mark” and Ofelia “Faye” Quindoy arranged a press conference in Manila, their legal battle with Michael Jackson had been going for three years – since they left Neverland in August 1990. The disputed sum was $283,000 they thought Michael Jackson owed them in unpaid overtime wages.

For a while all seemed quiet, but in late 1991– early 1992 they started seeking contact with the media. We’ve seen their two big TV interviews with Hard Copy (Feb.1992) and Geraldo (July 1992), and an earlier contract with the “Sun” for $25,000 to tell a frank and full story about their work for Michael Jackson – however then they didn’t say a single bad word about their former employer.

The Quindoys and Michael Jackson

But knowing that when doing those interviews the Quindoys were also litigating Michael Jackson, it was easy to assume that their public appearances were actually a warning sent to Michael via TV – if their payment demands were not met, the very same story about him would acquire a different coloring.

Indeed, their earlier interviews had all the makings of future allegations – the comment that Michael used to throw around his clothes and underwear was a signal that it could turn into “boy’s underwear” lying by his bedside, the bed on the second floor of his bedroom where his guests “usually stayed” could turn into a “never slept in” bed, and the innocent fact that for their 6 months there they didn’t see any MJ’s girlfriends would later turn into the idea that he was gay.

The supposition that the interviews were a veiled threat was confirmed by an unexpected source – Victor Gutierrez, who claims that the Quindoys “made demands of” Jackson and threatened him. Gutierrez says that he was also planning to interview them.

We learn about it from Gutierrez’s filthy pro-pedophilia book which describes a sudden visit to him by Anthony Pellicano sometime in July-August 1992. Gutierrez says that two months after he met Joy and Wade Robson (in June 1992) Pellicano appeared on his doorstep and asked Gutierrez why he was spreading rumors about Michael Jackson. Pellicano added: “I know that you work with the Quindoys.”

Of course, Gutierrez is so big a liar that everything he says should be divided by a hundred, and even then it may still be a lie, but as regards Pellicano I don’t see any reason for him lying:

“Joy turned out to be something of an opportunist. She tried to use my interview as a means of making good Jackson’s promise of the “good life.” The next day, Joy called the manager at Neverland Ranch, Norma Staikos. Staikos [ ] turned to Anthony Pellicano. He commenced an investigation into my book. Two months after I had interviewed Joy, he paid me a surprise visit.

Pellicano, together with his assistant, arrived and presented himself as Michael Jackson’s representative and pointed out that he wanted to speak with me regarding conversations I had had with his client’s friends. He asked why I was saying that his client abused minors. [ ] Pellicano then said that “I know that you work with the Quindoys.” The Quindoys were a married Philippine couple that had worked for Jackson at the ranch from May of 1989 to August 1990.[ ] They had left the ranch unexpectedly, and thereafter threatened and made demands of Jackson. “I told Pellicano that I knew little about the Quindoys, but that I was interested in interviewing them. When he mistakenly claimed that I was working with the Quindoys, I questioned his ability as a private investigator.”

So according to Gutierrez since the time the Quindoys left they were threatening Michael Jackson, and Pellicano was aware of those threats, thinking that they worked in cooperation with Gutierrez. The latter claims that this was not the case, but there is no doubt that the first thing he did after Pellicano’s visit was getting in touch with the Quindoys and sharing with them his fantasies about MJ. It is also highly probable that he sold them the idea of a diary – Gutierrez himself was busy writing a diary allegedly kept by Jordan Chandler which in reality never existed.

How did Gutierrez get in touch with the Quindoys? Easily. Pellicano’s visit to VG came soon after their participation in Geraldo’s show in July 1992, so they could still be in the US, or their communication could be by telephone, the way Maureen Orth interviewed Mark Quindoy a year later, in 1993. Orth also says that the Quindoys had several representatives in the US.

From her “Nightmare in Neverland”, Jan. 1994:

“I managed to obtain the Quindoys’ Manila phone number without going through their U.S. representative, a woman who works as a private investigator, a tabloid reporter, and their agent on the side.[ ]They did not go to the police, they said, because “we were just witnesses—we were not victims.”

Some will say that the fact that the Quindoys extorted Jackson for money does not make them the respectable people they claimed they were, but may indicate that they had some evidence against him and were selling their silence for a certain sum.

This is a legitimate question, but the answer to it is negative. The sum at stake at that moment was $283,000 – a drop in the bucket for Michael Jackson. If Michael had been in the wrong he could have paid this sum as hush money in no time, without dragging the case for 3 years. But he was innocent and didn’t want to give in to the Quindoys’ threats, knowing that they had nothing against him, and lie they will not – after all Mark Quindoy was an attorney and indeed looked respectable.

But Michael did not yet know the depths of human meanness and simply could not imagine that a year later not only Gutierrez’s “diary” would be read on the radio, by Diane Dimond as far as I remember, but a similar “diary” would appear from thin air in Manila too.

How many grown-up people keeping diaries do you personally know? I know none. And around Michael Jackson almost everyone seemed to be writing a diary. In his “Unauthorized” hatchet job against MJ Christopher Andersen says that both Mark and Faye Quindoy kept diaries:

“… their exhaustive accounts later given to Los Angeles police investigators [were] backed up by prodigiously detailed diaries kept by both himself and his wife.”

In reality the Quindoys could have some notes of what guest was to arrive when and what meals were to be served, as this was their job to meet them and take care of their needs. In fact there was even a log kept at Neverland of who stayed when, so for Quindoys it was no problem to insert the allegations later to fit certain dates. Anyone with a little fantasy and much greed and malice could do the same.

PRESS CONFERENCE

On September 14, 1993, the very same day Evan Chandler filed a lawsuit against Michael Jackson, the Quindoys held a press-conference in Manila for an audience packed with journalists and TV cameras.

What a coincidence considering that the Quindoys made their press-conference arrangements in advance! In fact due to the difference in time zones their press conference came as a kind of an introduction to the news about the Chandlers.

These days there is practically no information about the event, but we can learn at least its date from the AP archive whose cryptic synopsis of the ABC footage from Manila says:

MARK QUINDOY PRESS CONFERENCE

Source: ABC News

ABC News

22:34:55 FOOTAGE OF FORMER MICHAEL JACKSON EMPLOYEE MARK QUINDOY PC ON CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE CHARGES AGAINST JACKSON. HE DISCUSSES WHAT HE AND HIS WIFE WITNESSED AND CONSIDER PEDOPHILIA BY JACKSON AT HIS RANCH SINCE 1989.

On a side note the ABC report says that the Quindoys mentioned the beginning of their work for MJ as 1989 and this makes it clear that it was Diane Dimond who lied about them speaking at the press conference of four years of work for Michael Jackson.

In fact the Quindoys lied only about two years (the real dates of employment were May 24, 1989 – August 30, 1990). But Diane Dimond turned it into 1987-1991 which was later repeated by almost every author writing about Michael Jackson.

An excerpt from Diane Dimond’s book:

Well, no surprises here. Same as her “best source” Gutierrez, Diane Dimond is also a notorious liar, and it is a real problem that it is this kind of people who formed public opinion about Michael Jackson. By now the amount of fakes about Michael Jackson has reached a point when anything can be said about this man, and it requires much dedication and care to navigate to the truth in this bottomless sea of lies.

To see what happened at the press conference let us resort to Yan Halperin who described it in his book “Unmasked: The Final Years of Michael Jackson”:

(all screenshots from the Frontline documentary “Tabloid Truth: The Michael Jackson Story” https://youtu.be/Ldc61tv-EgE)

Shortly after Jordan Chandler’s accusations were made public a Filipino man named Mark Quindoy called a press conference in Manila to confirm that he had witnessed Jackson molesting children when he and his wife, Faye, worked as housekeeper and cook, respectively, at Neverland between 1989 and 1991 [correct year is 1990]. The couple had either quit or been fired in a dispute over overtime pay, claiming Jackson owed them almost $280,000. But now Mark Quindoy, who said he was writing a book about the singer, claimed that they had actually quit because they could not stomach what they had witnessed between Michael and the young children that he shepherded through the ranch on a daily basis.

He claimed that seventy-five boys visited the Jackson estate during his two years there and that he had recorded the names and addresses of the visitors. Moreover, he kept a diary of events along with 200 photographs.

75 boys, 200 photographs… I wonder how Mark Quindoy could make those photos – cameras were not allowed at Neverland. And this was 1990 when there were no mobile phones for taking pictures, so if somebody had seen him with a camera he would have been fired then and there. And where are those photos? Can we have a look?

“He also indicated that he had made detailed notations of what he saw every day at Neverland. Stars on the pages, he said, meant instances of abuse.”

Stars on pages? But the prosecution 1108 Motion mentions only two abuse instances allegedly witnessed by Mark Quindoy – the scene with James Safechuck at the Jacuzzi that was impossible to see (here is why) and the other case allegedly involving Robson (to be discussed later).

“Asked why they had kept quiet for so long and hadn’t gone to the authorities to report what they saw, Quindoy claimed he was afraid of “threats of Jackson’s associates.” He added, “Michael is such a big man. I was trying to protect him, but it lingered in my mind that it was a civic duty to tell the truth.”

And Maureen Orth says that they kept silence because “they were witnesses – not victims”, meaning that being only witnesses they didn’t give a damn.

“Then he dropped the bombshell. Jackson, he declared, was a “gay pedophile.” Elaborating on this accusation, he said that “whatever a gay man does to his partner during sex, Michael does to a child.”

He described a scene he had allegedly witnessed involving Jackson and one of his “special friends” as an example. “I swear I saw Michael Jackson fondling the little kid, his hands traveling on the kid’s thighs, legs, around his body. And during all this, the kid was playing with his toys.”

This vaguely reminds us of James Safechuck and the scene at the Jacuzzi, except the playing with toys part.

Another time, Quindoy recalled, he was driving Michael and a seven-year-old friend to a nearby town when he looked back and discovered the spectacle of Jackson kissing the boy “like a lover.” The boy wasn’t protesting at all, but rather sitting there unmoved. “It was just like a boy kissing a girl in the backseat,” he said. “I was utterly stunned – appalled that he could do that to a seven-year-old boy.”

And this must be about Robson.

Before long, Quindoy was appearing on the tabloid TV show, A Current Affair, where he took his accusations a step further, saying that he saw Jackson putting his hands down a boy’s underwear.

The above is the Current Affair program part 1 of this post started with.

Two investigators – Detective Fred Sicard of the Los Angeles child abuse unit and Sgt. Deborah Linden of the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department – immediately flew to Manila to question Mark Quindoy for three hours. After the session, Quindoy contacted reporters. This was becoming a habit.

“I indicated my intentions to go [to the US] if I was asked,” he said. He was never asked.

It later emerged that the Quindoys had shopped their story around to the highest bidder – a story that changed constantly depending on how much money was an offer. At one point, they were asking $900,000 for the story until Rupert Murdoch’s London-based tabloid, The News of the World, gained the story for free on a previous $25,000 agreement with the couple to provide a full and frank account of life with the Jacksons.”

Bad luck for the Quindoys, but they still hoped for a smashing success of their book they said they were writing.

Now what about the detectives who came to Manila to interview the Quindoys?

VISIT TO MANILA

The arrangements for the investigators’ arrival were made within a week after the press conference.

Two investigators – Sgt. Deborah Linden, deputy sheriff of the Santa Barbara Sheriffs department and Detective Federico Sicard from the LA police department came on September 20, 1993. They were assisted by the FBI.

The recent Daily Beast article provides some details of it, quoting the FBI files released to the public.

THE DAILY BEAST

Amy Zimmerman

Updated 03.05.19 

The files indicate that the FBI was involved in multiple investigations into Jackson. A 1993 memorandum reveals that the LAPD’s Child Sexual Abuse Section requested assistance from the FBI “in their investigation of child molestation allegation against entertainer, Michael Jackson.” More specifically, “Inquiring if the FBI would be interested in working a possible federal violation against Jackson concerning the transportation of a minor across state lines for immoral purposes.” At a subsequent meeting, “The United States Attorney’s position of not pursuing a federal investigation was expressed to the group.” However, “[Redacted] offered the assistance of the FBI in covering leads that may develop.”

The documents further detail how the FBI helped to facilitate interviews in the Philippines with two former Neverland ranch employees “concerning their knowledge of accusations against Michael Jackson of sexual abuse of young boys.” Attached newspaper clippings from 1993 cover the interviews, which occurred in the wake of Jordan Chandler’s allegations. “The detectives, one from Los Angeles, the other from Santa Barbara, began meeting Wednesday afternoon with Mariano Quindoy and his wife, Faye,” The Philippine Star reported. “The Philippine couple managed Jackson’s Neverland Valley home from 1988 to 1990.”

The article continued, “Quindoy, a 59-year-old Philippine lawyer who left Jackson’s ranch due to disagreements with other staff and a pay dispute, claimed he saw the singer fondle young boys on at least two occasions…He and his wife said they had ‘reason to believe’ the 13-year-old’s allegations against Jackson.”

The above is another instance of the media never getting their story straight – the correct dates of Quindoys’ employment are 1989-1990!

Just for the record here are the two archived newspaper clips covering the investigators’ visit. In both of them the years of Quindoys’ employment are wrong (as usual) and both speak about two occasions of alleged inappropriate behavior, though the press conference created the impression of it being an almost daily occurrence.

Monday, SEPT. 20, 1993

U.S. police to question Philippine ex-Jackson staff

MANILA — Two U.S. police detectives investigating child molestation charges against Michael Jackson will question a Philippine couple who claims the pop star fondled young boys, the American Embassy and the couple said Monday.

The detectives, from Los Angeles, California, are scheduled to arrive in Manila Tuesday to meet Mariano Quindoy, who managed Jackson’s Neverland Valley home from 1988 to 1990 with his wife, Faye.

‘That is confirmed, they are coming tomorrow,’ U.S. Embassy spokesman Frank Jenista said, adding that embassy officials had been in contact with the lawyers of Quindoy.

Jackson has been haunted for weeks by allegations he sexually abused a 13- year-old boy. The boy has filed a civil suit against the 35-year-old star in Los Angeles. Representatives of Jackson, who is currently on the Middle East leg of a world tour, have said the charges are part of an elaborate plot to extort $20 million from the mega star.

Quindoy, a 59-year-old Philippine attorney who left Jackson’s ranch due to disagreements with other staff and a pay dispute, claimed he saw the singer fondle young boys on at least two occasions.

He and his wife said they were willing to testify in the case involving the 13-year-old boy, adding they ‘had reason to believe’ his claims although the alleged incident occurred long after they had left Jackson’s employ.

Quindoy said he and his wife planned to meet with the detectives early this week in Manila’s business district. ‘They want us to shed light on the Michael Jackson case,’ he said.

Quindoy plans to write a book about what he allegedly saw during his employment at the Neverland resort. He has denied his allegations could be designed to foster interest in the manuscript.

Family and friends have rushed to Jackson’s defense including Elizabeth Taylor, who accompanied the singer for several days during appearances in Asia in early September.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1993/09/20/US-police-to-question-Philippine-ex-Jackson-staff/4856748497600/

The second article is slightly shortened to avoid repetitions.

Wednesday SEPT. 22, 1993

Two California detectives investigating child molestation allegations against Michael

MANILA — Two California detectives investigating child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson met Wednesday with a Philippine couple who claims the megastar fondled young boys.

The detectives, one from Los Angeles the other from Santa Barbara, met for just under four hours Wednesday afternoon with Mariano Quindoy and his wife, Faye at a downtown law office. The Philippine couple managed Jackson’s Neverland Valley home from 1988 to 1990.

‘As the media already knows, we are here to talk to the Quindoys,’ said Sgt. Deborah Linden, deputy sheriff at the Santa Barbara County Sheriffs Department. ‘We are not here to comment on the investigation.’

Linden refused to say whether she and Los Angeles police detective Fred Sicard would question the Quindoys further in connection with the allegations. The two arrived in the Philippines Tuesday and are scheduled to stay until at least Saturday.

Quindoy, a 59-year-old Philippine attorney who left Jackson’s ranch due to disagreements with other staff and a pay dispute, claimed he saw the singer fondle young boys on at least two occasions.

Appearing relaxed and accompanied by three lawyers, Quindoy reiterated Wednesday that he was willing to testify if the case went to court. He declined to say whether the two detectives had requested his testimony.

Quindoy plans to write a book about what he allegedly saw during his employment at the Neverland resort. He has denied his allegations could be designed to stoke interest in the manuscript.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1993/09/22/Two-California-detectives-investigating-child-molestation-allegations-against-Michael/5866748670400/

So after meeting with the investigators and accompanied by three lawyers Mariano “Mark” Quindoy spoke to the press again on Wednesday September 22, 1993. Indeed, this was becoming a habit.

The investigators were going to leave on Saturday, but left earlier than planned. Steve Knopper of the Rolling Stone spoke to the now retired Detective Federico Sicard who gives us the idea of the intensity of Mark Quindoy publicity efforts – when the detectives arrived at the airport there were 10,299 reporters there.

Steve Knopper:

“They kept a diary. We saw the diary. That was going to be a good piece of evidence,” Sicard says. “When we went to the airport, 10,299 reporters were there. ‘Man, how did they find out?’ Of course, the Quindoys probably told them we were going to interview them.” (from “MJ: The Genius of Michael Jackson”)

The Quindoys were indeed squeezing maximal publicity out of their story. On September 28, 1993 they arranged their second press conference, this time to announce that they were going to file a lawsuit against Michael Jackson for slander and libel, though their problem was actually Anthony Pellicano.

As we already know the Quindoys had a history with Pellicano, but following their first press conference Pellicano called them “cockroaches and failed extortionists”, after which they announced their plans to sue Michael Jackson “to get the head of Pellicano.”

By Deseret News Sep 28, 1993, 12:00am MDT  (Tuesday)

JACKSON CASE: A Philippine man who accused Michael Jackson of fondling young boys at his Neverland Valley ranch said Tuesday he had given detectives evidence that could lead to criminal charges against the singer. Mariano Quindoy also said he planned to file slander and libel suits in the Philippines and the United States against Jackson and his spokesperson, Anthony Pelicano, for allegedly calling him a “failed extortionist” after he made his allegations earlier this month.

The second press conference was also widely reported by the press. The AP archive has a shotlist of the ABC 20 minute-long TV report about the Quindoys:

Source: ABC News

 Date: 28/09/1993 15:02 PM

Shotlist

FTG FOR CS ON FORMER MICHAEL JACKSON EMPLOYEES MARK AND FAYE QUINDOY WHO CLAIM JACKSON PERFORMED QUESTIONABLE ACTS W/ CHILDREN

00:00:13 TWO SHOT OF MARK QUINDOY AND ATTORNEY IN ROOM

00:00:37 TWO SHOT OF FAYE AND MARK QUINDOY SEATED IN ROOM

00:01:09 MCU OF MARK QUINDOY AS HE TELLS ATTORNEY INVESTIGATOR ANTHONY PELLICANO IS THE MOUTHPIECE OF MICHAEL JACKSON

00:01:21 MCU OF ATTORNEY WHO SAYS HE IS THINKING OF FILING A CIVIL SUIT AGAINST JACKSON BECAUSE HE WANTS TO GET THE HEAD OF PELLICANO

00:01:37 HEAD ON OF QUINDOYS AT PC / MARK QUINDOY DELIVERS STATEMENT

00:02:03 SHOT PULLS INTO MCU OF MARK QUINDOY AS HE SAYS THERE HAS BEEN QUESTIONS AS TO THEIR MOTIVES REGARDING THIS CONTROVERSY INVOLVING MICHAEL JACKSON IN HIS CHILD MOLESTATION CASES

00:03:20 MARK QUINDOY SAYS THEY WILL SOON FILE CHARGES AGAINST PELLICANO FOR LIBEL

00:11:10 HE SAYS THEY WERE ESTATE MANAGERS FOR MICHAEL JACKSON

00:11:45 TWO SHOTS OF MARK AND FAYE QUINDOY

00:12:27 HEAD ON OF QUINDOY / HE SAYS THEY TOLD LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT (LAPD) EVERYTHING THEY KNOW

0:14:37 HE SAYS THEY ARE FILING SUIT AGAINST MICHAEL JACKSON AND PELLICANO FOR DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER

00:19:09 QUINDOY SAYS MICHAEL JACKSON’S ABUSE OF CHILDREN HAS GONE ON FROM THE FIRST DAY OF HIS EMPLOY W/ JACKSON UNTIL THE TIME HE LEFT

00:19:33 HE SAYS MY WIFE AND I WERE WITNESSES NOT VICTIMS

When the Quindoys’ nephew Glen Veneracion heard of their activities he was so appalled that he contacted Anthony Pellicano and said he was ready to testify against his uncle and aunt if the case went to court.

According to Lisa Campbell’s 1994 book “The King of Pop’s darkest hour” Veneracion said he was ashamed to be related to these people and as a student of law doubted the credibility of their story:

“Glen Veneracion, a law student and nephew to the Quindoys, told interviewers his aunt and uncle were opportunists and they were an embarrassment, “I just feel bad that this is happening. I’m ashamed. I’m ashamed to be related to these people. I’m ashamed for the people in our country. It’s an embarrassment. It really is.”

He described the Quindoys antics as a desperate attempt to make money, “What disturbs me the most out of all of this is that they waited so long. Why did it take them three years to come up with these allegations? That’s what really is disturbing. If this was true, they should have come out with it a long time ago instead of jumping on the bandwagon.

They never said that Michael was a pedophile, they never said that Michael was gay, so I don’t know where this is coming from. I find it shocking. It’s very disturbing to me.”

Veneracion went to Pellicano with his statement and established the lack of credibility of the Quindoys. He answered questions concerning the diary the Quindoys claimed to have kept, “I’m quite sure they wrote that diary to fit in with these allegations. He was gonna get it at any cost. And that’s what’s coming out now.” Veneracion was willing to testify in any court proceedings, “I’d be willing to step forward in a court of law and make these allegations.”

Indeed, imagine a lawyer being a witness to certain crimes and just calmly putting everything down in his diary instead of reporting it to the authorities? And then speaking favorably about the alleged perpetrator for three years and only then producing the damning document?

No wonder that when four years later Mark Quindoy offered his diary for sale no one got interested. However this lack of interest could also be due to the asking price – the Quindoys’ pricelist was constantly changing and this time they wanted 15 million pounds or roughly $20 million dollars for the publication.

Yan Halperin makes an incredulous note about it:

Four years later, Mark Quindoy hired a book agent and attempted to sell his so-called diary for the staggering sum of £15 million, promising to expose his “intimate insight” into the singer’s sexual preferences through his book, “Malice in Neverland.” Among the purported highlights of the book was his claim that Jackson had flown to London where surgeons removed distinguishing marks from his penis. There were no offers.

And it would be fine if the story ended there. But it didn’t.

TWELVE YEARS LATER

When the Arvizo absurd case led to criminal charges against Michael Jackson, Tom Sneddon took the chance and included Mariano “Mark” Quindoy’s statement into his #1108 Motion, as well as everything else they considered so-called “prior offenses” by Michael Jackson.

The Prosecution Motion was made on December 10, 2004, and filed on December 20^th, however more than a month earlier bad news came from the Philippines – Mariano “Mark” Quindoy reportedly died on November 9, 2004 and could not take part in the court proceedings for natural reasons.

This demanded a change in the Prosecution strategy, but Tom Sneddon was unperturbed and still included Quindoy’s statement into their Motion presenting him as a possible witness.

The prosecution Motion of December 10, 2004 said:

“Mr. Quindoy will also testify concerning a number of events, evidence of which does not constitute “evidence of another sexual offense” within the meaning of Evidence Code section 1108″ etc.

Three months later, in March 2005 he simply informed the judge that Mariano Quindoy, same as Charlie Michaels, “will not be called.” Here is an excerpt from that Notice:

Two of the witnesses listed in the pending motion (i.e. Orietta Murdoch and Mariano “Mark” Quindoy) will not be called.

Dated: March 16, 2005.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas W. Sneddon, Jr. District Attorney

I rule out the possibility that a month after Mark Quindoy’s death the Prosecution still had no idea that their key witness was gone.

But why then did Tom Sneddon include the statement of a witness he knew he could not call?

The goal was to eat the pie and have it too. Sneddon presented Quindoy’s uncorroborated allegations to the judge and later to the media and public (when the Motion was unsealed, leaked, etc.), at the same time effectively robbing Michael Jackson of a chance to refute Quindoy’s allegations. The witness was not there, but his statement was, thus giving no opportunity to cross-examine and challenge the witness’s story.

Tom Sneddon did the same trick at the 2005 trial with the photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia taken in 1993. The law says that the photos could be admitted into evidence only if there was a witness to give his own description. But Jordan Chandler refused to testify and though Tom Sneddon had been perfectly aware of it since September 2004, he still pretended he wanted to introduce those photos at the end of the trial. The judge naturally turned it down, but everyone was left under the impression that “the key evidence” was withheld from the jury purely for technical reasons.

But nothing could be further from the truth. Tom Sneddon never really intended to use those photos as they were to prove Michael Jackson’s innocence in the first place. All that drama was created for publicity and publicity alone. And besides the absence of Jordan Chandler one more reason why we know of Sneddon’s intention to never really introduce the photos was the absence of other witnesses – the photographer and doctor who were the only ones present during Michael Jackson’s strip search. Their authentication of those photos was necessitated by the law because otherwise any man’s genitalia could be presented as “evidence.”  However Sneddon didn’t make even the slightest attempt to call them (see here for details).

Tom Sneddon needed neither witnesses, nor photos – all he was wanted was negative publicity about Michael Jackson created virtually out of thin air.

The same was done with Mariano “Mark” Quindoy. The witness was dead, but it didn’t matter as it was his statement that was meant to work against MJ. And whether it was corroborated or not didn’t matter either.

And now indeed this statement is living a life of its own. When James Safechuck and Wade Robson made their U-turn against Jackson they got familiar with the Quindoy’s allegations and used them as their inspiration. This is how James Safechuck’s scene at the pool arose and how his comparison with “newlyweds” came into being. Similarly, some details of Mariano “Mark” Quindoy’s statement can now be easily recognized in Wade Robson’s story.

This is actually a well-tested method of making their never-ending lies about Jackson.

First somebody lied about Michael Jackson in 1993 in the hope of getting millions. The same lies, often in their exaggerated form, were repeated at the 2005 trial and its various Prosecution Motions. And years later the two bastards used the same papers to structure their own allegations about Michael Jackson – in the hope of getting hundreds of millions this time.

And the unsuspecting public still wonders how Mark Quindoy could “know” in 1993 what these bastards are claiming today? There is no way for these parallel stories to be inconsistent because these guys are using the old lies, unfortunately elaborated in great detail in books, documents and prosecution statements.

And it is only the blunders made by the first liars which give away the pattern used – if their blunder is repeated by the current accusers we can be one hundred per cent sure that they used the initial lies as a blueprint for their own.

If somebody tells you that he kept a diary when travelling to an exotic place, and when you start reading it you find that the the names and locations are all wrong, the dates are messed up and the museum described was closed in that particular season, you will suspect that the writer is pulling your leg and just fabricated the whole thing, probably never going on that trip at all.

The same with Mariano “Mark” Quindoy.

Mark Quindoy reads out from his diary, 1993

Quindoy claimed that he kept a diary since his first day of employment at Neverland, but it has so many inaccuracies in the dates, names and descriptions that at some point you start realizing that it is a fabrication.

Michael Jackson’s detractors will excuse Quindoy’s blunders by saying that “it was long ago and he simply misremembered it”, however this excuse cannot be applied to a diary which is kept then and there and if something worthy of attention happens in the morning you make a note of it in the evening. Or the next day. Or the same week at the very latest.

A diary cannot have any discrepancies and if not true to life in its every detail, it is actually an imitation based on outside sources and the author’s fantasy. It is either this or that,  with no shades of gray in between.

Therefore it is no use sorting through the mess of Mariano Quindoy’s diary trying to filter the “correct” facts from its lies and inaccuracies – if some pieces of his diary are messed up it means that the whole of it was fabricated.

WHAT THE ‘DIARY’ SAYS ABOUT SAFECHUCK

Mariano Quindoy’s diary has reached us in its several versions. First it was reported by the media as Quindoy presented it at his 1993 press conference in Manila. Then Quindoy’s ideas were stated in the prosecution “Prior Bad Acts” Motion of December 10, 2004. And then it was retold in several books (Diane Dimond’s is the example).

Let us go over Quindoy’s most striking statements that went into the Prosecution “Prior Bad Acts” Motion.

Look at this piece concerning Jimmy Safechuck, for example – in the first post about Quindoy this excerpt was already quoted, but now let’s focus on the dates:

They commenced their employment on May 25, 1989. The Quindoys’ job duties included welcoming guests and celebrities visiting the ranch, preparing the guest quarters, and responding to Jackson’s needs and those of his guests after-hours, when the day staff had gone home.

Immediately upon their employment, the Quindoys began to keep a personal diary of significant events at the ranch. On their second day of employment they learned about Jimmy Safechuck, a young boy who was a constant companion of Michael Jackson and who was spending nights with Jackson in his bedroom.

So at the end of May 1989 Safechuck supposedly visited Neverland, and we get the impression that when one month later Blanca Francia went on vacation, Safechuck was still there:

Approximately one month after the Quindoys began their employment, Blanca Francia, Michael Jackson’s personal maid, went on a month-long vacation to El Salvador. She was the only person allowed in Jackson’s private quarters, and in her absence, the Quindoys were assigned to clean the area.

Michael Jackson told the Quindoys that Jimmy Safechuck slept in the Shirley Temple room, a bedroom located upstairs but within Jackson’s private quarters. However the Quindoys found this not to be true. During the month that Mark and Ofelia cleaned Jackson’s private quarters, cleaning the Shirley Temple room was part of their responsibilities. They went there every day and observed that the bed was not slept in.”

It is absurd to believe that in the absence of his personal maid Michael Jackson could allow the near strangers to take care of his bedroom, especially if Jimmy Safechuck allegedly stayed there. But the same idea will sound less ridiculous if you learn that Michael was away at the time when the Quindoys had access to his room.

As a housekeeper Mark Quindoy had the keys to all rooms at Neverland and if Michael was away – even if they were not assigned to do any cleaning in his bedroom – they could easily go there out of curiosity or other reasons, to inspect it and rummage through his belongings as much as they wanted to.

According to Quindoy their period of “cleaning” Michael’s bedroom started a month after they began their employment and lasted for another month, which takes us to the end of June – end of July 1989.

So the question is – was Michael Jackson at Neverland in June-July 1989 or he wasn’t?

Mike Smallcombe, MJ’s biographer, interviewed the musicians who worked with Michael Jackson on his albums, and they say that exactly in June 1989 Michael started working on an album of his earlier hits called “Decade” which was supposed to have only a handful of new songs. But Michael had too many new ideas, so eventually he gave up the idea of “Decade” and turned it into a wholly new “Dangerous” album. The work took 18 months on and off, but when it began in June 1989 it was quite intense – first they had two recording studios in LA, then the team worked in three rooms at Westlake studio.

And since it was too time-consuming to drive 100 miles from Los Angeles to Neverland every day, Michael stayed the nights in his city condo.

Matt Forger, MJ’s collaborator and friend said to Mike Smallcombe:

Q. Dangerous [ ] started out life as a greatest hits album. How did that begin for you?

A: In June 1989, I began working with Michael at Westlake Studio C on a few new songs for that greatest hits album.”

Q: Where was Michael was staying when he was recording in L.A at that time?

A: He had a condo, where I don’t know. He would – he would refer to going to the condo. That’s all I know.

Matt Forger and Michael Jackson

Mike Smallcombe adds to it:

“In the summer of 1989, after a few months of rest at Neverland, Michael returned to the studio to begin recording new material for Decade. With the ranch over 100 miles away, Michael would mostly stay at his secret three-storey condominium in Century City – which he called the ‘Hideout’ – whenever he was working in Los Angeles.

Inspired by seeing the world, Michael had been writing songs while spending time at his ranch after the Bad Tour. Forger said Michael returned from his tour with certain impressions. “His social commentary kicked up a notch or two,” he said. “Most of the early songs we worked on were more socially conscious. His consciousness of the planet was much more to the forefront.” The most prominent of these were later titled ‘They Don’t Care About Us’ and ‘Earth Song’.

Michael and Forger began working on these tracks in Westlake’s Studio C on Santa Monica Boulevard in June 1989. While Forger was based at Westlake, Bottrell worked over at Ocean Way Recording, a short distance across Hollywood on Sunset Boulevard.[ ] In July 1989, Bottrell brought in keyboardist Brad Buxer to join the team. As soon as Bottrell moved to Westlake, he and Buxer began working with Michael on a song called ‘Black or White’, which Michael wrote in early 1989 in his ‘Giving Tree’ overlooking the lake at Neverland. Bottrell was also asked to work on an idea Michael had previously started with Matt Forger, an environmental protest track which eventually became ‘Earth Song’ [] In the fall of 1989, Michael and his team began working on another environmental awareness anthem, ‘Heal the World’, which was originally called ‘Feed the World’. After a few months of work at Westlake, producer/songwriter Bryan Loren, who was only 23 at the time, joined the team and worked in a third room at the studio. It was after songs such as ‘Black or White’ and ‘Heal the World’ were developed when Michael began entertaining the idea of recording a full album of new material, rather than a greatest hits package with only a handful of new songs.”

So the summer of 1989 was a very busy time for Michael Jackson. After spending several months at Neverland following the “Bad” tour and writing new songs on his Giving Tree, in June 1989 Michael finally went to Los Angeles to record them, and not to lose time on driving back and forth he stayed in LA in his Hideout condo there.

Now the reason why Blanca Francia had a month-long vacation at that very time also becomes clear – Michael was leaving the ranch anyway and his personal maid had nothing to do there, so she went on a long visit to her El-Salvador homeland.

And while Michael was away no one stayed in his bedroom, so when the Quindoys allege that they went to Michael’s private quarters every day and found that the bed in Shirley Temple room “was not slept in,” their statement is actually … true. That bed or any other bed in Michael’s room was indeed not slept in, simply because neither Michael, nor anyone else was there.

‘Shirley Temple” bedroom in MJ’s two-storey private quarters

The Quindoys’ formally true statement turns into a big lie only when placed in the context of Jimmy Safechuck’s implied stay at Neverland during that period. In fact this is how all of us understood it, because Quindoy’s wording suggested it and it was in this capacity that it was used in the Prosecution Motion.

To suggest it even further Quindoy said that on June 25, 1989 he and his wife saw Safechuck’s underwear on the floor next to MJ’s bed:

“On at least two occasions, and possibly more, both Quindoys saw Jimmy Safechuck’s underwear lying on the floor next to Jackson’s bed. (The two occasions noted in their diary are June 25, 1989 and May 5, 1990). They know the underwear belonged to Jimmy and not Jackson, because the underwear was very small; smaller than Jackson’s underwear which they had seen and knew to be Jockey brand and white. Also, no other young boy was on the ranch and sleeping with Jackson at the time of these observations.”

But the date of June 25, 1989 is impossible. At that time Michael Jackson was already in LA, and if we are to believe Quindoy’s story we’ll also have to believe that as soon as Blanca Francia left, Michael Jackson immediately invited Jimmy Safechuck to Neverland to reveal all his “secrets” to near strangers like the Quindoys – not to mention the fact that such recklessness goes counter to Safechuck’s own allegations that MJ was top cautious in everything he allegedly did.

So when you have a closer look, you realize that the story is a pure insult to human intellect and usual common sense.

Actually I don’t rule out that while inspecting every speck of dust under the cover of “cleaning” Michael’s bedroom, the Quindoys could indeed find some youngster’s clothes left in the closet or laundry bag – so what of it? As to the fact that in Michael’s absence they went through his belongings with a fine-tooth comb I have no doubt whatsoever.

For the next scene concerning Safechuck which Mark Quindoy allegedly observed near the pool, please go to the first post again, while we will proceed to another excerpt from Quindoy’s statement involving Wade Robson this time.

THE ‘DIARY’ ABOUT ROBSON

According to the “Prior Bad Acts” Motion,

“Mr. Quindoy described another incident that occurred on Saturday, February 3, 1990, involving Wade Robson. Mr. Quindoy said that Wade Robson came to visit Jackson at the ranch.”

The Robsons’ arrival indeed occurred on Saturday February 3, 1990. The family managed to contact Michael Jackson only eight days after Wade Robson’s performance in Disneyland where he danced as part of the Australian Young Talent dance school that came to the US to celebrate the Day of Australia there. The date of celebration was January 26, 1990.

For those who missed it here is a short reminder of the reason for the eight-day delay. Since the time Joy and Wade Robson first met MJ at a dance contest in Australia in 1987 they had no contact with Michael Jackson. Joy Robson says they wrote him “three or four letters” but Michael didn’t receive them.  So when they came to the US equipped with video tapes of Robson’s dance they tried this and that to contact him, but managed to meet Michael only with the help of Norma Staikos and only 8 days later.

And now Robson accuses Norma Staikos of setting up that meeting.

“Wade Robson was accompanied by Joy Robson, his mother, Dennis Robson, his father, Chantel, his sister, and his grandparents, Hughes and Jen Collin.”

Whether these names are correct or not the fact that Quindoy knew them should not disturb anyone– there was a special log at Neverland with visitors’ names noted there and meeting Michael’s guests was Quindoy’s direct duty.

“The adult visitors arrived in a limousine. Jackson, Wade and Chantel arrived in a separate vehicle.”

Oh, this finally explains why Robson is claiming in Dan Reed’s film that he and Chantal arrived at Neverland in a separate car. Before he started his allegations his memory had no recollection of even the most basic facts of their visit to Neverland, so he had to send emails to ask his mother, but after reading Quindoy’s statement he suddenly recalled even this tiny point about arriving in a separate car and elaborated on it in Reed’s film in great and unnecessary detail.

So while he claimed that his memory “evolved” as a result of some insight oriented therapy, the plain truth is that he simply took this and possibly other ideas from Quindoy’s statement.

“The Robsons told Quindoy they met Jackson in Australia and Jackson invited them to the ranch. From the first night on, young Wade stayed with Jackson in his bedroom and the other guests stayed in the guest cottages. Wade and his family stayed at the ranch approximately a week.”

The fact that Wade stayed in Michael’s room is not disputed by anyone, however Quindoy forgot to mention that Wade’s sister was there too.

But his last point – about Wade and the family staying at the ranch approximately a week – is a real bombshell.

What we see here is the third version of the family’s stay at Neverland in February 1990. Robson says that he was left alone at Neverland while his family went to the Grand Canyon, and his mother testified under oath on three different occasions, with a regularity of every 12 years, that all of them went away and returned only the next weekend.

And now Quindoy is telling us that no one went away and the whole family stayed at Neverland for a week!

At this point we realize in its full entirety that Mark Quindoy never kept any diary at all.

We even wish that he had, because if he had really kept it, now it would be an enormous help as we could get first-hand information about who left when, and which of the Robsons is lying – Wade Robson or his mother.

But instead of a clear-cut statement all we have are some vague recollections of Mr. Quindoy that “Wade and his family stayed approximately a week.”

However on second thought we begin realizing that Quindoy may not be even that wrong, because if we add up the two weekends it will indeed make approximately a week, coinciding with the impression Quindoy had of their stay.

And then it suddenly dawns on us how extremely helpful Quindoy’s recollection is for establishing the truth and getting undeniable proof that Wade Robson did not stay alone at the ranch and left with his family.

Actually, if I were a Wade Robson supporter, I would be furious with the Quindoys.

Why?

And how could Quindoy not notice that between the two weekends the 7-year old boy was left all alone at Neverland?

How could this bastard Quindoy not leave a single word about it in his diary?

And where was his wife Faye who cooked meals at Neverland? Why didn’t she notice that the boy was staying on his own? Wasn’t she supposed to see him having meals there three times a day?

Indeed, how could the Quindoys NOT document any of it in their diary???

They should have left a three-page account of every day the poor seven-year old spent at Neverland alone with Jackson, but instead they left nothing?!

And where was Michael’s personal maid Blanca Francia, by the way? Her holiday had been long over, so why didn’t she notice poor Wade staying in Michael’s room on every single day and night during that week?  She testified on numerous occasions, made all possible and impossible statements, but never said a word about that episode!

And where were Orieta Murdock, MJ’s assistant and Charlie Michaels, a guard at Neverland who happened to work there at the same time as Franca and Quindoy, who didn’t notice either that the small boy was left at Neverland all alone by his heartless family?

And why didn’t all these respectable people say a single word about it in their statements to DA Tom Sneddon which later turned into the “Prior Bad Acts” Motion against Jackson?

I know I sound like Janet Arvizo with all these where-were-they questions, but you will agree that for Wade Robson this mass amnesia of people who were supposed to be direct witnesses of what he says now is a complete outrage!

And for us it is an eye-opening experience, and also a lesson that we should stop paying attention to what all these people said and start paying attention to what they did not say.

Leaving Robson’s supporters to fume over the glaring omission of his lone stay there, let us go back to Quindoy and read his other statements regarding Robson.

~

Quindoy claims that he remembers a certain incident on February 9, 1990 when he allegedly drove Michael Jackson and Wade Robson to a nearby city where they went on a shopping spree.

February 9th was Friday and since the whole Robson family had been away for a week I am almost ready to believe that they came back for their second weekend at Neverland not on Saturday but on Friday.

This is what the “Prior Bad Acts” Motion says about Quindoy’s observations during that trip.

“Shortly after 6:00 p.m., on February 9, 1990, Mr. Quindoy drove Jackson and Wade Robson to Santa Barbara in what he described as Jackson’s “Chevy ‘Jimmy’ Blazer.” Jackson and Wade Robson rode in the back seat while Quindoy drove. They arrived in Santa Barbara at approximately 7:00 p.m. and went on a shopping spree at Circuit City and K-B Toy Store in La Cumbre Plaza.”

On the drive back to Neverland, Mr. Quindoy glanced in the rearview mirror and was astonished to see Michael Jackson with his arms around young Robson, kissing him passionately on his face and neck. Mr. Quindoy said it was just like a boy kisses a girl in the backseat, except that in this case the other party was also a young male, and he was not responding. Wade was wearing shorts and Jackson’s hand was traveling up one thigh to the other, around Wade Robson’s genitalia area. During this time, Wade was playing with his toys and was noticeably unresponsive to Jackson’s fondling.”

I have duly checked up the locations and names of the shops mentioned, and found that they did indeed exist in Santa Barbara (later they closed), so this part is impeccable.

La Cumbre Plaza in Santa Barbara

K-B toys (now closed)

Circuit City was the nation’s second largest retailer in consumer electronics

However the wrong detail in Quindoy’s statement is the city they allegedly visited.

The problem is that at his 1993 press-conference Mr. Quindoy spoke of a small neighboring town of Solvang, and unfortunately for Quindoy no such shopping malls ever existed in Solvang as its population is barely 5300 people.

Here is what Quindoy said in 1993 the way it is relayed to us by Christopher Andersen in his “Michael Jackson: Unauthorized” book, published a year later:

“In exhaustive accounts later given to Los Angeles police investigators—accounts backed up by prodigiously detailed diaries kept by both himself and his wife—Mark Quindoy claimed to have seen Michael molest several of his special friends. [ ] Michael often took his little friends on short excursions up to Solvang, and one day he asked Quindoy if he would drive him and his seven-year-old friend there in the four-wheel-drive Chevrolet Blazer. At Solvang Michael took the boy to see a huge dollhouse that he was thinking of duplicating at the ranch.[ ]The seven-year-old stayed for three weeks, and no sooner did he leave with his mother on vacation than a nine-year-old took his place. According to the Quindoy’s diaries, this boy spent up to nineteen days at a time at the ranch. More than once” [1994]

“Diane Dimond also refers to Sovang in her 2005 book:

“During another instance, Quindoy said, Michael Jackson asked him to drive him and a seven-year-old companion into the neighboring town of Solvang. The trip was so Jackson could see a huge dollhouse that he was thinking of duplicating at the ranch. Driving back to Neverland at dusk, Quindoy said he caught sight of a shocking scene in the backseat of the Chevrolet Blazer. His employer was acting “like a lover,” kissing the boy passionately. []  …with the headlights of passing cars illuminating the inside of the vehicle, he saw Michael begin to kiss the youngster everywhere – his neck, head, arms, shoulders, and body. “I was utterly stunned – appalled that he could do that to a seven-year-old boy.”

So Andersen and Dimond say that Quindoy named Solvang at his press conference, and Tom Sneddon says that it was Santa Barbara.

What can explain this miraculous change in the name of the town stated in the official prosecution paper?

Version 1 is that the prosecutors studied Quindoy’s diary and corrected it in their Motion after finding that there were no significant toy and electronic shops in Sovang.

Version 2 is that Quindoy himself realized his mistake and approached the investigators with an updated variant complete with the names of the shops to add a tinge of authenticity to his fabricated story.

In other words this part of Quindoy’s diary is also a mess, however numerous well-wishers tried to fix it.

Diane Dimond, for example, struggled to explain how Quindoy could see all those horrible things despite the “dusk” and said that the “the headlights of passing cars were illuminating the inside of the vehicle”.

1990 Chevrolet Blazer has dark tinted windows in the backseat

In contrast to her Tom Sneddon did not even bother to explain how the hand “around the boy’s genitalia area” could be seen in the rearview mirror which shows the faces of people in the backseat and not their lower torso.

The matter of visibility in the “dusk” was obviously a problem, and this is probably why Quindoy claimed that they set out on a trip at a relatively early hour, at 6 p.m. and arrived in their “Santa Barbara” an hour later.

But all of them forgot that for fear of being mobbed Michael Jackson usually went shopping after the shopping hours, and this is why the idea that they arrived at the shopping mall on Friday and at its most crowded hour of 7 p.m. sounds like black humor to us.

We can also wonder why no paparazzi noticed their visit and why we don’t have any media reports about MJ being mobbed there. And where were the bodyguards? Or does Mariano “Mark” Quindoy want us to believe that Michael went shopping in the rush hour without any bodyguards? Or was MJ in so heavy disguise that no one recognized him, but then how was all that “kissing” possible?

And what about “the shorts” the little boy was wearing? The Historical Weather Data site says that on February 9, 1990 the temperature in Santa Barbara was +8 C, but here I am in doubt – probably Australian boys are used to wearing shorts in this kind of weather?

The temperature in Santa Barbara on February 9, 1990 evening was +8 Centigrade

The final piece from Quindoy stated in the Prosecution Motion is as follows:

“On another occasion, the Quindoys stated that the same boy, who was about age nine, spent up to 19 days at a time at Neverland, every night of which he slept in Jackson’s bedroom. Mr. Quindoy said the boy and Michael never left each other’s side during the youngster’s stay.

… On many occasions Mr. and Mrs. Quindoy each observed Jackson to be hugging, kissing and having physical contact with both Safechuck and Wade Robson, in a manner the Quindoys felt was inappropriate. The Quindoys terminated their employment on August 30, 1990.”

The “same boy” is actually Wade Robson, only now the scene described takes place two years later as he is already “about age nine”.

Excerpt from the Prosecution “Prior Bad Acts’ Motion, Dec.10, 2004

We have no reason to disbelieve Tom Sneddon that Quindoy was referring to Robson in this episode – the prosecutors had a team of investigators at their disposal and they should know. So if the episode is really about Robson, the only time it was physically possible was when Robson and his mother and sister arrived in the US on a permanent stay in September 1991, when he was indeed about age nine.

However the Quindoys left their job a year earlier, in August 1990, so this point in Quindoy’s diary is misplaced by a whole year and they couldn’t see any of it for purely technical reasons.

If we play the devil’s advocate and replace Robson with the nine-year old Safechuck in the same episode, the picture will become more realistic, but then a question arises – what kind of a diary is it if all the names, dates and locations there are wrong and there isn’t a single correct point in it? Not a single one!

There can’t be any doubt now that the Quindoys’ diary is a fabrication. It is a made up story written years later on the basis of their memories and most probably with the help of the ideas suggested to Quindoy by his collaborator Victor Gutierrez.

And remember that as his story grew more and more horrid the price for it also escalated – from the initial $283,000 to $20 million (see post 2 for details).

But despite Mariano “Mark” Quindoy telling obvious lies about Jackson, we should be very grateful to him for the legacy he left to future generations. Due to his so-called diary Quindoy revealed that the two of them had been constantly spying on Jackson, followed his every step and therefore would have never overlooked a small 7-year old boy left at Neverland alone with the horrible Jackson. If that stay had been true Quinodoy would have turned it into the centre point of his allegations against Michael, describing to us in much detail the days and nights the “couple” spent there.

However he described nothing of the kind and never even mentioned it, same as all other employees at Neverland who happened to work with the Quindoys right at that time – Blanca Francia, Orieta Murdock and Charlie Michaels to name only a few.

NONE OF THEM noticed the small boy  staying alone at Neverland and none left a single word about it in their statements to the prosecutors which later formed the basis of the “Prior Bad Acts” Motion against Jackson.

And if no one noticed it means that Robson was not there and has told us a terrible lie in the “Leaving Neverland” film.

Remember his ravishing descriptions of “sex” that allegedly began immediately after his parents left him?

Now you can rest assured that it never happened.

WADE ROBSON EXPLAINS IT ALL

It’s funny that it was also Wade Robson who explained to us why Michael Jackson didn’t realize that having children in his bedroom is not an accepted social norm.

Only the man who said it was the Robson of an earlier format – the one who still insisted on Michael’s complete innocence wherever he went.

The opinion of that Wade Robson was voiced in November 2003 when the trial was still far off and no one forced him to tell the public that he used to sleep in Michael’s bedroom. He said it of his own free will and gave his own explanation why Michael didn’t see anything wrong about it.

November 26, 2003

Aussie Star Tells of Sharing Jackson’s Bed

AUSTRALIAN Wade Robson is one of the hottest young talents in Hollywood and yesterday he revealed he had as a child shared a bed with Michael Jackson.

Brisbane-born Robson, who has a hit TV show in the US and a three-movie directing deal with Disney, broke his silence about the years he spent visiting Jackson at Neverland Ranch in California.

He is now 21 and shadowed by his friendship with the superstar, which began at age five. But Robson says it was an innocent relationship that never involved any sort of abuse.

“I never had that experience and I hope that it never happened to anybody else,” he said.

Robson yesterday said he also visited the sprawling Neverland Ranch north of Los Angeles after his family moved to the US with the encouragement of Jackson.

Robson met the entertainer in 1987 after winning a Jackson dance-impersonation contest and was then invited to perform with Jacko at his Brisbane concert.

In 1991, Robson, his mother, Joy, and his sister Chantelle moved to LA and he was almost immediately cast in three of Jackson’s videos — including Black or White.

He was later signed to Jackson’s private label as half of a short-lived rap duo, Quo.

Over the years, Robson said, Jackson bought him instruments and encouraged him in their friendship, which, according to the 187cm rising star, was always “creatively based”.

“His initial interest in me was because of my dancing. He saw the talent and the spark I had inside me and all he has ever wanted to do is just help my career,” he said.

Asked if he had ever slept in Jackson’s bed, Robson said: “Yeah, but nothing strange happened.”

Robson said he didn’t think it was “weird” that a grown man would share the same bed as a child.

“Everything in life is so complex. He just wanted something around that was simple — to hang with kids,” he said.

“The biggest thing you have to understand is that he has no concept of reality.

“He has been a superstar since he was five years old.

“I mean, what concept does he have of what society thinks is right?”

Robson said he no longer saw Jackson as often as he did as a child — maybe I will talk to him every six months — but he would always remain a friend.

“I will always support him and whatever happens is supposed to happen — I hope it works out for him,” he said.

“It is sad to see.”

Robson, a choreographer and songwriter for Britney Spears and ‘N Sync, has just scored the second highest rating show on MTV with the live dance contest The Wade Robson Project.

He has also been signed to direct three films for Disney, the first a musical, which is scheduled to begin shooting next year.

Hobart Mercury (Australia) – MICHAEL McKENNA

http://mjjr.net/robson/#s20031126 [link now defunct]

Let me repeat Robson’s opinion:

“The biggest thing you have to understand is that he has no concept of reality.

“He has been a superstar since he was five years old.

“I mean, what concept does he have of what society thinks is right?”

[Wade Robson]

Mind you that the above is not a statement of a coerced person.

These are Wade Robson’s own words as he looked at Michael Jackson from aside and saw the problem Michael did not realize himself and therefore couldn’t impose on anyone.

Robson was clever enough to notice that Michael’s life-long isolation from the outside world gave him no concept of reality. As a result he didn’t know the accepted standards of behavior and that what was a norm in the packed bedroom of their house in Gary is not what society thinks is right.

Michael couldn’t understand why what was good for him as a child is no good for others, and why such sleepovers are supposed to be something shameful and are never to be spoken of. Actually the very fact that he freely spoke about them shows the difference between him and all the rest of us.

His open ways made him extremely vulnerable to the allegations. People like Mariano “Mark” Quindoy saw their opportunity for extortion here and took advantage of the easy target Michael Jackson really was.

And now Robson and Safechuck are taking advantage of the same opportunity.

No wonder Robson wrote in his manuscript, “It’s time to have mine!”

Sometimes there are dates or anniversaries of which you don’t know whether to celebrate them or to mourn them. After Michael Jackson’s 10th death anniversary this year, we now have the 10^th anniversary of the foundation of our Vindicate MJ blog. Exactly today 10 years ago, on November 21 in 2009, Helena sent this blog online into the world with these first words:

“Father, Forgive Them; They Don’t Know What They Are Doing…”, with Johann Sebastian Bach’s famous Orchestral Suite No. 3 in D Major called “Air” and with her explanation why she started this work.

Well, in view of the fact that nothing has changed since November 2009 and that we still have to fight for the truth, it’s hard to celebrate this 10 year anniversary. And meanwhile I believe it is fair to say that some things cannot be forgiven anymore – at least it is up to God to forgive the liars, our human souls are not able to do this.

When faced with the “Leaving Neverland” spectacle this year, it felt like we were thrown back to the beginning of our journey and have to start with educating people all over again.

However, what happened within these 10 years made us stronger and helped us to counter these new allegations with much more knowledge. There was so much research done by Jackson’s fans and supporters in this decade that we now can reply to every new claim and allegation with an enormous amount of facts like nobody else. This was harder in the beginning after Michael’s death than it is now.

Of course, the media didn’t learn much during this time, they ignore most of the facts now as they did it in earlier years. This is a systematic approach! We cannot rely on their objective treatment of Michael Jackson and all the stories spread about him. When it comes to MJ, they are still not interested in doing the task assigned to them: detailed fact-checking and objective assessment and reporting of stories and allegations.

But with all the research that was done by Michael Jackson “truthers” in an almost scientific manner since Michael’s death, we today can be very sure and convinced that we are right! That we are not mistaken! Because with every new fact we found out, our convictions were corroborated. And this is the joint work of international groups of bloggers, advocates and researchers, of which Helena is one of the most important.

On this day I want to highlight particularly the work done by Helena in the course of these 10 years, with so much passion that sometimes her health suffered severely from it. I remember the several public trials she covered arduously, writing posts every day and night, hardly sleeping during these weeks. I remember the attacks from MJ haters by impersonating the blog with lies and fake news. I remember her falling in a hurry and breaking her wrists which required her to stay in hospital for a while and leaving the blog to others, when she couldn’t write herself. The several times of absence from the blog always made the readers miss her very much – because she could not and never can be replaced. Her quick perception and excellent judgment and assessment of things are unparalleled and so much needed in difficult situations when false stories on Michael become overwhelming and people don’t know what to believe. In these times we need somebody with a clear view, with a wealth of knowledge and a good memory, leading us through the waves of rumors, untruths and biased reporting.

Certainly, nobody can do this amount of work on a daily basis for years. We need to stay healthy, we have families and have to care for other things and family members. So the temporal intervals between writing posts became longer over time, and it also didn’t seem necessary to repeat all facts any time new claims and lies on Michael came up. Principally, all was said on the allegations, and the facts speak for themselves.

But this year was different. Leaving Neverland and the two liars and their director made us nearly vomit considering the filthiness and the impertinence of their lies. And also nauseating was the fact that the media and the entertainment industry embraced the film despite the transparency of the lies, as well as the fact that pedophilia doesn’t seem any longer a subject of disgust, but of entertainment and a new ideology (“children can enjoy sex with adults”). Moreover, the agenda to bring down Jackson’s legacy became so obvious.

Seeing Robson and Safechuck going so far as to present themselves with their lies as movie stars (with even photo sessions showing them as the popstars they always wanted to be) was a shock – not a shock about the lies they told, because we already knew them – but a shock about how low some people can sink to make headlines and to take revenge.

The good thing that happened after the initial shock was the unity and the collective reaction of the fanbase and MJ advocates. And especially that many younger “MJ truthers” took over and stroke back on Twitter, YouTube and other social media, even in form of a great documentary, with joint forces and vast knowledge. This gives us a lot of hope. Helena and I are over 60 now, and we need the younger ones to take over and continue the work. It is necessary that younger fans carry forward the vindication work with the same passion and with new instruments and skills, and we are glad that we can rely on them.

Now I would particularly like to say a big Thank you to Helena for her tireless work and commitment. She is one of the pioneers in the MJ blogger community that emerged after Michael’s death, and did a lot of the essential research we needed for today. And we hope that she will be here as long as possible and give us the light we need.

I think we can be thankful that we could keep the blog alive for 10 years now and that nobody could break us. Considering the new law controlling the internet in Helena’s home country, this cannot be taken for granted for the future. And now that a new Californian legislation enables Robson and Safechuck to return their cases to the trial court, there is possibly a lot more work to do and we are far from reaching our goal. But we hope for the best that we will be able to go on TOGETHER!

The VMJ blog is an academic Chair for studying Michael Jackson, and it hopefully will exist another 10 years and longer, beyond our own lives, to educate next generations. This is our wish and we will take care that it remains safe. Thanks to all our readers who keep us going!

May God bless you, Helena!

The name of Blanca Francia is now firmly associated with Wade Robson. She used to be a personal maid to Michael Jackson, who later made controversial statements about him, and Robson insisted on Michael’s innocence for the first 30 years of his life, but since making his U-turn in 2013 has told most horrible things about his former friend.

So previously Francia and Robson were on the opposite sides of the barrier, and now they are allies whose case against Jackson is based on each other stories – Blanca Francia thinks she saw the shadow of Robson in Michael Jackson’s shower at Neverland, and Robson, though recalling none of it himself, goes much further and claims she saw Michael Jackson “rubbing the Plaintiff” and “the Plaintiff’s head was pressed against Michael Jackson’s stomach area.”

The above Robson’s statements come from his Motion to amend his third amended complaint filed on September 9, 2016 (for its screenshot see the collage below).

The collage, combining an excerpt from the 2016 Motion and Robson’s milder version of the same from an earlier court document, was made by Hammer whose Twitter account also introduced me to the recent 2016 deposition of Blanca Francia.

Why is the description of the shower episode different in Robson’s two court documents and why is the amended 2016 version so gross in its content?

Whenever Robson’s story is found inconsistent his standard reply is that his memory “evolved”. But given that the new amendment was made three days after Blanca Francia’s deposition on September 6, 2016, it would be logical to assume that Robson took all those salacious details from her new testimony – however the problem here is that Blanca Francia said nothing of the kind there, so Robson must have drawn inspiration from another source.

Of course Blanca Francia’s deposition is available to us only in the bits and pieces put online by the one who bought those pages from the court reporter, but when you start reading the little we have, you will realize that even the above graphic content is not that important as it fades in comparison with the discovery we make there.

The thing is that Blanca Francia’s deposition discloses to us a new, big and really fundamental problem the two allies are facing now. It is fundamental because it overturns the foundations of their story, so all those details no longer matter and the new discovery is a disaster to their alliance as a whole.

Blanca Francia’s recent deposition reveals that she could not see Wade Robson in that shower because by the time of the alleged episode Robson had not even arrived in the US.

The proof that Robson was not there is irrefutable and the only real shock to me is that no one has yet noticed it. The reason for that is probably because very few people had access to Blanca Francia’s depositions  –  I myself found them only recently, after seeing some of those pieces on Hammer’s twitter account.

This link will take you to an 82-page selection from Blanca Francia’s two latest depositions. Yes, she was deposed twice as the dates on the papers show it – first on September 6, 2016 and then a month later, on October 3. The text format of those depositions is different, so when you see the pages you will easily differentiate between the two.

Wade Robson was present at least at the first deposition because its cover page mentions his attendance.

The cover pages of the second deposition are missing, so we don’t know if he was present, but there is every reason to believe that he was.

During Blanca Francia’s testimony Robson’s side was represented by Mr. Manly and Mr. Finaldi. The side of MJJ Productions was represented by Ms. MacIsaac.

Both sides also read out some excerpts from Blanca Francia’s earlier deposition in 1994 when she was deposed within the framework of the Chandler civil case against Jackson by the attorneys in that case – Johnny Cochran (for MJ) and Larry Feldman (for the Chandlers).

With so many documents interloping with each other the first impression is that this collection of papers is a bit of a mess, and this is evidently why the person who uploaded them underlined some of Blanca Francia’s statements to immediately navigate the reader to the worst in her testimony.

In fact, this most “damning” part of Blanca Francia’s testimony is in the excerpt below, and we see that though this is indeed the worst Blanca Francia ever claimed about Jackson, none of it contains those salacious details described by Robson in his fabricated complaint.

Blanca Francia’s deposition on September 6, 2016. Pages 129-130.

BLANCA FRANCIA ANSWERS MR. MANLY’S QUESTIONS:

Q. So, did there ever come a time when you came into Michael’s roam and you heard him in the shower with a boy?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you describe that.

A. I came with clothes, that I remember, and went into his room, and I hear loud music, and I hear  laughing and giggling and, you know, screaming, you know, and as I was walking to the bathroom, to the shower, I hear little voice of a boy and Michael’s  voice, and I — as I was walking, I looked down and I  saw a pair of underwear which was little underwears and Michael’s underwear, and I stopped, and I saw them in the shower.

Q. Was it kind of fogged –

A. Yes.

Q. — the glass? So you saw an outline of Michael’s body?

A. Yes. And I hear a little — the giggling.

Q. Okay.

A. The little boy’s.

Q. Whose voice did the little voice sound like?

A. Wade.

Q. Wade was staying at the property at the time; correct?

A. Yea. And I know they were his little underwears because I washed them before.

Q. Were they green?

A. Green. Neon green.

Q. Did you stay there watching?

A. No. I watched him, and that’s when I – when I — when I — when I start to realize what’s going on.

Q. Tell me about that.

A. I see him taking baths, taking — staying at the Jacuzzi from — from Havenhurst, but at that time  when I saw him with the little underwears there and — and his underwear, that’s when I started to realize maybe something’s going on here.

Q. Did you start to think that maybe it wasn’t just innocent play?

A. Yeah.

Q. Were you worried for the boys when you started to think about this when you saw them in the shower?

A. I feel so guilty about little Wade. I felt like I didn’t do anything. I didn’t say anything. I could have said something to the mother, and then I didn’t say anything, and — and that was burning me all  the time, and I didn’t say anything, and I still  continued working there.

So in her September 2016 deposition Blanca Francia claimed that she had seen “an outline of MJ’s body and heard him giggling”, and that she also” heard the little boy’s voice.” The boy was “Wade” who was “staying at the property at the time” and somewhere there “there was the little underwears.”

But in her second deposition on October 3, 2016 where Blanca Francia was mostly deposed by Ms. MacIsaac, she told a completely different story – about one shadow and one voice heard from behind that foggy glass. And Michael Jackson was not laughing out loud, but just gave a little hee-hee-hee laugh. And a moment later she left.

In the excerpt below Ms. MacIsaac reads out to Francia her earlier deposition taken on January 1994 (Exhibit 11), and it is this earlier deposition that tells Blanca Francia’s real story and opens up its big secret to us.

The earlier deposition is put in italics for easier differentiation.

Blanca Francia’s deposition on October 3, 2016. Pages 263-273.

         BLANCA FRANCIA ANSWERS Ms. MACISAAC’S QUESTIONS:

Q. …when you entered Michael Jackson’s room on this day in December of 1989, the door was locked and you had to use your key?

A. Yes.

Q. And if you turn to page 393, and this is again Exhibit 11, 393. And if you look at lines 5 to 9 on that page, 393.

A. Yes.

Q. You further testified under oath that when you approached the bathroom that day and heard the water running, you knew someone was there?

A. Page 393?

Q. Yeah. From 5 to 9. Do you see that you testified that when you approached the bathroom on that day, you heard the water running and you knew somebody was in the bathroom. Do you see that?

A. Yes. Yes.

Q. Okay. And if you look at the same page, 393, and you focus on lines 8 to 9, do you see that you further testified that despite hearing the water run and believing someone was in the bathroom, you did not turn around but you entered the bathroom anyway?

A. Yes.

Q. Let’s turn to page 395. And I want to focus you on lines 4 to 7. Do you see that you again confirmed under oath in this deposition in 1994 that once you heard the shower running, you knew that somebody was in the bathroom. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. And let’s focus on the same page of Exhibit 11, page 395, lines 18 to 20 now. Lines 18 to 20. Do you see that you testified under oath that you had never previously been in the bathroom when Michael Jackson was showering and that this was the first time that you had approached the shower while Mr. Jackson was showering?

A. Yes.

Q. Let’s go to page 396. And look at lines 13 to 15. Do you see that you testified under oath that the reason you didn’t turn around was because you wanted to get a peek of Michael Jackson without his clothes on?

A. That was the question.

Q. So at page 396 —

A. 15.

Q. — line 13, the question was: “You wanted to peek and see this man with no clothes on, right, ma’am?” “Answer: Yeah.” Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. I’ve accurately read your testimony from 1994?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you talked about what you actually saw when you took this peek.

A. Yes.

Q. And we’re going to go over that. And I’m going to read it into the record. And I’m going to start and I want you to follow along with me.

A. Okay.

Q. I’m going to start at page 397, line 14. And I’m going to read into the record until 399, line 23. This is Exhibit 11. We’re starting at 397,line 14: 

“Question: When you looked around the corner, what did you see at that point? “Answer: What do you mean? I see him. I saw Michael.

“Question: What did you see? You saw Mr. Jackson?

“Answer: Uh-huh.                             

“Question: Did he have any clothes on?        

“Answer: I didn’t see that.

“Question: What did you see?

“Answer: I just saw the shadow.

“Question: You saw the shadow of what you believe was Michael Jackson?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: You never saw him, did you?        

“Answer: No.

“Question: You saw the shadow of what you thought was a man, right?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: Did you see any other shadow at that point?  

“Answer: No.

“Question: Was the glass foggy?

“Answer: Yeah.

“Question: So you couldn’t really see clearly the glass, right? You just saw a figure; is that right? 

“Answer: Uh–huh.

“Question: You saw only one figure at that point?        

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: Okay. And as you saw this one figure, did you at that point continue on or did you turn around and go back?

“Answer: I went back.

“Question:   So you now — you have seen your peek. You have taken your peek as you said, right?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: And your peek was looking for just a very short time like that?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question:   Was it very quick?

“Answer: Yeah.

“Question:   And you saw what appeared to be a man, right?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question:   You only saw one figure, right?    

“Answer:  Yeah.

“Question:   And then you then turned around and went back out, correct?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: Is that right?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question:   And that’s all you saw?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: Is that right?

MANLY: Counsel, could you slow down?

BY MS. MACISAAC:

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: You never saw any other person in there when you were inside there, did you?

“Answer: No. But once I got close to it, I hear laughing.

“Question: But you never saw anybody else in the shower, right?

“Answer:  No.

Q. Did I correctly read your deposition testimony from January of 1994?

A. Yes.

Q. So I counted up that during just this portion of your testimony that I just read into the record, that you said under oath at least six times that you only saw one figure in the shower —

A. Yes.

Q. — on that day in December 1989, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So let’s talk about what you heard, what you actually heard during the shower incident in December of 1989.

A. Yes.

Q. So still on Exhibit 11, starting at page 399, lines 24 through page 417, I’m going to read that into the record.

FINALDI: You’re reading 399 to 417?

BY MS. MACISAAC:

Q. No. 399, lines 24 through page 400, line 17. Sorry. Are you with me?

A. Yes.

Q. So again, on Exhibit 11, page 399, line 24.

A. Okay.

“Question: You heard some laughing?

“Answer: Yeah.

“Question: When was it you heard the laughing?

“Answer: When I got real close. When I saw and hear the laugh.

“Question: What kind of laughing did you hear?

“Answer: You know, just laughing. Not real loud but laughing like hee hee hee, like that.

“Question: You heard hee hee hee laughing?

“Answer: Yeah, like that.

“Question: Did you recognize any voices you heard?

“Answer: It was Michael.

“Question: You heard Michael laughing?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: Did you hear anything else other than Michael laughing?

“Answer: No.

“Question: That’s all you heard?”

“Answer: Uh-huh.”

Q. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Did I accurately read your testimony, your under oath testimony from January of 1994?

A. Yes.

Q. So here again, asked more than once what you heard, and you said more than once that you only heard one voice laughing?

FINALDI: Asked and answered.

BY MS. MACISAAC:

Q. Is that yes?

A. That’s what I, that’s what I say.

Q. And after this, Mr. Cochran asked you a series of follow-up questions to really make sure that he had gotten your testimony correct regarding this alleged 1989 shower incident –

FINALDI: Assumes facts not in evidence.

BY MS. MACISAAC:

— and to make sure that you were telling the truth. Do you remember that?

FINALDI: Assumes facts not in evidence as to Mr. Cochran’s state of mind.

BY MS. MACISAAC:

Well, let’s look at what Mr. Cochran asked you. And this is Exhibit 11 starting at page 400. And I’m going to read into the record lines 18 through page 402, line 3. So let’s start. Exhibit 11, page 400, line 18.

“Question: So let me see if I understand it. You came in there. This is December of 1989. You were curious and you wanted to take a peek at Mr. Jackson while he was showering once you got in there, right?

“Answer: Uh-huh.

“Question: You went around and you took a peek. Through a foggy shower glass you saw the figure of what you thought was a man, what you think was Mr. Jackson?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: And you heard a giggle or a laugh that appeared like Mr. Jackson’s laugh, right?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: And you turned around and you left?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: You never saw anybody else in that shower right? At that point?

“Answer: Well, no.

“Question: Then you then left the room; is that right?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: And you have now told me everything that occurred on that particular occasion regarding the shower; isn’t that right?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: And again, you are under oath today, right?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: And you are telling the truth to the best of your ability?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: You are not lying to us, are you?

“Answer: No.

“Question: You are being honest?

MANLY: Counsel, could you slow down, please?

BY MS. MACISAAC:

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: And you have told us everything, right?

“Answer: Yes.”

Q. Ms. Francia, did I read that testimony that you gave under oath in 1994 accurately?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall testifying in Michael Jackson’s criminal trial in 2005 regarding this alleged shower incident?

A. Did I came over?

Q. Do you recall testifying in —

A. Yes.

Q. — Michael Jackson’s criminal trial —

A. Yes.

Q. — in 2005 regarding this alleged shower incident from ’89?

(end of excerpt)

Remember that Blanca Francia’s deposition in January 1994 came after she had spoken to Diane Dimond on her Hard Copy TV program and presented there a much dirtier story for the $20,000 they paid her. This means that later, when speaking under oath Blanca Francia went back on what she claimed in that program and was now giving an honest and truthful account of what she really saw in December 1989.

And now her story was very much different – she entered Michael Jackson’s room, heard the water running in the bathroom and was so curious to see Michael naked (which points to her personal interest in him) that she took a peek inside. She saw a shadow of a man and no one else there, heard only Michael’s voice and no one else’s, and also Michael’s little hee hee hee laugh (the way people laugh to themselves when they think of something funny). A moment later she turned around and left. And that was all.

So there was no other figure in the shower and there was no other voice – all of it is just Blanca Francia’s imagination, some of which she even dared present at the 2005 trial.  

And there was certainly no “rubbing” or “pressing on MJ’s stomach area” which are blatant lies never traced in her depositions or trial testimony.

The same collection of papers points to the reason why Blanca Francia thinks that Wade could be in that shower – she says that at that time little Wade was staying at the property and an hour after the bathroom episode she saw Michael Jackson and Wade together, and this gave her reason enough to assume that Wade had also been in that shower.

Yes, all of it was simply her assumption.

We learn about it from the 2016 deposition pages referring to Larry Feldman this time. He deposed Blanca Francia in December 1993, and it was with Larry Feldman that she shared her impressions of that episode. When Johnny Cochran continued to depose her in January 1994, Larry Feldman heard her contradict herself and asked questions to clarify the discrepancy.

And now Ms. MacIsaac is just reminding Blanca Francia of that drama.

Blanca Francia’s deposition on October 3, 2016. Pages 426-431     

Q. And just read from page 423, line 10,through 428, line 14. Just read that to yourself.

FINALDI:   Which page?

MACISAAC: 423, line 10, through 428, line 14.

MS.MACISAAC [to the witness]:

Q. Just take your time and read it over.

Okay. So is it fair to say that at this point during your testimony, Mr. Feldman was following up on the inconsistency we just talked about between what you had testified to on December 15th, 1993, and what you told Mr. Cochran earlier that day?

FINALDI: Calls for speculation.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MS. MACISAAC:

Q. And do you see that Mr. — this is page 423. Mr. Feldman specifically read to you testimony where you had said that you had — exactly what Mr. Manly had read, the testimony where you said that you saw Mr. Jackson and Wade Robson in the shower together. This is the top of page 423. And he asked you, was that true? And your answer then was, well, I supposed that it was him because he was with him that day.

A. Because he what?

Q. Because he was with him that day.

A. Yes.

Q. So you did not say when Mr. Feldman showed you the prior testimony that Mr. Manly just showed you, you didn’t say, oh, that’s true, I did see him. You said that you had supposed that you saw Wade Robson based on the fact that he was there at the ranch with Michael Jackson, correct?

A. Yes.

FINALDI: Misstates testimony.

BY MS. MACISAAC:

Q. And then if you turn – [ ] If you look at page 423, starting at line 23, Mr. Feldman again showed you your prior testimony.

“Question: How many times?

“Answer: Besides him in the tub, I saw him once.

“Question: Is that true?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: One time in the shower?

Q. And your answer to that was yes. And then Mr. Feldman said, was that true? And then your answer at line 6 on page 424 was: “Well, like I said, I suppose it was him.”  Do you see that?

A. Yes.

FINALDI: Asked and answered.

BY MS. MACISAAC:

Q. And I read that accurately?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that true?

A. That’s what I’m saying. It was just Michael and Wade at that time.

Q. Right. But you didn’t say you saw Wade. You said that you just —

A. But nobody else —

Q. — assumed it was Wade?

A. Nobody else will be in the shower but Michael and Wade because they were there that day. Nobody else. Not the gardeners, not security got here and take a shower. Just them.

Q. It was a big ranch, wasn’t it?

A. Yeah. But nobody ever would come and take a shower in Michael’s shower.

Q. Right, because you only saw one figure. This is asking you. Mr. Feldman is following up and saying, did you see Wade and you’re saying no, I just supposed he was in there.

FINALDI: All right. Asked and answered. You’re just arguing with her.

THE WITNESS: Still, thinking that it was him because he was the only person who take a shower in the shower.

BY MS. MACISAAC:

Q. Okay. And then — and then he asked you, if you turn to page 426, Mr. Feldman, he asked you if you heard two people giggling in that shower, and  this is line 3 to 4. “Did you hear two people giggling in the shower?” And your answer in 1994 was, at line 5: 

“Answer: “Well, I didn’t really — see, it was, it was noisy and it was — I knew that I wasn’t doing, you know, something appropriate, you know, just to walk in and want to peek.

“Question: But could you tell whether two people were in the shower? In other words, did you hear two different voices, two different giggles?

“Answer: I only hear Mr. Jackson, but I didn’t see Wade in the room. So once they came out of the room, that’s what I supposed, that they were in there together in the shower.° 

Q. Do you see that? Did I read that accurately?

A. Yes.

Q. And then on page 427, at lines 22 to 24, up through page 428, line 14 – let me start this way. Why don’t you go to page 428, lines 9 to 14.

“Question: “And how long after you saw Wade’s underwear and Mr. Jackson’s underwear at the shower, Mr. Jackson giggling, did you see then Wade and Mr. Jackson together?

“Answer: How long?

“Question: How much time elapsed?

“Answer: Maybe an hour later.” 

Q. Did I read that accurately?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that truthful?

A. Yes.

The above shows Blanca Francia to be a universal kind of a witness whose story will suit just anyone.

In December 1993 she testified that she had seen MJ and Wade in the shower, and in January 1994 she testified that she hadn’t seen them and it was only an assumption. And 20+ years later both sides quote the respective pieces from her depositions and to a certain extent each of them is right.

With so much vagueness about this marvellous witness let us single out only the hard facts from her story.

• She never spoke about any “rubbing” and “pressing the boy’s head against MJ’s stomach area”.
• On one occasion she saw MJ and this boy in the bath tub (Jacuzzi) together.
• In the shower she saw only one shadow and heard one voice – and that was Michael’s shadow and Michael’s voice. During the brief moment she peeked into the bathroom she also heard Michael make a little hee-hee-hee laugh.
• She did not see Wade or any other boy in that shower.
• But she assumed that Wade was there because the boy was “at the property” at that time.
• She also saw the neon green underwear lying somewhere, and an hour later she saw Wade and Michael together.
• She said that no one else but MJ and Wade had access to that bathroom – no gardener, no security people. The simple thought that Michael Jackson was in the shower alone didn’t even occur to her and the fact that she saw only one shadow and heard only one voice didn’t convince her either.
• Her reasoning was simple – if Wade wasn’t in that room he must have been in the shower, especially since she allegedly saw some underwear lying around. It never occurred to her that the boy could take a shower by himself or could leave his underwear after the Jacuzzi, and could go back to his mother, or could be playing a game elsewhere, or could be having a meal, watching a movie or even sleeping in the second floor bedroom. In her opinion if she didn’t see him in that room the only place he could be was the shower, with no other options ever considered.

So the only facts her testimony is based upon is that little Wade was staying at the property at that time and that the little boy’s underwear was allegedly found somewhere around. All the rest was an assumption on her part.

But was Wade Robson staying at the property at that time?

The crucial detail you have surely noticed is that Blanca Francia described this event as taking place in December 1989 and by that time Robson had not even arrived in the US.

A short reminder about what she said in the 1990s:

Q. Well, let’s look at what Mr. Cochran asked you. And this is Exhibit 11 starting at page 400.
“Question: So let me see if I understand it. You came in there. This is December of 1989. You were curious and you wanted to take a peek at Mr. Jackson while he was showering once you got in there, right?
“Answer: Uh-huh.

Could Blanca Francia misremember the date?

Well, the December 1989 period was fixed in her earlier depositions from 1993 and 1994 when her memory was still fresh, so it wasn’t a recent development when her memory could indeed fail her.

And the exact time was surely defined by the two attorneys who deposed Blanca Francia on two different occasions  – Johnny Cochran and Larry Feldman, so if one of them overlooked to clarify the point, the other would have corrected him.

And it wasn’t just some random period which Blanca Francia named. December 1989 was Christmas time, and if she spoke about Christmas it means that it was really Christmas, with all its fun, festivities and decorations – a memorable event if not for Michael Jackson, but at least for her.

And that particular Christmas is special to us because the Robsons were not even on the horizon yet. Their first visit to the US was to celebrate the January 26 Australia day at Disneyland and they went to Neverland almost ten days later, on February 3, 1990, when they finally managed to contact Michael Jackson.

So irrespective of what Blanca Francia saw or assumed about the shower event, none of it has anything to do with Wade Robson, to say the very least.

The matter could be closed at this point if it were not for Robson’s supporters who will certainly venture a theory that Blanca Francia misremembered the year and was speaking, say, about December 1990.

But even this will not help Robson because in December 1990 he wasn’t in the US either.

His first visit there was in Jan/February 1990, his second in May 1990, his third in February 1991 and in September 1991 Joy, Chantal and Wade Robson already arrived in the US on a permanent stay.

These dates were clarified by Joy Robson in her testimony in 2005:

By Mr. Sneddon:

Q. You came back in May of 1990, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were here for six weeks, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you came back again in February of 1991, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. For about seven days?

A. Yes.

Q. And during the time that you were here in 1991, you spent time on the ranch, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. When you visited in September of 1991, you came permanently, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And then from that point, from September of 1991 up till, let’s just say, September 1993 -okay? – the time frame involved, you and your son spent a great deal of time with Michael Jackson, you were around him a lot, correct?

A. I don’t think so.

Q. You were not at the ranch on a number of occasions during 1991?

A. My memory is in the entire time we’ve lived here since 1991, we’ve only been at the ranch with Michael on four occasions in 14 years.

Q. Four occasions?

A. Every other time we’ve been here without him.

Q. You testified that you’ve been out at the ranch on an average of about four times?

A. Four times a year, but Michael was never there.

Q. Was that all the way through today?

A. Yes.

Q. He’s never there when you go there?

A. Very rarely. I can only remember four times in 14 years that we’ve been there with him since we have lived here.

Incidentally, now we also understand why Joy Robson emphasized that Wade and MJ had been together at Neverland only 4 times in 14 years since their arrival in the US – obviously this was a sore point with her, and this is why she remembered Wade’s rare occasions with MJ so clearly.

But at the moment our main concern is the time frame of that unfortunate episode of MJ taking a shower, and we see that neither December 1989 nor December 1990 fit the Wade Robson timeline.

Of course we can also fantasize like Blanca Francia and assume that she misremembered not only the year, but the month, season and even took one boy for another, but what will be the good of her so-called testimony then? The value of such testimony will be zero.

All of us can assume anything we like, but if the assumption is not proven by facts, none of it will have any value whatsoever.

For example, we can assume that the boy she called “Wade from a different country” was Brett Barnes instead. The fun fact is that the Barnes family visited Neverland in December too, only it was December 1991 – when Blanca Francia had not worked at the ranch for half a year already (she left in June 1991).

We learn this date from Brett’s mother Lisbeth Marie Barnes who testified in 2005 about their first visit to Neverland:

Q. And what is your son’s name?

A. Brett.

Q. When did you first meet him? [Michael Jackson]

A. 19 — December 1991.

Q. And how did you meet him?

A. Well, actually, when I met him personally was in December of 1991, but I had spoken to him for several years prior to that. I — he invited us to his home in December 1991, and that’s when I met him for the first time.

Q. Okay. And your first visit to Neverland was when, what year, if you know?

A. December 1991.

Q. Okay. And who did you visit Neverland with?

A. Our family. My husband, my two children.

Q. Okay. And how long did you stay there?

A. About three weeks. Well, we stayed with Michael for that three weeks. He took us to Disneyland, to Las Vegas, and, yes, we were together for three weeks.

Since the Neverland winter guests seemed to arrive mostly in December, now the reason why Blanca Francia also spoke about December becomes clearer. Being a Jehovah Witness Michael himself did not celebrate Christmas, at least not until mid 1990s, but for others this period was really the most convenient time for a long visit to Neverland and other places Michael invited them to.

For most people and especially children this was holiday time, but not for Jackson.

Mike Smallcombe, MJ’s biographer gives us the idea what Michael Jackson was really busy with in the winter of 1989/1990 and the complex personal and business issues he handled in the period after it (and Mike Smallcombe does not yet know about that fake Project M and only briefly mentions the huge power grab of Michael’s business by Geffen’s team!).

In early November [1989] Michael received a visit at the studio from a long-time friend, Buz Kohan, who was trying to persuade him to perform at an allstar tribute to Sammy Davis Jr’s 60 years in show business. Kohan was co-producing and writing the show, which was being taped for broadcast on November 13 at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles.

At the time, Michael was in extreme pain from the Pepsi commercial accident when his hair caught on fire.”Kohan and Schlatter hadn’t realised just how much distress Michael was in. “He took us into a back bathroom at the studio and asked us to feel his head,” Kohan recalls. “He told me he was in constant pain and on painkillers. Because of this, he truly didn’t know whether he would be able to perform at all.”

Between November 1989 and January 1990, Michael and the crew switched from Westlake to the Record One studio complex, located in Sherman Oaks in the San Fernando Valley. They had exclusive 24-hour access to the studio, costing an estimated $4,000 a day. Matt Forger said they required two studio rooms full time for a year, as Michael was entertaining the idea of recording a full album of new material rather than releasing Decade.

Michael was also going through personal difficulties. In April [1990] a close friend of his, Ryan White, died from AIDS complications at the age of 18. His grandmother Martha Bridges also died a month later, as did one of his idols, Sammy Davis Jr.

By 1989 and 1990, Michael was becoming increasingly influenced by his close friend and business confidant, entertainment mogul David Geffen. After the Bad Tour he fired his accountant in favour of one who was working for Geffen, as well as his manager, Frank DiLeo.  Michael finally hired a replacement for DiLeo in the summer of 1990. The new man, Sandy Gallin, who was brought in along with his management partner Jim Morey, was also a Geffen associate.

Advising Michael to replace DiLeo with Gallin was said to be part of Geffen’s wider agenda of avenging his enemy Walter Yetnikoff, the CBS president. Michael told CBS he wouldn’t be delivering his new album until his contract was improved, and felt the solution was to fire Branca and hire a new attorney to secure a better deal. Convinced it was the right decision, Michael dismissed Branca in the summer of 1990 after ten hugely successful years of working together.

Yetnikoff believes it was Geffen who influenced Michael to fire DiLeo and Branca, two of Yetnikoff’s close allies, and replace them with his own associates. One of Michael’s new attorneys, Bert Fields, admits it was Geffen who brought him and Michael together. Perhaps tellingly, Branca’s law partner Kenneth Ziffren also severed his ties with Geffen and his company in the wake of Branca’s dismissal. 

Getting back to December 1989 we now know that Michael was in the process of moving from one studio to another, which would cost him $4,000 a day, so a few days at Christmas were probably the only time he could spare for his Neverland guests.

Is there any chance that at the time described by Blanca Francia at least some boy was visiting Neverland?

You will be surprised, but there was a boy who was Michael’s guest in December 1989.

His name was Ryan White. 

Ryan White was an AIDS victim, a hemophiliac diagnosed with the disease at age 13 in 1983. Five years later he was already in poor shape, and in an effort to boost his spirits and ease his life, in the summer of 1989 Michael Jackson sent him a Mustang car as a gift.

In December 1989 Ryan celebrated his 18^th birthday, and this is when Michael called him again and invited him to Neverland. This wasn’t the boy’s first visit to Neverland, but it was his last – his health was deteriorating rapidly and in April 1990 the boy died.

Ryan White gravestone with tributes from E.John and MJ [from ‘A Quiet Hero – a life of Ryan White’]

“During the break for the holidays, Ryan received another invitation from Michael Jackson to visit Neverland Ranch.

So in late December, after Ryan celebrated Christmas with his family in Cicero, he flew to Los Angeles. He brought an electrical heater and wore a leather coat even in the California sun.

At the Los Angeles airport, he was met by Jackson’s security guards and a limousine. During the three-hour ride to Neverland Ranch, Ryan suffered from cramps and a stomach ache. He continued to feel ill even after he settled into his bungalow at the ranch. From his cottage, Ryan phoned Jeanne and wondered whether he should have made the trip.

But he perked up after savoring a hearty dinner with Jackson. According to Ryan’s autobiography, the two then enjoyed a movie marathon in the private theater at Neverland. They watched a series of movies featuring the Three Stooges slapstick comedy team.

The next morning, Ryan joined Jackson on a shopping spree for toys that the pop singer intended to donate to children. During a later shopping trip, one of Jackson’s staff thought his friends needed a heavier coat. Jackson also gave him a new stereo system before Ryan returned to Indiana on New Year’s Day.”

Ryan White’s last public appearance was in March 1990 when he met President Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan.

The picture of them together shows Ryan to be a frail boy with a swollen stomach who looked much younger than his real age. Sadly, soon thereafter he would go into a coma and die without regaining his consciousness.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that Michael Jackson went to a shower with Ryan White, but we know it for a fact that to a Jacuzzi they did go together as Michael’s big idea was to take Ryan to Neverland and bring him in the Jacuzzi.

At that time no one yet knew how the HIV infection spread and people were afraid to even breathe the same air with Ryan White, so Michael’s intention was to show Ryan that he wasn’t a pariah to be shunned and feared. Michael was even warned about the possible danger, but it didn’t stop him from taking the risk.

Michael’s doctor Arnold Klein spoke about it in his interview with Larry King.

KING: “You wanted to tell me something about Michael and Ryan White, the young boy dying of AIDS.

KLEIN: That’s very important, yes. Michael wanted to bring Ryan White to Neverland. And his plastic surgeon, a brilliant surgeon, said you can’t bring him in the Jacuzzi because you may catch AIDS.

KING: You’re kidding?

KLEIN: No, he said that. Honestly, honest to God. So Michael called me, and he said, “Will I catch AIDS if I go in the Jacuzzi with Ryan White?” I said, no way. And he was very good friends with Ryan White until he died. And that’s what people don’t know.

KING: Did he go in the Jacuzzi with him?

KLEIN: Absolutely, because, you know what? He really cared. I want to tell you, this is a person who really cared about other people. He’s unlike anyone I ever met.”

Michael Jackson really cared and was unlike anyone we ever met.

And that’s the point all these Robsons and Francias will never understand.

In the comments for one of this blog posts there are two short texts about little Wade Robson in Michael Jackson’s recording studio – one is Orietta Murdock’s statement from the Prosecution ‘Prior Bad Acts’ Motion for the 2005 trial and the other comes from Victor Gutierrez’s literary opus about Michael published in 1996.

For those who don’t know the above characters here is the reminder:  Orietta Murdock was Michael Jackson’s administrative assistant in September 1989–January 1991 and Victor Gutierrez is a pedophilia advocate who dogged Jackson since the late 80s, spread innumerable lies about him and who by Diane Dimond’s own admission, was the latter’s best source.

The stories by Murdock and Gutierrez are the usual kind – they are blatant lies about Michael Jackson and the only peculiar thing about them is that they are identical, though told by different people and at different times. My conclusion was that in the job of smearing Michael Jackson these two personas worked in close cooperation with each other, and Gutierrez was most probably the one with whom the false text originated.

The story proper was not analyzed as I thought that the proof of Murdock’s cooperation with a scumbag like Gutierrez was reason enough to immediately flash it down the toilet, but a reader left a comment to the effect that who told whom is a secondary matter as the basis of the story is true.

Indeed, who told whom doesn’t matter that much, but I am highly resentful of the idea that the basis of the story is true.  It is absolutely not true, though I understand why people fall into the fallacy of thinking that it is – if some elements sound familiar people get the impression that they know the general idea, and if a couple of details are real, they imagine that the whole of it is basically correct.

But clean and dirty waters are also basically the same as they share the same molecular structure, only one is safe to drink while the other will cause you sickness and even death. And the same goes for stories and information at large – though looking similar some of it is downright poisonous.

So it’s high time we realized that it is absolutely not enough to know the story ‘in general’ – this is only the illusion of knowledge and if you don’t know the story in full you may as well consider yourself ignorant of the matter.

HARD FACTS

Before we deal with the Gutierrez and Murdock lies the first thing to start with is establishing the hard facts of the story. And there can’t be a better source for the episodes described than Joy Robson, mother of Wade Robson. She testified to all that at the 2005 trial and her account can be trusted as even after her son’s U-turn against Jackson she hasn’t changed it and it is only her perception of some details that may be different now.

At the 2005 trial Joy Robson described two episodes involving Michael Jackson at the recording studio in Sherman Oaks.

Firstly, this was where she and her husband Dennis and their children Wade and Chantal met Michael Jackson in February 1990, the first time after the two years lapse when they had no contact with MJ whatsoever.

And the second episode was several months later, during Wade’s second visit to the US, in May-June 1990 when Michael and Wade stayed at the recording studio for two days and forgot that in a few hours time Wade and his mother were to catch a plane to Australia. Joy was in a sort of a panic as she didn’t know her son’s whereabouts and had to call around. The only new element she has added to that story since 2005 is that now she admits that she was extremely worried, while at the trial she said she was not.

The Robsons came to the US as a team of two parents, two children and two grandparents. The adults were accompanying the Johnny Young Talent dance school where Wade and Chantal Robson were dancing. The dance school was invited to Disneyland to celebrate Australia Day there, marked every year on January 26.

By the time of the journey Wade Robson had been with the dance school for two years as he joined it literally the next day after he won a dance contest in his home country in 1987 where the prize was to meet Michael Jackson.

As promised, the five-year old winner and his mother had a meet-and-greet with Michael Jackson and Michael invited Wade to take part in his show the next day. After that Joy took her son to Michael’s hotel to thank him for the chance and they had some further interaction with him discussing the boy’s dance and costumes while Michael showed them some pieces of ‘Smooth Criminal’ he was editing when they came.

After Michael Jackson left Australia and his ‘Bad’ tour was over the Robsons were eager to keep in touch with MJ and sent him three or four letters and a video of Wade’s dance to the Havenhurst address that Michael had left them, but there was no answer, most probably because in May 1988 Michael had already moved to Neverland.

This is how the Robson family lost all contact with Michael Jackson, but when they arrived in the US two years later in January 1990, Joy Robson vigorously renewed her effort to find him. Eight days after celebrating the Australia Day at Disneyland they finally managed to reach Norma Staikos who put them through to Michael Jackson at last.

The Robson family at the recording studio with MJ in February 1990

And this is when they met him in the recording studio for the first time.

The Robsons spent an hour and a half there, showed Michael the videos of Wade’s dance they had brought from Australia, had a picture of them together and when Michael asked them if they would like to go to his ranch for the weekend, they were only too happy to say ‘Yes!’

Michael doesn’t look too enthusiastic [screenshots from ‘Leaving Neverland’ horror film]

Mind you that when Robson claims now that he was left alone with Michael Jackson in-between those weekends, he blatantly lies you straight in the face as there is a pile of evidence that he wasn’t there, including his own mother’s three testimonies given under oath and there isn’t a single witness at Neverland – not even Michael’s foes – to confirm Robson’s false story. These good people could have probably obliged and willingly lied in Robson’s favor, but at that time they didn’t know they should claim that the 7-year old stayed alone with Michael at Neverland, so none of them left any trace of it in their numerous memories and statements for the Prosecution side.

So the hard fact of the story is that the whole family left for the Grand Canyon and you can forget Robson’s false lamentations in ‘Leaving Neverland’ about the abuse that allegedly started when his family ‘was away’.

This is how Joy Robson described their first visit to the recording studio:

A.  So we called around, and we eventually were put onto his personal assistant, which at that time was Norma Stakos, and they called Michael. He remembered us, and said he would like to see us again. So we met him at a recording studio where he was working at the time.

Q. And did you stay at Neverland on that first visit?

A. Yes, he invited us to stay that weekend, so we did. We went — we were touring the United States, we were here on vacation as well.  We went away for the week, and came back for the second weekend.

And this is how Joy Robson described their second episode at the recording studio that took place several months later, in June 1990, when only she and her son were in the US.

To the Prosecution she said:

Q.  Now, do you recall an incident that occurred where you were supposed to catch a plane and you couldn’t find your son?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And the fact is that you hadn’t seen or heard from your son for two or three days?

A.  I think two.

Q.  And he had been with Mr. Jackson during that entire time, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And I believe what you said was you were upset and you were hurt by this, correct?

A.  I don’t remember that.

Q.  You called a number of people trying to locate your son, correct?

A.  I was trying to call Michael, and he was in the recording studio, not answering, not receiving phone calls.  And I think I called Neverland to see if they had gone to Neverland.

Q.  Well, you called Neverland and you got the Quindoy — Mr. Quindoy, correct?

A.  I don’t remember.

Q.  Did you call Norma Stakos trying to locate your son?

A.  Yes.

Joy Robson explained a little more to the Defense:

A.  That was — that was the time that we were staying in Westwood, and Wade and I had our ticket booked to return to Australia.  And he had been at the recording studio with Michael for a couple of days, and I just hadn’t heard from them. I know that they were working long hours, and then they’d take off again the next day.  And I was getting – [ ]

–I had called Norma looking for him, and she found them.  She said they were in the recording studio and, “Michael is bringing him back to you.  They’re on their way.”

Q.  To your knowledge, did your son spend a lot of time with Michael Jackson at recording studios?

A.  Often, yes.

Q.  And why was that?

A.  Because Wade was interested in being a recording artist, he was interested in being a producer.  He was learning.  He loved to be around that and absorb that.  He was like a sponge.  And he — that was the relationship that he and Michael had.  It was — a lot of it was a working relationship and Michael was teaching him.

Indeed, their second visit was mostly about work. The reason for the trip was that Michael signed a contract with LA Gear for advertising their sneakers and invited Robson to take part in the commercials.  According to Zack O’Malley the scale of the LA Gear venture was supposed to be grand:

“Jackson promised he’d shoot television commercials for LA Gear and wear the sneakers in the promotional materials for his upcoming album, Dangerous, which was supposedly almost finished.

To help promote Jackson’s shoe, Sandy Saemann [LA Gear cofounder] directed a commercial that features the King of Pop spinning through a dark, steamy street in his new kicks. His face appears for only about three seconds toward the end when, after destroying a street lamp with the sheer force of his mojo, Jackson looks up to find a young girl smiling and clapping from an upstairs window.”

The LA Gear company didn’t restrict Michael Jackson in selecting his counterparts for the commercials, promising to pay their expenses, and Michael suggested Wade Robson from Australia.

In her 2016 deposition Joy Robson said they must have had a fit when they heard it, especially since they had to pay her fare too as Wade was a minor and had to be accompanied by his mother.

She testified in 2005:

Q.  In May, when you came back, it was for the purpose of your son participating in an L.A. Gear commercial?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And who arranged for him to be in that commercial?

A.  Michael.

Q.  And Mr. Jackson paid his way over here, correct?

A.  L.A. Gear paid.

Q.  And how did you — how was yours paid?

A.  L.A. Gear.  He was a minor.

Q.  L.A. Gear paid for that?

A.  Yes, they have to if a minor’s working.

The May/June 1990 working visit was long and lasted for 6 weeks – it started with photo shoots for LA Gear and continued with Michael’s intense work at the recording studio on the songs supposed to be for ‘Decade’ later turned into ‘Dangerous’ album. The LA Gear advertising campaign was tightly connected with that album as the launch of the new shoe line was scheduled for its release.

But at the time Michael was also going through a huge reshuffle of his business team – in 1990 Geffen’s people fully replaced his former managers, lawyers and business advisors, and it was also as a result of those complications that the new album was taking longer than expected.

Zack O’Malley describes the race Michael Jackson found himself in:

“Saemann and Jackson developed a close working relationship. They’d go to record stores and sales meetings together; on one occasion, Jackson elevated the moods of seven hundred sales reps by dancing on a table. He and Saemann would even edit videos together late into the night.

Jackson, however, still hadn’t completed his new album. Yetnikoff was gone[ ]. Perhaps Branca or Dileo would have hurried him along, but they were out of the picture.  Whenever Saemann broached the subject with Jackson, the response was the same. “I’m a creative guy,” he’d say. “You can’t force it.”

In the end, LA Gear had to move forward with the launch of the sneaker line though neither the album nor the promised product tie-in had emerged. Retailers were expecting the shoes to be delivered on schedule—but they were also expecting the footwear to make an appearance in promotional material that accompanied Jackson’s new record. When that didn’t materialize, the results were disastrous.

LA Gear Vintage shoes

LA Gear would go on to sue Jackson in 1992; after the singer countersued, the two sides settled for an undisclosed sum.  

[‘Michael Jackson, Inc.’ by Zack O’Malley Greenburg]

It was for this ill-fated LA Gear venture that Joy and Wade Robson came to the US in May 1990. Most of their time was spent in Los Angeles where the Robsons stayed at a hotel across Michael’s condo in Westwood. Michael arrived at his condo late after his work.

Joy Robson said about it:

Q.  Now, at the time that you came over here for the L.A. Gear commercial, you were staying in The Holiday Inn?

A.  Yes.  In Westwood.

Q.  And you were here for approximately six weeks?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And Mr. Jackson had a condo right across the street?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And you testified before, I believe, that during that six-week period on at least half of the occasions that your son was with Mr. Jackson in Mr. Jackson’s bedroom in that condo, correct?

A.  I think so.

Q.  Now, these visits to The Holiday – these visits to Mr. Jackson when you were staying at The Holiday Inn, many of those calls from Mr. Jackson were very late at night; isn’t that correct?

A.  Yes, he was working.

Q.  When you came over to make the L.A. Gear commercial, did your husband come with you?

A.  No.

Q.  At this point in time, were you and your husband separated?

A.  No.

In contrast to his mother Wade Robson testified that the occasions he went over to Michael’s condo were rare and most of the nights were spent at the hotel:

A. … we stayed – I think it was the Westwood apartment, his Westwood apartment. There was a Holiday Inn that was across and we stayed there most of the time. And then certain nights I would go over to Michael and stay with him.

On several occasions the two Robsons went to Neverland, and this is where another notable incident took place. Actually their stay in the US started with that incident as it happened on Mother’s Day celebrated that year on Sunday, May 13th.

Michael, Joy and Wade arrived at Neverland on Saturday night as Michael had a family day with his own mother and the next day Wade slept well into the afternoon, so Joy Robson had lunch all alone and since she didn’t see her son almost all day she cried.

In 2005 she said about it:

Q.  Now, do you recall an incident that occurred on Mother’s Day during 1990 on a trip to the ranch?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And you were upset, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And you were crying at one point?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And the reason for that was that you had not seen your son all day, correct?

A.  Yes.

Q.  And you found out that the reason that you hadn’t seen your son that day was because he had been sleeping all day, correct?

A.  I think so.  Yeah.

Q.  And did you tell Charlie Michaels that you felt that the defendant, Michael Jackson, was separating you from your son?

A.  I don’t recall saying it.

In her recent deposition on September 30, 2016 she blamed Michael for that oversight:

Q.  …you were concerned about your son on Mother’s Day?

A.  I wasn’t concerned for his welfare. I was concerned that Michael knew it was Mother’s Day. He had had the day before with his mother. That’s why we came that night, because he had a family day on the Saturday. So I was angry and I was hurt that he kept my son away from me on Mother’s Day.

Q. So you were — you felt left out?

A. Very — well, I felt left out of my – with my — from my son, yes.

Q. Right. You wanted to be with your son on Mother’s Day?

A. Of course.

So their second visit to the US began with an unhappy episode on Mother’s Day and ended with them nearly missing the flight back, and on both occasions Joy Robson felt vulnerable and unnerved.

My personal opinion is that after two incidents like that every responsible mother would think twice before taking a radical decision to move to another country and would realize that Michael Jackson was living in a bubble and was sort of shut off from the real world with its everyday routine. And that relying on a big kid like him to arrange their life in the US and take care of them on a permanent basis would be asking too much of him (or any other pop star, for that matter).

However even those two unhappy incidents didn’t stop Joy Robson in her determination to move to the US. They arrived for good a year later, in September 1991. Joy Robson explained that the immediate reason for their arrival was Wade’s participation in Michael Jackson’s ‘Black or White’ video after which they stayed:

A. He came here originally in 1991 to work on the “Black or White” video, and we stayed after that. That was the reason for coming in the first place.

It certainly wasn’t a spontaneous decision, but Michael Jackson had little to do with it – when Joy considered that move he told her that she should decide for herself and follow her heart.

“Michael told us when we were first considering a move to LA, to `follow our heart’, and it felt right to go,” said Joy.

Whether her heart, reason or sheer calculation, but Joy Robson’s activity in the year before their departure betrays that it was solely her plan and she was fully dedicated to making it happen – she divorced her husband, went to court to obtain sole custody of their children, as a result of which she got the sole right to decide their future, and only then did she bring Wade and Chantal to the US, hoping to start a new life for them all.

Her elder son Shane was already of age and chose to stay with the father, but eventually Shane also moved to the US and his personal drama is that the day after his departure the abandoned father committed suicide.

Part of these facts are in Joy Robson’s 2005 testimony, the tearful part about the children’s remorse for the way they treated their father is in the ‘Leaving Neverland’ drama, but the divorce itself and the matter of Joy’s sole custody of the children have never been mentioned before. The Robsons prefer to keep mum about it – even in that film.

You’ll learn more about it at the end of this post, while at the moment we have another issue at hand – the need to compare Joy Robson’s testimony with the tales about those recording studio episodes told by Victor Gutierrez and Orietta Murdock.

GUTIERREZ’S STORY

Gutierrez’s horrid pro-pedophilia book says that by the summer of 1992 he had been looking for Wade Robson for five months and when in June 1992 he finally saw Wade and his mother on the Venice Beach in California where Wade was imitating Michael Jackson’s dance, he couldn’t believe his eyes.

“I couldn’t believe it, I had been looking for this boy and his mother for more than five months without any luck and here, by chance, I found both of them. It was a great opportunity to interview them.

Joy sat down on the grass and began to confide in me. Wade was reading a magazine, but was close enough to hear his mother’s story. “My son was born September 17th, 1982 …

Does it sound to you almost the same as the real story? If yes, then let us examine it line by line.

“My son was born September 17th, 1982 and we lived in Chatswood Hills, Australia. When my son was five, he won a dance contest in Australia. The prize was to meet Michael Jackson and go to Disneyland.”

The address where the family lived in Australia is probably correct and the fact that Gutierrez knew it suggests that he did talk to Joy Robson. But the story about Disneyland is false – the prize was only to meet Michael Jackson. The trip to Disneyland was arranged by somebody else and is a totally different matter.

“And so we met him in Australia. Right away, Michael gave Wade presents and gave us a fax machine so that they could communicate better. The trip to Disneyland would come four years later.”

The trip to Disneyland was two years later, and Michael certainly didn’t give Wade any fax machine ‘right away’. For two years after the contest there was no communication between them and their attempts to reach Michael were futile. The fax machine was given to the family sometime after their first visits to the US. It was a novel device then, and MJ and the Robsons sent messages and drawings back and forth to test it and just for the fun of it.

Gutierrez continues in Joy Robson’s name:

“We arrived in the United States in September of 1991. On the first day, my husband took Wade to the recording studio to meet Michael.”

The lie is growing thicker with every new word. ‘We’ in reference to Joy’s husband is completely out of place here, because when they arrived in September 1991 the parents were already divorced.  And the visit to the recording studio when the father was still there was in February 1990 and since it wasn’t only him but the whole family, it is a lie again. And certainly none of it happened on the first day they arrived – even on their first visit they met Michael only 8 days later.

“When they met, Michael asked if he could leave Wade with him and he would drop him off later in the afternoon. My husband said it was okay. Michael, though, didn’t bring him back as promised, and I began to call his office like crazy so that I could locate Wade. Finally, one of the secretaries was able to locate Michael and called me at the hotel to say that Wade was okay. I didn’t see my son until the next day. That was my welcoming to the United States.”

This is where the lie becomes real thick. Michael didn’t ask for anything; they did not leave Wade at the recording studio; her husband didn’t say okay as he wasn’t even present; none of it happened at the time described here; and all of it was certainly not the way she was welcomed to the United States.

And even familiar words like ‘recording studio’, ‘Disneyland’, ‘fax machine’, etc. cannot turn this crazy mish-mash into a true story. Gutierrez misplaced all the people, times and locations, but more importantly, he changed the very essence of the story, thus creating complete fiction where a mass of lies is just sprinkled with a few recognizable words that only create the impression of something familiar. However this is an illusion and essentially the story is a big lie.

ORIETTA MURDOCK’S VERSION

If you look at Orietta Murdock’s statement in the so-called ‘Prior Bad Acts’ (1108) Motion made by Tom Sneddon on December 10, 2004, you will see that the part concerning the recording studio is an almost word-for-word repetition of Gutierrez’s story.

Here is the respective piece from the 1108 motion:

Though similar to Gutierrez’s variant there are some telling differences too.

“In the course of her employment, Ms. Murdock became aware that Jackson met the Robson family as a result of Wade Robson winning a dance contest, which may have been sponsored by the Disney Company. Part of the prize was the opportunity to meet Michael Jackson.”

‘Became aware’ is a roundabout way of saying that Ms. Murdock didn’t have first-hand information but heard it from somebody else.  The Disney factor is also present as she mixes up the dance contest in Brisbane with the 1990 trip to Disneyland. The 1987 contest was sponsored by Pepsi as far as I know, and as an administrative assistant she should have known it, however she started working only in 1989, so it is obvious that the twisted story reached her ears much later and could be relayed to her by Gutierrez.

Another fantasy she shares with Gutierrez is that ‘meeting MJ was only part of the prize’.

 “Robson met Jackson in Westlake, California. Jackson asked Mr. and Mrs. Robson if he could spend the afternoon with the young Wade, and the parents consented. Jackson, however, did not return the boy to his parents that afternoon. In fact, Jackson did not return the child until the next night, and then only after being contacted by Disney security guards who told Jackson that the parents had to catch a plane back to Australia, and were now running late.”

The above is almost a replica of Gutierrez’s very specific tale. But in her version some fictional ‘Disney security guards’ pop up and she implies that only the parents were to catch a plane to Australia (leaving Wade alone???).

All of it suggests that she knew even less than Gutierrez and therefore created an even less coherent version than his story, crazy as it was.

But little as she knew when she fed on rumors only Orietta Murdock was much better informed about the matters within the immediate range of her responsibilities. For example:

“Jackson assisted Wade in getting a job on a “L.A. Gear” commercial. However Wade did not have the permits required to work in the United States at the time, so his check was made payable to MJJ, who then made out a check to his mother, who Ms. Murdock characterized as a “gift.” Wade was also paid considerably more for his appearance – over $3,000 – than the other children, who received only $500.”

The fact that Wade Robson received over $3,000 for the LA Gear commercial instead of the regular $500 paid to other children is probably true but was never mentioned by Joy Robson. If true, the only thing it points to is that Michael really tried to help and wanted to cover their expenses during their stay in the US.

And Michael did assist Wade in getting a job for the LA Gear commercial as we already know. The permit allowing them to be employed in the US was required only half a year after their arrival when their temporary 6-months visa expired and Joy Robson finally realized that she would have to pay her own bills. She found the job of a manager with ‘Pigments’ cosmetic company but was officially registered with MJJ Productions so that her salary was paid via Michael’s company.

The permit to work was a complex issue as it required the status of a resident and to obtain it the family needed somebody who would sign up as their ‘sponsor’. This is a formal procedure every immigrant goes through if he/she wants to obtain a residence permit in a foreign country. It doesn’t require any money to exchange hands and this is what Michael’s consent to ‘sponsor’ them actually meant.

In 2005 Joy Robson explained it:

Q.      …in 1991, in September, you came here on a — originally you came here on a visa, temporary visa?

A.  A six-month visitor’s visa.

Q.  And the idea was that because you weren’t a resident, you were not supposed to be employed; is that the idea?

A.  I was on a working visa, but it was through MJJ Productions.  I was — I was employed to be employed by MJJ Productions only.  So I managed to find this job for myself.  And in order to make it legal, it had to be diverted through MJJ Productions.

Q.  Now, what was this issue — you needed him as a sponsor for what purpose?

A.  To remain in the United States.  We — permanent residence.  To be able to have a green card, we had to have someone sponsor us into the country.

The rest of Orietta Murdock’s statement regarding Wade Robson in the 1108 Motion falls exactly into the category of truth imitation, where true elements are intertwined with lies and form the illusion that you know the story.

During the time Ms. Murdock was working at MJJ, she remembers Robson’s mother calling every day to inquire about the status of the green cards that Jackson had promised to obtain for her and Wade. Eventually Jackson was able to assist Wade and his mother, Joy Robson, in gaining entry into the country. Shortly thereafter, Jackson had Ms. Murdock, arrange for the Robsons to say at the Holiday Inn on Wilshire Boulevard, which is across from the building at Wilshire and Selby where Jackson had a condominium. Wade used to spend every night with Jackson, not his mother. Ms. Murdock could see that this relationship had begun to trouble Wade’s mother. Jackson handled this by getting the mother a new car to appease her. Jackson assisted Wade and his mother in obtaining permanent residence in the United States and got the mother on the payroll as an employee, even though the mother apparently didn’t have a real job with Jackson.

It looks more or less coherent only when you don’t know the details, but if you know at least the dates, the story immediately falls apart.

Staying at a hotel across Michael Jackson’s condo was in May-June 1990 and was in no way connected with the green cards they got with the help of MJ’s office approximately two years later (in early 1992, after 6 months of staying on a temporary visa).  In fact, by that moment Orietta Murdock had not even worked for MJ and for a very long time too – she was fired in January 1991.

And Wade didn’t spend ‘every night’ with Jackson in that condo – Joy Robson said it was probably half the time that he stayed with MJ, and Robson said that it was on certain occasions only.

Several incidents did indeed trouble Joy Robson during the May-June 1990 visit as described above, but it didn’t stop her from moving to the US a year later.

And according to her 2005 testimony the car was given to Joy Robson in early 1993 and certainly not to ‘appease’ her – she needed it to get to her place of work at the cosmetic company. She said she wanted take a credit, but couldn’t get it on her own, so somebody had to co-sign for her. She approached Michael Jackson and instead of co-signing he said “Why don’t I just pay for it.”

Q.  Okay.  Now, the issue of Mr. Jackson helping you with an automobile, when did that happen?

A.  I think maybe ’93.  Early ’93.

Q.  And did you go to him and ask for some assistance in getting an automobile?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Okay.  And what was his response?

A.  Well, I had asked him to co-sign.  I wasn’t asking for money.  I was just asking for a signature.  And his response was, “Well, why don’t I just pay for it.”

The matter was discussed over the telephone because Michael was away, most probably on the Dangerous tour, and his response shows how trustful he was of Joy Robson – he told her where the money was (in the ‘secret closet’ everyone talks so much about) and where to take the key to his private quarters (behind a photo in the hallway). As a result Joy Robson opened the closet used by Michael as a safe herself and took out of it the $10,000 required for purchasing the car.

This wasn’t the first time Michael helped her with the money – the first was a $10,000 loan that helped her ‘to establish themselves’ in the US which she didn’t repay. And the second was the car that also turned into a gift.

Q.  Would you please explain why you borrowed $10,000?

A.  The first $10,000, we had been here for, I think, a year, 18 months. And it was a lot more difficult to establish ourselves here than I had anticipated, so Michael offered to help us out for a while.  So we borrowed $10,000 at that point.

The second one was a car.  I had been here for a while.  My credit from Australia cannot be transferred, so I had no established credit in the United States.  I was listed as an employee because of the cosmetics company paying through Michael Jackson’s company.  Because I was being sponsored by MJJ Productions, I was listed as an employee of the company.  So I had asked if the company would co-sign for my car because I was unable to get the credit to buy a car, and Michael just offered to pay for it rather than co-sign.

I thought that nothing could surprise me any longer, but was still amazed to find that in her recent September 2016 deposition this grateful woman presented her taking money from Michael Jackson’s closet as a favor she did to Michael.

She said that ‘once’ he asked her to go into this room to get something for him:

A.  Once Michael asked me — when he was out of town, he asked me to go into his room to get something for him. And he told me about where —where the room was.

Q.   This time when were asked to retrieve money from the hidden room, do you remember when that was?

A.    No. It was around the same time as the grand jury or maybe just before that. It was around that same period.

You see that not only does it look like a favor to Michael Jackson, but the implication is that if the money did exchange hands after all, it was after the Chandler allegations and before her testimony to the grand jury, and in this context it sounds almost like a bribe.

And the good lawyer Katherine Kleindienst representing MJJ Productions did not use this opportunity to ask even a single question to clarify the matter.  It is exasperating to see that even lawyers may be clueless and have so little care for the details.

Things like that actually drive me mad.

SOME IDEAS

Now what ideas do you have after comparing the real facts with all those half-truths, lies and fabrications from Gutierrez, Murdock and even Joy Robson? Here are some of mine – not in the order of their relevance but in the order they crossed my mind.

In the rare cases when Orietta Murdock knew at least something she gave a more or less adequate account of the events. Her perception of them was biased, but even her twisted interpretations are nothing serious to talk about. None of them prove the allegations against Michael and her ‘evidence’ in the 1108 motion is actually worthless.

But for the most part Orietta Murdock knew nothing and this is when she compiled the innuendoes she heard somewhere into an unsavory mix – showing that she, like many others, didn’t make heads or tails of what she was talking about.

Despite the vagueness and glaring absurdity of her statements, her so-called testimony was nevertheless included into the Prosecution ‘Prior Bad Acts’ Motion which gives us the idea of the general quality of that document and the value of other people’s statements there.

The tale about ‘the father in the recording studio who left his son there overnight’ shared by Murdock and Gutierrez, is very specific and is not repeated by any other ‘witness’ and this reveals the indisputably close link between the two personas.

Victor Gutierrez and his collaborators – Orietta Murdock (above) and Blanca Francia [from Gutierrez’s book ‘Michael Jackson Was My Lover”, 1996)

Her employment finished with a dismissal and much of her spite for Jackson stems there. She sued him and Norma Staikos, and Gutierrez was so close a confidante of hers that she gave him the number of her complaint filed with the Equal Employment Department of California.

Murdock was originally from Costa Rica (so was another of those Spanish-speaking Gutierrez’s friends) and claimed that MJ thought her to be a Latino, but when he allegedly learned that she was black, he fired her.

“On January 29,1991, Orietta filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Department of California against Jackson and Norma Staikos claiming that she had been unjustly fired because of her race. In the report, case No. 340910600, Jackson’s ex-assistant says “I was fired and intimidated for being black. Michael doesn’t like black people. He would say that he wasn’t black, that he was a chameleon. He used creams and white makeup, like they use in the theater, since he didn’t like to look black. Much less did he want to be associated with black organizations, like the NAACP.”

So the stories about Michael not having Vitiligo, bleaching his skin and ‘not liking black people’ were fanned and fueled by Orietta Murdock as those innuendoes were the cornerstone of her complaint against Jackson.

Her name is even stated on Evan Chandler’s drawing presenting his vision of Michael Jackson’s private parts in combination with a bleaching cream (MJ was prescribed Beloquin cream used by Vitiligo patients for evening out their skin). So when Evan Chandler was working on his ‘theory’ Orietta Murdock was also involved – to help and determine the color of Michael’s penis which in reality neither Jordan, nor any of them had ever seen.

The drawing of the way Evan Chandler imagined MJ’s penis to look like is provided in Gutierrez’s book. It comes under the telling title “MY THEORY” and is made in Evan’s handwriting. It also mentions Orietta and ‘Bleaching cream’.

Jordan Chandler’s handwriting is different. It is heavily slanted – here is his signature under the declaration made on December 28, 1993:

Gutierrez claims that Orietta Murdock volunteered to help Evan Chandler with ‘information that would help his case against Jackson’ and says that she contacted Evan Chandler after his story broke in the media, but it won’t surprise me if it was Gutierrez who brought them together and at a much earlier date too.

Gutierrez describes Orietta Murdock’s cooperation with Evan Chandler peddling the lie that MJ didn’t have Vitiligo:

Thursday, September 2.

That afternoon, Evan received a call from Orietta Murdock. Orietta, who had ceased working for Jackson in 1991, wanted to give Evan information “that would help the case against Michael.” They made an appointment with Evan and his brother Raymond. Orietta arrived with her friend Marie Sabino Jones. Among other things, she said that she had seen Michael Jackson and Wade Robson hugging and that they were only wearing underwear. Two days later, Orietta was interviewed by the L.A.P.D. As Jackson’s personal assistant, Orietta worked closely with Jackson. “One of my duties was to buy him cosmetics and bleaching cream that we bought with doctor’s prescriptions prescribed under false names.” She asked Jackson about the color of his skin, and he claimed that he had a skin condition called Vitiligo. “For me it’s clear. I was the one who was buying the cream and I saw Jackson in his underwear. Michael is black. He doesn’t suffer from Vitiligo. He uses creams to whiten his skin.” Orietta’s statement was confirmed by several other persons, including Jordie, two other personal employees who had bought creams, and his own dermatologist who had testified to the authorities.

The  point about Michael’s dermatologist is utterly redundant even for this mass of lies. Dr. Arnold Klein always spoke about Michael’s vitiligo and testified to it to the authorities.

According to Gutierrez Orietta Murdock also attended a meeting with Gloria Allred, Evan and Jordan Chandler. Jordan seemed to her worried and guilty about all that was happening around him.

Monday, September 6.

June, Dave, Nathalie and Evan met with Gloria Allred and Nathan Goldberg at the Loews Hotel to discuss strategy for the soon to be filed civil complaint, and how to best handle the press. Later, Allred, Evan and Jordie met with Orietta. Orietta noticed that Jordie looked worried. “When I met Jordie, I noticed that he appeared to feel guilty about all that was happening around him.” He asked me about my experiences working with Jackson, and we talked for a while. At the time, I didn’t know that Evan was more interested in the money than his son’s justice.”

You have probably noticed that in the first piece from Gutierrez Orietta Murdock allegedly saw MJ and Wade wearing only underwear and hugging each other. To scare some of you out of your wits and give others a good laugh let me quote Quiterrez alleging the following about Orietta Murdock:

One day, Orietta saw something she shouldn’t have. “One night, the apartment door was open. I knocked, but nobody answered. The music was loud, so I said ‘Michael? …Michael?’ and again nobody answered. At the end of the passage was Michael’s room. The door to the bedroom was open and I found him sitting on a chair with Wade. They were nude from the waist up, the rest of their bodies covered by sheets. I was startled at what I saw. Michael didn’t see me. So I said loudly, ‘Michael!’ He came to the door closing it very firmly. He asked me what I was doing there and wanted to know how I had entered. I told him that the door was open. He explained that it was probably his private cook that left the door open as they had asked for some food earlier. Then I left. I didn’t mention this to anyone in the office.”

Whether the above was wholly Gutierrez’s invention or Orietta Murdock really said something of the kind we don’t know, but even if she did the prosecution avoided using this piece in their ‘Prior Bad Acts’ Motion as the above was too much baloney even for them.

Indeed, the apartment door was open… (What apartment?) The door to the bedroom was open too… (all doors were open in that apartment). The administrative assistant was going down the passage at night… (What did she do there at night? Wasn’t her workplace at the office?) They were sitting on a chair nude from the waist up with ‘the rest covered by sheets’….. Michael didn’t see her (but she wanted him to notice her), so she said loudly, ‘Michael’ (!)

The nude (half-nude) Michael Jackson stood up and closed the door ‘firmly’, but before that he had a conversation with his assistant (standing naked in front of her)… They talked about the open door, about his private cook and the food he asked for earlier….  After the small talk she left…. (Why did she come at all?) She didn’t mention this to anyone in the office…. (I wonder why the prosecution didn’t bring criminal charges against all these people who saw ‘everything’ but kept it to themselves?)

Gutierrez’s book abides in similar descriptions some of which are attributed to Orietta Murdock. Apparently, the prosecutors knew their worth and this is probably why they never mentioned them. However one story made it into Orietta Murdock’s statement for their ‘Prior Bad Acts’ motion and see how accurate it is.

The 1108 Motion says:

Ms. Murdock became aware that another of Jackson’s special friends was Jonathan Spence. During Spence’s relationship with Jackson, Jackson took him on the “Bad” Tour. Spence would often sleep in Jackson’s room. Spence was allowed to shop for whatever he wished, and send the bills to Jackson’s office for payment. Trips to the toy stores started to turn into trips to jewelry stores as Spence grew older. Ms. Murdock noticed that as Spence neared the age of 15, Jackson took up with another, younger boy.

During the time Ms. Murdock was employed at MJJ, Jimmy Safechuck became another recipient of Jackson’s obsessive attentions, which included, as usual, numerous extended telephone calls between the two.

Even those who saw only the ‘Leaving Neverland’ thriller and are totally unaware of the real picture, will tell you that what Orietta Murdock alleged about Jonathan Spence should be alleged about Jimmy Safechuck, and vice versa – the little she knew about Safechuck should be said about Spence.

Orietta Murdock mixed apples and oranges, and it isn’t an exception to the rule, but a routine occurrence in their case against Jackson. The other prosecution witnesses’ statements are almost universally the same kind – they are also a mix-up of names, dates and locations betraying their total lack of knowledge about what they were talking about, and most of those sexual fantasies carry the stamp of Gutierrez’s authorship written all over the stories.

So if Gutierrez made a mistake in his story, those ‘witnesses’ repeated the same mistakes in their statements too.

And if Gutierrez knew nothing about James Safechuck (which he didn’t, a deplorable omission!), the prosecution witnesses knew nothing about him either and practically never mentioned him in their statements.

And if Gutierrez mistakenly claimed that Mr. Robson had taken his son to the recording studio and they hadn’t seen the boy until the next day, the prosecution witness Orietta Murdock would repeat the same mistake.

And if Gutierrez confused Jonathan Spence with Safechuck, the prosecution witness would confuse them too.

In fact, Orietta’s muddled story about Jonathan Spence mirrors Gutierrez’s book again – he tells there a similar apples and oranges story attributed to Orietta, which again focuses on Jonathan Spence with every possible innuendo piled upon his poor head.

Gutierrez speaks about Jonathan Spence in the name of Orietta Murdock:

“Another witness that told me about the relationship between Jackson and Jonathan Spence was Orietta Murdock. She told me how Jonathan, at that time 16 years old, would call her office. “He would call often and ask for concert tickets. Michael had given us instructions to give him whatever he wanted. I remember when Michael gave him a convertible Mustang. They both went to Japan, too. The limousine was always at his disposal. I knew that his family lived in Encino. Michael gave them a house and a Mercedez Benz each,” said Orietta.

When Orietta heard that Jonathan had denied her statement, she added: “a young boy of sixteen isn’t able to buy a brand new Mustang convertible, and if he had, it would have been with Michael’s money. I was the one who received the call to start processing the purchase of the car. And as for his father, perhaps he was musical, but I found out that his father worked as a refuse collector for the city, and his mother was a social worker.”

Outsiders may believe it, but any person who knows real facts will see the above as the exceptional BS it really is.

Jonathan Spence was indeed one of Michael’s friends who often called his office for tickets, and this is the most we know about him.

But the Mustang car was given to Ryan White, an AIDS victim who was 17 at the time and who died a year later after Michael made him this gift. The car was sent to Ryan’s home in the summer of 1990 which was exactly the time when Orietta Murdock was Michael’s assistant and received a call to process this purchase.

And the ‘father who worked as a refuse collector’ is a clear reference to James Safechuck, whose father owned a refuse collection company, and it was for their house that the well-meaning Michael helped to pay credit as Safechuck’s mother explained it in the Leaving Neverland horror film.

So a story which was supposed to be about one person is actually a collection of twisted facts cherry-picked from the biographies of three people. And though separate elements of the story may be true, the result is a huge bundle of lies which is the truth imitation most probably created by Gutierrez’s idle and vicious mind.

Whether Orietta parroted Gutierrez or it was the other way around, it’s clear that Murdock, Quindoy, Blanca Francia, Adrian McManus, Ralph Chacon and all those other ‘witnesses’ were in close cooperation with Gutierrez who collected every single rumor about Jackson, spinned them beyond recognition and promoted them further to the hungry public with the help of Diane Dimond, for example.

It is also a stunning fact that many of those ‘witnesses’ included into the Prosecution 1108 motion worked at Neverland and left it at approximately the same time. The motion gives us the periods of their work for MJ:

• Blanca Francia: 1986 – June 1991
• Mark and Faye Quindoy: May 1989 – August 1990.
• Philippe and Stella LeMarques replaced the Quindoys and worked for 6 months only, between January and July 1991 and left or were dismissed at the same time as Blanca Francia.
• Orietta Murdock: September 1989 – January 1991
• Charlie Michaels left or was dismissed a year later, but her time of employment overlapped with all those mentioned above and was March 21, 1990 – March 6, 1992.

To me the fact that all those ‘witnesses’ were active against Jackson at approximately the same time looks very odd indeed. It suggests that in 1990-1992 all of them were pumped for information and possibly coached by Gutierrez, who was preparing the ground for a future hatchet job against Michael Jackson.

The culmination came in 1993 when the Chandler scandal broke out, but it was the two year period prior to that which actually decided Michael Jackson’s fate.

THE SKELETON IN THE CUPBOARD

It’s time we got back to the Robsons and learned a couple of details about their family life.

In her ‘Nightmare in Neverland’ article published in 1994 Maureen Orth mentioned an anonymous man who called her about his son and was extremely worried about his well-being, but had little opportunity to see him as the boy was too far away. The article said:

“One anguished father who had spent considerable time at Neverland called me in despair over the fact that he had ever allowed Jackson to share a bed with his son. He has no proof that anything untoward occurred, but he claims that he himself was molested by an uncle and kept the secret from his parents for 30 years. That knowledge tortures him, because he and his wife are divorced, and he lives so far away that he is rarely able to see his son. He says that his wife, who has custody, told him that if he spoke to the press he would never see his son again. A week later, after talking to his wife, who was in contact with Jackson’s side, he called again, eager to give me a quote in favor of Michael Jackson.”

Since we’ve amassed a huge amount of information it is easy for us to recognize the anonymous man – it was Wade’s father Dennis Robson. It turns out that he was extremely worried about his son after the Chandler allegations and was in despair that he had allowed him to stay with Michael Jackson.

Dennis and Joy Robson

We also learn that Dennis Robson himself was molested by an uncle and he disclosed his secret to his parents when he was well over 30.

He was a tortured soul and this is why the suspicion that his own son may have been molested too gave him real anguish – at least until a week later his former wife Joy reassured him of the opposite.

Wade Robson of course knows that his father was sexually abused as a child, but as far as I remember never speaks about it, however this skeleton in the cupboard provides him with a good example he models himself after in order to play the same molestation cards and tell exactly the same story of ‘a son and his anguished father’.

The family had a vivid example of such tortured soul in front of their eyes and all of them eventually learned the reason why, however it didn’t prevent them from leaving him all alone, and it is the memory of this betrayal that’s adding to the guilt the children now feel for abandoning their father.

So when you watch the second part of the ‘Leaving Neverland’ saga you should realize that the reason why Dennis’s three children are tearful when they speak about the break-up of their family is not because of Jackson who had nothing to do with it, but because of the remorse they feel for leaving their father alone at a time when he needed them most.

Wade Robson’s grandmother Lorraine in ‘Leaving Neverland’ horror film

The two parts of ‘Leaving Neverland’ make a striking difference in this respect – when they talk about the alleged molestation of Wade Robson the family is calm, composed and even laughing (remember the jolly old grandmother Lorraine).

But when it comes to their real tragedy Chantal and her brothers can’t help crying. Even the elder brother Shane Robson breaks down when he speaks about his father though he is a hardened policeman who must have seen a lot of human tragedy due to his profession.

Of course the Robsons put the blame on Michael Jackson – their family was broken up, Michael took their father’s place, etc. etc.

But the reality is much harsher than this publicity trick, because what happened to their family and particularly their father was wholly their mother’s doing.

Joy Robson in ‘Leaving Neverland’ horror film about the ‘abuse’ of her child

In that article Dennis refers to his wife having ‘custody’, and this point makes it clear that Joy Robson not only divorced her husband before leaving for the US, but also obtained sole custody of their children.

And according to Australian family law this required her to go to court to demand that the father should be stripped of his parental rights.

When parents are divorced Australian family law presumes that ‘each parent of children under 18 has equal parental responsibility for their children, ‘unless otherwise ordered by a court.’

The court can grant sole custody to one of the parents only if there is a solid reason for it and equal parental responsibility is considered ‘inappropriate and not in the children’s best interests.’

‘The effect of this is that the responsible parent will not be required to consult with their former spouse with respect to any decisions made about the children.’

Attention please to this part of their family law:

“In order to have the Court provide ‘sole parenting’ or ‘sole custody’ responsibility to one parent, that person will be required to provide the Court with a full report on all matters relevant to their claim against the other parent. This might include evidence of police reports or other witness statements; evidence of a total breakdown in communication between the parents, or any indicator demonstrating that joint parenting would probably create more problems for the children than a sole custody parenting order. The mental and physical health of each parent might also be a relevant factor.”

I don’t think that Dennis Robson had a police record to his credit, however since Joy Robson did obtain sole custody of their children it means that she must have given to court at least some reason why her husband should be denied his parental rights.

And the mental factor mentioned above suddenly reminded me that Robson’s father was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. This made me suspect that this diagnosis could be made right at the time when Joy Robson wanted to decide her children’s future single-handedly, without seeking her former husband’s consent. And if she resolved to take the children out of the country and her husband was against it, the diagnosis of his bipolar disorder could perfectly settle the problem.

It would be pure speculation to assert that in order to deny her husband his parental rights and take the children to the US, Joy Robson made arrangements to have him certified as a mental case, but if someone has an opportunity to check up the dates, it won’t hurt to find out at which period of time Dennis Robson was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

And if it was just before they left for the US (and not years afterwards or at a much earlier time, for example), this date will speak volumes and will add a small but telling detail to this family saga.

The timeline tells us that in June 1990 Joy Robson was still married, but in September 1991 she was not and was already free to decide the future of her children without any hindrance on Dennis’s part, so there is some ground for speculation here after all.

Whether Dennis Robson did or didn’t have bipolar disorder in addition to suffering from his childhood sexual trauma I have no idea, but in any case this mental condition is not serious enough for denying a man his parental rights. With adequate medication a bipolar disorder can even go unnoticed during the whole span of a person’s life, because all it means is that a person has mood swings and will go from euphoria to depression and back. In fact Evan Chandler also had a bipolar disorder, and most of his life lived quite happily until one day he decided to extort Michael Jackson for $20 million, and this damaged not only Michael but also himself.

Whatever the case with Dennis Robson, the situation with their divorce and the mother’s sole custody sheds a little light on the character of Joy Robson and the extent she may go to in order to reach her goals.

This woman possesses infinite ambition, rare determination and a steel hand, and if there was anyone who broke up that family in order to open up new horizons for her and the children it was surely Joy Robson.

Of course she was doing it for the sake of the children to give them a better chance – apparently, this was the way she understood her parental duty. She said she thought that she wasn’t losing anything anyway, and therefore wanted to give it a try.

But I still don’t understand why Michael Jackson and MJJ Productions should be held responsible for the ‘undue care’ for her children, if it was Joy Robson who was resolute to take all the risks and made her decisions with her eyes open.

After all she went through the unhappy experience of those two incidents with MJ (tears on Mother’s Day and the flight they nearly missed) even before they moved to the US, but disregarded even her own concerns.

She certainly never believed the allegations against Jackson and most probably doesn’t believe them now because she is no fool not to notice that Wade contradicts even her own memories (like that staying-alone-at-Neverland story that never happened), but she keeps mum about it to avoid further complications with her beloved son.

It’s obvious that she doesn’t want any more suicides in her family and may erroneously think that appeasing Wade in whatever he does is the best way.

Joy Robson herself is also mentioned in Maureen Orth’s article, and knowing the story we can decipher it even further:

They [the Quindoys] knew the boy whose father had called me in despair. They remembered that his mother would leave the boy with Jackson for “three or four weeks” at a time, and claimed she would cry, “My son has been kidnapped.”

The crying mother can be easily recognized as Joy Robson and the Quindoys’ statement that she ‘left the boy with Jackson for three or four weeks at a time’ definitely refers to their long May-June 1990 visit which falls within the time of the Quindoys’ employment (May 1989-August 1990).

The story is a lie of course or at least a heavy exaggeration – Joy rarely left her son unattended and that incident at the recording studio was one of those exceptions. In any case the Robsons spent most of their time in LA on that visit, and the Quindoys were at Neverland, so even for that reason they could know nothing about it.

Those allegations were the usual spin. Joy Robson simply made the mistake of calling Quindoy when she was looking for her son and this was enough for them to start weaving their tales (the reason why the guests at Neverland were asked not to run around with their problems but take them directly to Norma Staikos).

In her anger Joy Robson could even mention kidnapping and at the 2005 trial she was reminded that Tom Sneddon wanted her to confirm the ‘kidnapping’ story to the grand jury, but Joy said she didn’t remember and in any case never thought that her son was kept by force.

But Quindoy did remember and jumped to a conclusion that if this woman didn’t know where her son was she must have left him totally unattended for weeks at a time!

~

In fact it is incredibly easy to read through these texts now and see what really happened and what is pure fiction.

With the amount of information in our baggage even the most intricate text suddenly opens up and becomes clear. The events form into a logical succession, people who wanted to stay anonymous reveal their names and most ingenious lies fall apart almost at first touch.

You are able to spot liars and measure the degree of their degradation. You see which lie springs from which story, you watch puzzle pieces fit into their proper place and see how even the most baffling stories make themselves unravel.

It is a totally miraculous process when unbelievable things begin to happen. Maureen Orth’s articles suddenly turn into a treasure trove of hidden facts waiting to be discovered because now you are able to read between the lines there and connect the dots never connected before.

Each text suddenly becomes transparent and it feels like you are able to read an ancient text in a long forgotten language. The feeling is fantastic.

This must be the effect of the truth.  Try it yourself and you will open the door to a different reality.

Truth is real magic, guys.

~

UPDATE

One of the readers (Maria) found a new article by Maureen Orth (March 1, 2019) https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/03/10-undeniable-facts-about-the-michael-jackson-sexual-abuse-allegations and left the following comment:

In her “Nightmare in Neverland” she said: “One anguished father who had spent considerable time at Neverland called me in despair” but in the 2019 article she admits it was HER who first called Dennis Robson, and Dennis “surprised her by returning her call”.

Also interesting: “Dennis, who had been diagnosed as bipolar SHORTLY before his wife left”.

Shortly before his wife left! I guess, it’s safe to say that your hypothesis that his diagnosis was connected with Joy’s intent to have full custody IS CORRECT!

Yes, my supposition turned out to be absolutely correct.

After more than 18 years of marriage to Dennis Robson his wife Joy was so intent on starting a new life, probably for herself too, that not only did she divorce her husband, but she also had him certified as a mental case and took this diagnosis to court to strip him of his parental rights.

The court gave her sole custody of the children and the right to decide their future without her former husband standing in the way – his consent was no longer needed for anything she did. And with great expectations for a new bright future ahead of them she set out on a journey to the US, taking their younger children with her.

Does the discovery that I was right make me happy?

No, it doesn’t. It makes me extremely sad.

Maureen Orth says that Dennis Robson never got over losing his family.

After his wife took the children away from him, leaving him with a mental diagnosis at that, Dennis Robson more or less survived with the help of his elder son Shane who fortunately stayed by his side for over 10 years. But in 2002 Shane left too and this is when Dennis Robson committed suicide.

Muareen Orth tries to convince us that Dennis Robson “never got over losing his family, all because his son, then five, had won a local dance contest, and the first prize was a meeting with his idol, Michael Jackson.”

In the opinion of these people Michael is to blame for every life problem, so they are falling over themselves to prove their point. But thousands of people all over the world met Michael Jackson, and it was only those who were guided by avarice and ambition who destroyed their lives, and with their own hands too.

Maureen Orth claims that “in the new HBO documentary Leaving Neverland, Wade Robson says he never fully understood what caused his father’s pain”.

Well, if he never understood it, let us explain it to him.

His father was in so much pain because he was sacrificed to his wife’s ambitions and was ruthlessly betrayed – by all of them and Joy Robson in particular.

Betrayal seems to be running in this family.

Like mother, like son.

The promise to cover the remaining parts of ‘Leaving Neverland’ horror movie will be certainly kept, but before that we need to finish with the Blanca and Jason Francia’s story which is also a very big subject that has secrets of its own.

And I am not only talking about Blanca’s so-called evidence regarding Wade Robson that was handled in one of the previous posts – there are a lot of other interesting details that will open up to you if you really look.

Blanca Francia

This post will be about some of those secrets, but first here is a short reminder of what we found earlier about Blanca’s tale regarding Wade Robson.

Some excerpts from her 1993/94 deposition, posted on the internet only recently, made it clear that the story of ‘the former maid seeing Michael in a shower with little Wade Robson’ is a myth dispelled by her own depositions which took place just three years after the alleged event.

It turned out that she had seen only one figure in Michael Jackson’s shower – that of Michael himself. She only assumed that someone else could be there because his figure was blurred and half seen through the fogged glass, and she heard him give a little he-he-he giggle which made her think that he was talking to someone, though there were no other voices heard.

She also assumed that Wade Robson was in the shower as the boy was not in MJ’s room and she saw him and Michael Jackson together later in the day. But nothing was seen or heard in that bathroom – all of it was just a play of her vivid imagination.

Great as this discovery was, more awaited us when we learned that the alleged event  took place in December 1989 which dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s – by that time the Robsons had not even arrived in the US yet as their first visit to Neverland was only in February 1990.

So regardless of Robson’s claims, the described scene has nothing to do with him and we can forget about Robson for now.

A little more research brought us the name of the boy who really stayed at Neverland at the time specified by Blanca Francia – that of Ryan White, an AIDS victim whose condition was already so bad that he died just four months later, in April 1990.

Ryan White, aged 18 meets Ronald and Nancy Reagan. This is his last public appearance [March 1990]

And if she made her assumptions about that boy, any ideas about a joint shower with him will be completely crazy considering his disease, because at that time people were afraid of even sitting beside an AIDS victim, not to mention going to a shower or a bathtub with an infected person.

However another astonishing fact we know about Michael Jackson is that he wanted to go to a Jacuzzi with Ryan White.

When speaking to Larry King, Michael’s dermatologist Arnold Klein said that Michael asked him if going in a Jacuzzi with Ryan would be safe and didn’t pose a threat to him. He asked Dr. Hoefflin too, and Hoefflin strongly advised him against it, while Klein said it was okay.

Why did Michael want to do it for Ryan White?

He wanted to show the boy that he wasn’t a pariah and that at least Michael wasn’t afraid of him. Michael’s heart always went out to the weak and he wanted Ryan to feel normal and no different from others. He wanted to set him at his ease and acted like there was nothing extraordinary in taking a Jacuzzi with an infected person though everyone around shunned him like the plague.

In case Michael Jackson managed to realize his big plan and did take Ryan to a Jacuzzi during that visit, Blanca Francia could indeed see their wet swimming trunks on the floor (as she said she did) and Michael could indeed take a shower after that, right in the middle of the day.

As to Ryan White, after the Jacuzzi he would certainly go back to his guest unit to have a nap there – he was so frail that he regularly took a nap in the daytime to regain his strength.

For details of what Blanca Francia said during those 1993/94 depositions please go to this post. And if you want to learn more about Ryan White’s five-day stay at Neverland (in a guest unit by the way) in December ‘89 and see how he got acquainted with MJ at all, you can go to a separate page of this blog that will tell you about the two visits to Neverland described by Ryan White himself. He doesn’t mention the Jacuzzi, but if it did happen it could be only during his second visit to Neverland at Christmas 1989.