Skip to content

LIES OF “LEAVING NEVERLAND” and the matter of JOY ROBSON’S HAIRSTYLE

August 29, 2019

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.

Снимок экрана (242)

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? 🙂

How the TRUTH of “Chernobyl” Dumped the “Leaving Neverland” FAKE

June 25, 2019

“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 filmmakers 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. Read more…

„Leaving Neverland“ – after the dust has settled: Fiction and propaganda

June 13, 2019

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. Read more…

The ‘Leaving Neverland’ Fabrication Is Breeding A New Ideology

May 24, 2019

“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. Read more…

“Leaving Neverland” transcript. The 2nd half hour of LIES AND DISTORTION

March 31, 2019

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. Read more…

“Leaving Neverland” transcript. The 1st half hour of LIES AND DISTORTION

March 22, 2019

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 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 filmmaker 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. Read more…

John Ziegler’s Podcast and True Journalism about ‘Leaving Neverland’

March 19, 2019

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!  Full video here:

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 17th 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: Read more…

%d bloggers like this: