Skip to content

THE KEY PLAYERS behind ‘Leaving Neverland’ Operation

December 29, 2020

Three days before the official trailer for “Leaving Neverland” was first released to the public on February 19, 2019, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times wrote her review of the film setting a sort of a standard for other mainstream media to follow.

Maureen Dowd should not be confused with Maureen Orth of the Vanity Fair who dedicated her life to smearing Michael Jackson. Maureen Dowd is the Pulitzer Prize-winning op-ed columnist who is “arguably the most powerful journalist in America thanks to her must-read column in The New York Times”.

To show how powerful she really is it’s suffice to mention that just one column of hers written in February 2007 ruined the chances of Hillary Clinton for presidency and projected the career of Barack Obama as a Democratic nominee who would later win the elections.

Let me repeat – it was Dowd’s just one column that changed the US political climate forever.

And on February 16, 2019 she reviewed the Leaving Neverland film, just several days before some of its footage was to be shown to the public for the first time.

A month prior to that the film premiered at the Sundance festival and those present had already sent shock waves throughout the world, however its TV premiere was to take place only on March 3 and 4, so Maureen Dowd’s opinion of the film was kind of setting the scene.

One would imagine that a journalist whose word people hang on as if it were the gospel, would be wary of making rash conclusions and warn others that unless proven by facts the assertions of two individuals are worthless.

However this was not the case. In the very headline of her column Maureen Dowd denounced Michael Jackson as the King of “perversion”, presented the film as fact and instead of asking appropriate questions about its legitimacy redirected everyone’s attention to “how could we be so blind?”

Her review abounded in words like “lair”, “monster”, “rapist”, “apparent criminality”, “shredded lives of victims”, “tragedy” and the like.

The King of Pop — and Perversion

By Maureen Dowd

Opinion Columnist

February 16, 2019

When Dan Reed ordered up a score for his documentary, he asked the composer to evoke the image of a shimmering sprite leading two boys deeper and deeper into an enchanted forest. The boys don’t notice that the trees grow menacing. And suddenly, the sprite turns into a monster.

As “Leaving Neverland” shows, Michael Jackson spent his life shape-shifting from best pal, father figure and beneficent idol into cruel, manipulative rapist.

It was apparent for decades that Jackson’s cotton-candy lair was sulfurous. But as with other monsters — Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, Woody Allen, Jeffrey Epstein and Bryan Singer — many turned a blind eye.

Celebrity supersedes criminality. How can you see clearly when you’re looking into the sun? How can an icon be a con?

It was easier to ignore a landscape designed as a spider web for child sexual abuse than to give up the soundtrack of our lives, the catchy songs that coursed through memories of weddings, bar mitzvahs and other good times.

“With Michael Jackson, you can see how grotesquely his fame, and our worship of fame, distorts and excuses and enables evil — to the point mothers fail to protect their children and literally throw them in harm’s way,” says Maureen Orth, who did groundbreaking stories in the ’90s for Vanity Fair about both Jackson and Allen.

Indeed, the most harrowing part of the new documentary about the shredded lives of two of Jackson’s victims is the complicity of their mothers. Jackson spent as much time grooming the mothers as the sons, to the point where the women saw nothing wrong in letting their children share a bed with a grown man. (The documentary, which left the audience stunned at Sundance last month, premieres on HBO next month.)

Reed is a Brit who made several documentaries about terrorism. He says he became practiced at leading victims gently back to their traumas, so they could use their minds as cameras to bring key moments to life, letting their faces and voices tell the stories.

And that is how the tragedies of James Safechuck and Wade Robson unfold, through the pain in their eyes and the confusion in their voices and the moments where they tear up or swallow hard.

Safechuck, who works as a computer programmer, was raised in Simi Valley. He met Jackson when he was a 9-year-old child actor in 1987, starring with the singer in a Pepsi commercial. Jackson promised to make the boy the next Spielberg.

Robson, a dance teacher who did choreography for Britney Spears and ’N Sync, grew up on the other side of the world in Brisbane. He spent all his time dressing and dancing like Jackson. He won a dance contest in 1987 and got to meet Jackson, who was on tour in Australia, and dance onstage. Then, he was ensnared in the warped fantasy, a 7-year-old being initiated into sex at Neverland by the 31-year-old Jackson.

The mothers, Stephanie Safechuck and Joy Robson, knew that Jackson was ensorcelling their sons, even as he lured the mothers out of the frame with luxurious enticements. But they were stage mothers and fans, so they chose to believe Michael was a kind, lonely little boy at heart, not a heartless pedophile, and they did not dig deeper when their sons said nothing bad was going on.

“He flies you first class, you have a limo waiting for you at the airport, amazing, you know, it’s a life of the rich and famous,” Mrs. Safechuck gushes in the film, adding: “I got to meet Sean Connery. That was big for me. It was like, ‘Oh my God, Sean Connery!’” She also loved Neverland: “He had a beautiful wine cellar, really good wines, champagne, that was just something I enjoyed — it was a fairy tale every night.” After all, as she says, he was a genius and they were “just nobodies.” Jackson bought them a house after James testified on the singer’s behalf in a trial involving another boy.

It somehow made sense to James’s mother when she was told that she couldn’t be near the hotel rooms her son and Michael shared in Europe because the nicer suites she would prefer were farther away.

As Wade Robson puts it, “What you’d think would be standard kind of instincts and judgment seemed to go out the window.”

His mother left Australia and his father and moved to L.A. with Wade and her daughter to be closer to Michael; the father later committed suicide. After Wade finally told a therapist and his wife and family what had happened, he was alienated from his mother for a time. Like James, Wade — who lied in court twice to protect the man he loved — had symptoms of trauma that intensified with the birth of his son. James’s hands shake as he shows a diamond ring that Jackson gave him for a private mock wedding. Wade had a nervous breakdown and stopped dancing for a time.

“I had one job” and messed it up, Mrs. Safechuck says. “My son had to suffer for me to have this life.”

Even with this shocking documentary, the Michael Jackson estate is still demonizing the victims and planning to bring a musical about Jackson’s life to Broadway in 2020.

Reed says he is “agnostic” about it: “Am I going to campaign to have Michael’s name removed from classrooms and his statues removed from shopping malls? No. Is this the right time to celebrate Michael as a legitimate good person you might want to emulate? Possibly not.”

And that is what’s known as British understatement.

That kind of opinion coming from the NY Times, the pillar of American journalism, and from its well-respected columnist, must have sounded like the final verdict for the majority of readers – and many would probably not even go beyond the headline. A few rare voices of protest were heard but were drowned in the almost universal wailing and shaming that ensued.

These rare voices of reason included David Walsh from a socialist site which criticizes liberals from the left. He called Maureen Dowd’s review “disgusting” and expressed his amazement at the universal acceptance of the unsubstantiated claims by the American media. For him Michael Jackson is a tragic victim of the American entertainment industry that went over him like a bone-crashing machine (correct).

Here are some excerpts from David Walsh:

 “A striking feature of the present situation is the almost universal acceptance of the Robson-Safechuck claims by the American media. The word of two individuals, who have been seeking monetary compensation from the Jackson estate for years, is taken as gospel. Why is there so little skepticism, why are so few questions being asked? This is not a reflection of “popular opinion,” as it were.

Everything about Leaving Neverland produces a bad odor. … the film’s “first-hand account” provides no substantiation whatsoever of that claim; those who made Leaving Neverland and those promoting it are morally deplorable and shameless. They are seeking to profit from the film and exploit the events to advance their careers and make money.

They calculate that with money comes wisdom, and their word should be law. The accuser “must be believed” is now the watchword, and presumption of innocence and due process be damned. The allegations of Robson and Safechuck cannot be doubted or even scrutinized, because that would throw the entire #MeToo witch-hunt into question.

Billionaire Oprah Winfrey, who utters another banality every time she opens her mouth, is the spiritual-financial leader of this movement and the New York Times is its intellectual “backbone.”

The Times’ Maureen Dowd, one of the moral pillars of our time, penned a disgusting column denouncing Michael Jackson on February 16, “The King of Pop—and Perversion.”

Dowd writes, “As Leaving Neverland shows, Michael Jackson spent his life shape-shifting from best pal, father figure and beneficent idol into cruel, manipulative rapist.” The film, in reality, does not show anything. It passes on the unsubstantiated, unproven assertions of two individuals. To present Jackson as a “monster” is dishonest and reprehensible.

Jackson was swept up by the American entertainment industry’s bone-crushing machinery. … There isn’t a trace of sympathy or elemental humanity in the media coverage. The creation of “monsters,” sexual predators and the like, has become essential to the operations and agenda of the Democratic Party in particular.

Michael Jackson has been dead for nearly a decade. Now he is being excoriated, trampled upon once more—for what? The whole business has degenerated into a squalid pursuit of money and career advancement. We condemn it.”

Full text:

Even a bigger number of sensible voices came from the more conservative spectrum including Piers Morgan, John Ziegler, Razorfist and others. Radio host Mark Davis, for example, looked into the root of the problem and asked for the proof of those claims, saying that without it the film was “no journalism but activist filmmaking” with an agenda to smear Jackson.

The shocking Michael Jackson documentary deserves to be seen, but can it be believed?

By Mark Davis

6:09 PM on Mar 7, 2019 GMT-6

The makers of the new Michael Jackson documentary may not have envisioned the reaction it sparked in me: I am more open to his family’s denials than ever.

…my problem is with the heavy-handed one-sidedness of the entire spectacle. This is not journalism, nor does it pretend to be. It is activist filmmaking with an agenda —  the desire to paint Jackson as a serial child molester.

This is not illegal, or even unethical. Michael Moore had no obligation to film contrary views in his Bush-bashing Fahrenheit 9/11. But no one should rely on Moore for an even-handed assessment of the subject matter.

Leaving Neverland brims with the shocking stories of Wade Robson and James Safechuck, both of whom recanted their charges in the 1990s. Robson even testified on Jackson’s behalf in 2005. This does not mean they are lying today, but nor does it guarantee that their newfound desire to share should be treated as gospel.

The film buries viewers in stories of bizarre scenes and actions, but even those do not mean the victimization described took place.

The accusers are not under oath. They have gone public for money after their lawsuits against the Jackson estate failed. But my biggest obstacle to believing them involves Jackson himself.

There is nothing in the behavioral catalog of pedophilia that includes building an amusement park in the yard. Real child molesters tend to be guarded, insular and so pathologically concealed in their sick aims that they usually look like guys you could see in line at a hardware store. I find it easier to believe that Jackson’s eccentricities were not the product of a man who lusted for children, but a stunted man clinging to his own lost childhood. But again, I have no proof either way.

And ultimately, consider the numbers. The total of mega-rich, famous people who have provably festooned themselves with the trappings of childhood in order to lure kids into sex: zero. Meanwhile, the number of liars spurred by profit motive to fabricate stories about famous people: too many to count.

This is not an argument that the documentary is a pack of lies; it is a suggestion that it is a wholly unworthy basis for a firm conclusion of Jackson’s guilt.

Mark Davis is a radio host and frequent contributor to The Dallas Morning News. The Mark Davis Show airs from 7 to 10 a.m. weekdays on KSKY-AM (660). 

Full text:

So while the establishment media universally condemned Michael Jackson on the basis of stories alone, the rare voices from the outside asked for facts to substantiate the claims, without which the film is no documentary but is just activist film-making with an agenda to paint Michael Jackson as a monster.

The exceptions only prove the rule as they highlight the existence of a rule, and this is how the few voices that contested the official narrative made it apparent that the establishment media is actually heavily biased against Jackson and has exactly the same agenda as the two accusers.

This has been clear to us for a long time already and the only thing that required clarification was the reason why. This post will try to look into that.


Maureen Dowd’s right-wing critics are perfectly aware of her one-sided reporting and remind her that journalists are expected “to balance their sympathies and opinions with their obligation to present events in the most accurate way possible” – the reproach that fully applies to Dowd’s headlong accusation of Michael Jackson of things she and no one have absolutely no proof of.

Dowd’s critics point to an interesting episode in her career that sheds the light on the way she ruined Hillary Clinton’s chances and on who was the real driving force behind her column and the political earthquake that followed.

It turns out that the person who dumped Hillary Clinton’s nomination was the same person who, according to Michael Jackson himself sank his career too.

Yes, the name of that person is David Geffen.

From the political point of view Hillary Clinton as Geffen’s victim and his choice of Barack Obama as a new favorite are not that important to us. What is important is the way Geffen handled Hillary’s crash, the gigantic power he enjoys in American media and at the top tiers of American politics, his ability to turn public opinion overnight by his choice alone and his connection with Maureen Dowd who in both cases was a means to achieve his goals.

All these factors are extremely relevant to Michael Jackson’s case too, because if Geffen could overturn the career of politician No.1 just by making a few remarks to a journalist, he could easily do the same to the No.1 star in the entertainment industry too.

Actually, the fact that it was Geffen who busted Hillary Clinton is well known to the American public, but few know the details, so here they are coming from the book “Race of a Lifetime: How Obama Won the White House” by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin.

The old Jack Warner house sat on Angelo Drive at the top of Beverly Hills. Built in the thirties, it now belongs to the billionaire entertainment mogul David Geffen.

On the night of February 20, 2007, Obama was there for a private dinner in his honor. Earlier that evening, Geffen and his partners in DreamWorks SKG, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg, had hosted a $1.3 million fund-raiser for him at the Beverly Hilton, attended by some three hundred members of the glitterati. From the time the event was nnounced, it had drawn notice, signifying that at least a portion of Hollywood, including some longtime backers of the Clintons, was attracted to Obama.

After the fund-raiser, a more intimate group of thirty-five retired to Geffen’s mansion, spreading themselves out across three tables. Among them were Michelle Obama Spielberg and Katzenberg, former Dinsey and Fox studio head Joe Roth, William Morris Agency chairman Him Wiatt, Walk the Line writer and director James Mangold, Sleepless in Seatlle producer Lynda Obst, and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. 

As the dinner wound down, Geffen approached Obama, holding a printout of a Web page with a column by Dowd that would be appearing in the next day’s Times. The piece was all about Geffen’s disenchantment with the Clintons. It contained harsh words, and lots of them, that would reverberate through the political world for months. Handing it to Obama, Geffen said, “I think I should show you this.”

Geffen and Dowd were a colorful pair of friends – a mischievous dyad, each with a long and complicated relationship with the Clintons. Coquettish and flame-haired, Dowd was liberal but never earnerst or doctrinaire [] She had won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 1999, for a series of columns that folded, spindled, and mutilated Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Geffen’s relationship with Clinton began to change toward the end of Bill’s White House years. Before that, the mogul and the president had been tight, the former raising millions for the latter and sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom more than once. Clinton would phone Geffen all the time – at home, in the car, late at night – and would often stay with Geffen when he was in Hollywood.

Now, as Geffen showed the text of the column to Obama, he wondered how the candidate would react. Obama read it, gave Geffen a wide-eyed what-have-you-done look, and laughed. This is going to cause some conversation, Obama said dryly. They’re not going to be happy with this.”

The Dowd column was explosive, all right. It went off like an atomb bomb inside Hillaryland.”

Please note that the book calls David Geffen and Maureen Dowd a colorful pair of friends. What followed as a result of that friendly collaboration was described as “a Hillary blaze”:

Dowd started a Hillary blaze in February of 2007 by revealing that David Geffen, the Hollywood record mogul and key Clinton supporter, was switching allegiances to Obama.

At the time Clinton was considered a virtual shoe-in for the Democratic nomination, but the fissures which emerged after Geffen’s comments in Dowd’s column would never close over and heal.

As Patrick Goldstein wrote subsequently in the Los Angeles Times, “When historians start looking for turning points in the trajectory of the Obama campaign for the presidency, they will inevitably turn to February 21, 2007, the day that The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd ran a column where Geffen blasted then-Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton. 

It is worth noting that as usual, Geffen’s involvement in the game is downplayed by all those concerned and he himself plays the role of a modest bystander whose word is insignificant as “no one’s interested in what he has to say”.

In fact, each time I mention David Geffen as the ultimate power behind dumping Michael Jackson’s career and explain it by their difference of opinion over some issues, I am told that a certain dispute between them was too “insignificant” a matter for Geffen to turn his ire and vengeance against Michael.

Well, exactly the same was said about Geffen when he made some remarks for the NY Times column. There was certainly “no danger” to anyone because of Geffen’s “insignificant blip”:

Obama advisers described the Geffen remarks as an insignificant blip and said they saw no political danger in letting them stand.

But the power of that insignificant blip was such that it turned the American primaries upside down and the near-nominee who seemed invincible and even inevitable was replaced almost overnight by a person of Geffen’s choice.

“…back in the winter of 2007, Hillary wasn’t just the front runner–she was considered inevitable. The entire Clinton campaign was based on a sense of her invincibility.

Geffen broke the spell. Having soured on the Clintons after raising huge sums of money for Bill and sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom–twice–Geffen found himself enamored of Obama from the first time he saw him on TV, giving a speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. “I thought he was a remarkable guy,” Geffen told me today. “After I heard him give that speech, I called him up and said, ‘You’re going to run for president and I’m going to support you.’ ” Geffen says Obama laughed and said he was very flattered, but that he wasn’t running.

Cut to two years later. “He called me one day and said with a laugh, ‘ David, I guess you’re right. I am running for president and I’d like your support.’ And of course, I said, ‘You have it.’ “

… how did Dowd get Geffen to finally go public with his complaints about Hillary? Keep reading:

Some time before, Geffen was a speaker at the 92nd Street Y in New York. When someone asked about his take on the Democratic presidential aspirants, the billionaire mogul didn’t mince words. “I said that Hillary was an incredibly polarizing figure and that if she ran, she’d never be elected president,” he recalls.” Maureen was in the audience and afterwards she said to me, ‘We oughta do a column about that.’ “

Geffen says he wasn’t ready. “I said, ‘No, no, no. No one’s interested in what I have to say about the Clintons.’ But she kept after me and finally, when Steven, Jeffrey and I had the fundraiser, Maureen cornered me and said, ‘You have to say what you’re thinking. It could have a real impact on the race.’ So I did.” Geffen sighs. “What can I tell you–I was just speaking the truth.”

His remarks caused a media uproar. The comments were front-page news in Washington, D.C.

Oh, I absolutely love that part about Geffen remonstrations: “’No, no, no.  No one’s interested in what I have to say” as well as Maureen Dowd’s “cornering” Geffen at that fundraiser after which the latter allegedly gave in to her with a “sigh”.

Well, we do remember that there was no need to corner Geffen at that fundraiser as by the time it was organized the article in the NY Times had already been printed and was ready to see the light of day the next morning.

What all of the above amounts to is that when kingmaker David Geffen supports someone, his favorite is sure to triumph. And if he withdraws his support and scams to dethrone the one who fell into his disfavor, the latter will be busted and trampled upon.

And the person who masterminded it all will stay behind the scenes and pretend that he has nothing to do with it or that his opinion does not matter.

So does anyone still think that Geffen would refrain from doing something similar to destroy Michael Jackson in order to get even with him for a slight remark about the Bible (for example), or rejecting Geffen’s passes as rumor has it, or both?


The events regarding Hillary Clinton took place in 2007, and the article below is dated 2010 and while it reiterates everything we already know about those past elections it also confirms that several years later the friendship between David Geffen and Muareen Dowd still flourished.

The article was written in connection with Obama’s inauguration ceremony for his second term of office and it refers to Geffen’s Dreamworks as his top fund-raisers, Geffen being “very close” friends with Obama’s administration, and at some point also quotes Geffen saying that Maureen Dowd is a close friend of his.

JUN 25, 2010 

Let there be no doubt. David Geffen loves the Obamas. The billionaire entertainment mogul, an active Democrat and one of the industry’s savviest strategists, writes that rumors of his disenchantment with Barack Obama are “made-up nonsense.”

As a sign of Geffen’s alleged disenchantment, political wags also note that the mogul was not prominent at the inauguration and did not meet with Obama when he visited California in March.

But Geffen writes in an e-mail response, “There is not a word of truth in what is being said.” He points out that he was not in the country when Obama last visited Los Angeles, and writes, “I was not interested in being there for the inauguration festivities, nor did I attend them when Clinton was there.” Geffen did attend a Dowd party on inauguration eve, because “she is a close friend and I was the guest of honor.” But he adds, “I left that night.” Concludes Geffen: “I love the Obamas,” adding that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel “is a very close friend.”

Andy Spahn, who serves as political adviser to Geffen and his DreamWorks co-founders, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg, also calls the speculation “completely off the wall.” He says that during Obama’s presidential campaign, “David, Steve, Jeffrey and I were the President’s top fund-raisers nationally,” and still are.

When four years later, on June 10, 2014 Maureen Dowd and a few selected journalists were invited by the NY Times to a special event honoring the most powerful opinion-makers, David Geffen was certainly present to hail his old friend Maureen Dowd there.

Dowd placed the photo of her, Barbara Walters and David Geffen together on her Twitter account:

Previously we knew of only one Maureen – Maureen Orth of the Vanity Fair whose list of anti-Jackson articles is also somehow connected with Geffen as only recently it was decorated with his photo as if with a medal.

Until only recently the collection of Maureen Orth’s articles about Michael Jackson ended with a photo of David Geffen (now removed). Was it a tribute to the sponsor?

And now we are also aware of the long and nice cooperation between David Geffen and Maureen Dowd of the NY Times whose friendhip has spanned at least 13 years by today – which explains very well why she joined the 2019 hate campaign against Michael Jackson and actually set the tone for all other media on how to perceive the “Leaving Neverland” film of lies about him.

However there is one more person to be included in the tight circle of Michael Jackson haters and this time it is Maureen Dowd who is dropping the name.


Dowd made her revelation in September 2009:

Sep 10, 2009

…Dowd admits her interview with Geffen changed the presidential race forever, and she is grateful to Geffen for standing by his comments.

Dowd rates Geffen as one of the few wise men left in a bleak economic landscape. Recently she asked him his opinion of the current climate.

“I was on business in Los Angeles and I had lunch with David Geffen and Oprah, and he knows a lot about money. He got out before the crash.” She also asked him why he was the only one of his DreamWorks studio partners — Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg the others — not to get caught up in the Madoff scandal, and Geffen said simply because the two others did not call him.

“So he called them and he said, ‘Why didn’t you give me that tip? I would have told you not to do it, but you didn’t give me that tip.’”

Oh, here is another familiar face and this time it is Oprah Winfrey!

In fact, Geffen seeks collaboration with Oprah every time he needs her support over something of extreme importance to him – for example, the documentary film about himself called “Inventing David Geffen”. The caption to this photo of them together says that the documentary was released in November 2012 and that Oprah joined the exclusive dinner after its premiere as Geffen’s date.

“At a Spago dinner after the premiere of “Inventing David Geffen,” some feelings were hurt when organizers apparently kept some of Geffen’s pals off the list. Geffen himself arrived with date Oprah Winfrey and claimed to have nothing to do with the dinner guest list”.

And now Oprah Winfrey amazes us by the fact that she was in close association with Geffen already in 2009, and their friendship that seemed to have flared up only recently is actually long and standing the test of time.

So on some occasion in 2009 Maureen Dowd was on business in LA, coming all the way from New York, and joined Geffen and Oprah at lunch (lunches in Los Angeles and Hollywood are almost solely the only time and place where business is discussed).

The date of the above article is suspiciously close to the time of Jackson’s death and funeral but this is when the article was written, while the visit could be much earlier, of course. The only reliable marker for it is the Madoff financial scandal that took place in mid-December 2008 and lasted well into 2009 and even longer.

So it was quite probable that during that visit the three of them were discussing money with Geffen who apparently advised the two leading media personalities on how to invest it.

And ten years later we see the same trio again, only this time it was Geffen who was seeking the two journalists’ support.

Maureen Dowd has shown hers by powerfully denigrating Michael Jackson in her powerful column. Her part was to stigmatize him as a monster well in advance and influence the minds of millions even before they saw the film or even its teaser. Her business was to distract public attention from the total lack of evidence from the two guys and support their weak stories – that also recanted their earlier versions – and while people were still in shock at what they were told to also focus their attention on “How could we be so blind about him?” instead of asking “Where is the evidence, guys?”

And Oprah Winfrey’s part was to promote the film further which she eagerly did at her show special after the film TV premiere on March 3 and 4, 2019. Her aftershow was broadcast simultaneously by HBO and Oprah’s channel “OWN” and took place the same night as the conclusion of the film. Oprah hosted director Dan Reed and the two accusers who further elaborated on their lies to a big audience of genuine sexual abuse survivors – apparently, for better effect and more emotional impact.

But that was on March 4 while Oprah got familiar with the film much earlier, right after its premiere. And the circumstances under which she first saw it were quite bizarre, to say the least.

The thing is that a couple of days after the film debuted at the Sundance film festival on January 25, 2019 David Geffen invited Oprah Winfrey to his yacht on a three-day visit there. The official reason for the inivitation was Oprah’s birthday (January 29).

For some reason Geffen happened to have his personal copy of “Leaving Neverland” and sometime after the birthday cake he treated his celebrated media guest as well as her associate Gayle King to the four-hour long entertainment movie.

You will agree that the very idea of showing a film about the alleged sexual abuse survivors at anyone’s birthday party sounds ludicrous enough, and the fact that the guests had to enjoy this kind of entertainment for four hours too makes you wonder even more. So the version that this was really entertainment can be ruled out and this leaves us with the only other option that it was common business instead.

Geffen’s part in that business could be connected with its production (otherwise how could he lay his hands on its copy?) besides the general idea and possible inspiration for it, and Oprah’s part, as I’ve already said, was apparently its further promotion and providing her TV show as a platform for the two guys to continue with their story.

Now that we know that each of the trio implemented their roles perfectly well, it is easy to see through the original plan too. And the fact that all three participants are also close friends only adds to our certainty that their coming together for a character assassination of Michael Jackson is not a mere coincidence but a well thought-out operation.

In fact, now I even begin to think that Oprah’s interview with Michael Jackson in February 1993, just on the eve of the Jordan Chandler scandal, could also be part of someone’s plan.

Which side in CULTURE WARS is Michael Jackson on?

December 5, 2020

When the news of Elton John’s story about  Michael Jackson arrived here I was reading the works of Professor James Davison Hunter, the American sociologist who coined the expression “Culture wars” and first used it in his book “Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America” published in 1991.

This groundbreaking book is not online, but I read two others by the same author entitled “Death of Character – Moral Education in an Age without Good or Evil” (published in 2000) and “Is there a Culture War? A Dialogue on Values and American Public Life” (2006).

What was remarkable about my reading is that Elton John’s story was a perfect example of the culture war described by the author – the culture division and even polarization between Michael Jackson and his immediate circle in the entertainment industry, in Hollywood and the media serving the interests of one side only, all of which formed an immensely hostile cultural opposition to Michael Jackson.


The Culture war will help you understand why some people in Michael’s homeland are virtually unable to see his innocence – and not so much because of the total absence of evidence to support those baseless allegations, but primarily due their lack of certain personal traits necessary to understand his character and core moral values.

The problem of these people is that due to the realignment of values that took place in the US several decades ago, their own morals became relative and are now deprived of their commanding character. Instead of convictions these people have preferences and “truth has become a matter of taste for them – all provisional, all exchangeable,” often subject to fashion and certainly having nothing to do with the moral imperatives that existed earlier.

These wonderful people are called progressives.

According to sociologist James Hunter the culture war, raging in the US already in the 1990s, began between the ‘progressives’ and ‘traditionalists’ sometime in the 50s when traditionalism came as an answer to the progressive trends that rose at the beginning of the 20th century. Since then progressivism has scored one victory after another.

To see what progressivism is, you actually need not go further than the beginning of Hunter’s book “Death of Character. Moral education in an Age without Good or Evil” with has an introduction with a telling subtitle “Postmortem”: Read more…

The Reason for Michael Jackson’s Escapism

November 29, 2020

Some time ago a reader’s comment arrived here about Elton John’s biography of 2019 and his spiteful description of a lunch with Michael Jackson, which was certainly hailed in the press as another instance of Michael Jackson’s so-called ‘bizarre’ behavior.

First, let me repeat the comment and my answer to it here.

Elton John recalls Michael Jackson

luv4hutch: By the way, here is the specific comments of Elton John about Michael in his memoir entitled “Me”, which doesn’t say Michael was guilty, it just refers to him as “disturbing to be around.” It focuses on a lunch that Elton had when he was first dating his husband, David Furnish, and of course how Elton makes a judgment without knowing all the facts, though Michael would always think of Elton as a friend, especially in his dedications in the HIStory and Blood on the Dance Floor albums, and Elton earlier in the book acknowledges Michael’s role and friendship with Ryan White, who Elton of course also says was a big reason for him to get sober and to start his AIDS Foundation:

“The problem at the lunch party wasn’t really my mum. It was one of my other guests, a psychiatrist, who at the last minute, informed me that his client, Michael Jackson, was in England, and asked if he could bring him along. This didn’t sound like the greatest idea I’d ever heard, but I could hardly refuse. I’d known Michael since he was thirteen or fourteen: after a gig I played in Philadelphia, Elizabeth Taylor had turned up on the Starship with him in tow. He was just the most adorable kid you could imagine. But in the intervening years, he started sequestering himself away from the world and away from reality, the way Elvis Presley did. God knows what was going on in his head, and God knows what prescription drugs he was being pumped full of, but every time I saw him in his later years, I came away thinking the poor guy had totally lost his marbles. I don’t mean that in a lighthearted way. He was genuinely mentally ill, a disturbing person to be around. It was incredibly sad, but he was someone you couldn’t help: he was just gone, off into a world of his own, surrounded by only by people who told him what he wanted to hear.

And now he was coming to the lunch at which my boyfriend was scheduled to meet my mother for the first time. Fantastic. I decided the best plan was to ring David and drop this information into the conversation as nonchalantly as possible. Perhaps if I behaved as if there was no problem there, he might take it in stride. Or perhaps not-I hadn’t even finished nonchalantly mentioning the change in lunch plans before I was interrupted by an anguished yell of ‘are you fucking KIDDING ME?’ I tried to reassure him by lying through my teeth, promising that the reports that he’d heard of Michael’s eccentricities were greatly exaggerated. This probably wasn’t very convincing, since some of the reports of them had come directly from me. But no, I insisted it wouldn’t be as strange as he might expect.

In that respect at least, I was absolutely right. The meal wasn’t as strange as I might have expected. It was stranger than I could have imagined. It was a sunny day and we had to sit indoors with the curtains drawn because of Michael’s vitiligo. The poor guy looked awful, really frail and ill. He was wearing makeup that looked like it had been applied by a maniac, it was all over the place. His nose was covered with a sticking plaster which kept what was left of it attached to his face. He just sat there, not really saying anything, just giving off waves of discomfort the way some people give off an air of confidence. I somehow got the impression he hadn’t eaten a meal around other people in a very long time. Certainly, he wouldn’t eat anything we served up. He had his own chef with him, but didn’t eat anything he made, either. After a while, he got up from the table without a word and disappeared. We finally found him, two hours later, in a cottage on the grounds of Woodside where my housekeeper lived: she was sitting there, watching Michael Jackson quietly play video games with her eleven-year-old son. For whatever reason, he couldn’t seem to cope with adult company at all…”

As if the above piece were not enough for me I read a couple of more pages of Elton John’s bio and came to the conclusion that in this Orwellian world of ours it was Michael Jackson who was the most normal man who, alas, had to live among totally abnormal people around him.

In a classic case of a pot calling the kettle black Elton John pronounced Michael Jackson “disturbing to be around”, “mentally ill” and sometimes “pumped full of prescription drugs” though his own personality is much better suited for these descriptions.

Prescription drugs Michael did take as he had to cope with the never-ending pain after the scalp-stretching operations to cover the burned skin on his head, so he was in a constant medical condition requiring painkillers that later turned into an addiction (which he eventually overcame).

But Elton John didn’t have any medical reasons to justify the use of drugs, however he himself says that he was a horrible cocaine addict for almost two decades. By his own admission after so many years of drug abuse his soul became so black that it was “like a charred piece of steak”. Read more…

The Schleiters remember Michael Jackson in AKTE documentary

June 26, 2020

The AKTE documentary about the Schleiter family and their friendship with Michael Jackson aired on German TV sometime in January this year, but its English version was made available to us only recently, thanks to AlfonsMeir who uploaded it here.

The Schleiter family

Many of us have probably not heard of the Schleiters except their emphatic “Enough is enough” letter in support of Michael Jackson as previously they never spoke to the press.

I encourage everyone to read the letter and watch the documentary as the latter is quite accurate in describing Michael Jackson’s tribulations beginning with 1993 (except the wrong age of the accuser and some minor details) and covers almost everything up to Martin Bashir’s film and La Toya’s various performances in this or that attire for and against her brother.

Anyone can watch the documentary themselves to form an opinion, but your impression will not be full if you don’t know what is insinuated about Anton Schleiter by Michael’s detractors.  In fact it is the comparison between these freaks’ innuendoes and the truth which is a real eye-opener here. Read more…

What JEFFREY EPSTEIN’s case tells us about the MEDIA and MICHAEL JACKSON

June 9, 2020

Hopefully some of you have already seen the ‘Filthy Rich’ Netflix series about pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and had a chance to think it over.

The documentary requires a comparison with Dan Reed’s ‘Leaving Neverland’ of course, but there is so big a difference in the standards of research for the two films that it is not even worth it.

One is a sloppy propaganda piece, while the other is a serious study of a horrible case and a horrible phenomenon. And how can you compare the two rogues spilling their fantasies about Michael Jackson without any proof, with the testimonies of Epstein’s victims supported by the documents, police and even the FBI 53-page indictment? The two cases are totally incomparable and are actually poles apart.

But if you do compare there are at least two factors that are drawing attention.

One is that the genuine victims in ‘Filthy Rich’ look unwilling to discuss the sexual crimes committed against them and are visibly reluctant to describe them in graphic detail. There are no juicy details in their accounts and when it is necessary to give some, the victims stop short, clearly hesitate and are still unable to utter it. Only one woman out of many in ‘Filthy Rich’ mentioned a sex toy used by Epstein but said it in so low a voice that it was barely heard, though this was one of his main tools of abusing minors.

Remember Robson & Safechuck who gleefully described in ‘Leaving Neverland’ the various ways they were allegedly abused by MJ as well as their occasional smiles and twinkling of the eye during descriptions?

What a dead give-away that they are lying! Their desire to tell it in so much graphic detail in order to look convincing shows that for their own selves their stories are cold and devoid of any emotion, and all their descriptions are just words not resonating with any feelings.

Real feeling is what you see in Epstein’s victims though they do try to look unemotional and calm.

Another thing that strikes you as a very big difference is that Epstein’s victims never changed their stories. What they initially said they repeated later, and what they repeated later they had been saying from the very beginning. And though initially most of them were unwilling to talk, when interviewed by the police all of them admitted that they were molested by Epstein. According to the police two of the girls claimed that they ‘loved’ Epstein and hoped to marry him, but the fact of molestation was not disputed even by them.

The only ones who still deny everything are Epstein’s accomplices – Ghislaine Maxwell and several other monstrous females who turned the sexual abuse of girls into their daily routine. By now they have changed their names and are unavailable for comment, but hopefully one day they will see their day of reckoning.

If we didn’t know Robson to be a liar he could easily qualify for the role of an accomplice and it would be an interesting turn to the matter, because if we are to believe his current story it means that when defending Michael Jackson at the 2005 trial he perjured himself and obstructed justice that way. But if he told the truth then, it means that now he is lying to extort the MJ Estate for money (initially a billion reduced to hundreds of millions by today). So whichever way you look at him the only place where Robson really belongs is prison, and not a TV show. Read more…

The Debate With a Hollywood Producer: MICHAEL JACKSON, PROJECT M and STEVEN SPIELBERG

March 15, 2020

The previous post was about a debate between a Hollywood producer scornful of Michael Jackson and our reader ‘luv4hutch’ who sent us the text of their discussion and asked for a comment; and also some facts regarding the role of David Geffen in the life of Laura Nyro and Donna Summer, same as Michael Jackson’s.

The ruin of their careers revealed exactly the same modus operandi and is pointing to the same person in their immediate surrounding who put a hand to their destruction.

Here is the continuation of the debate and we begin where we left off – with David Geffen, of course and Project M on making a Peter Pan movie supposedly with Michael Jackson in the main role. The whole thing was a fake as it was never meant to be realized, but the scheme was elaborate and multi-task and resulted in putting the blame for its failure on Steven Spielberg which put an end to his friendship with Michael Jackson.

My interest in the debate is the frame of mind of people in Hollywood, and getting new facts, if any, to further clarify the picture around Michael Jackson then and now. Read more…

What Michael Jackson, Laura Nyro & Donna Summer had in common: DAVID GEFFEN

March 2, 2020

Reader luv4hutch has sent us the summary of his debate with a friend about Michael Jackson and asked for a comment or post about it. And though our waiting list is already long, let it be another unexpected post that precedes everything else.

The person who goes as a “Producer” in the debate is a producer working in the entertainment industry. His views about Jackson are standard for the people of his trade – they were formed by very many years of listening to rumor and innuendo from the so-called reliable people in Hollywood, generating inflated stories and feeding on them too, and also some scraps of insider’s information which may be occasionally true. All of it has long cemented into their rock solid confidence that no one can possibly know more about Jackson and that everything to know about him is already there.And since these people see no need in learning anything new or fact-checking the earlier stories we can safely say that they got stuck in the past, in a sort of Stone Age with regard to Michael Jackson.

“Reader” is the initiator of the debate who is apparently sitting on the fence and is torn between his friend who seems to be so knowledgeable about Jackson and his own doubts in the veracity of claims about him.  His views are more or less typical of the present of Michael Jackson – which is still controversial and unclear for the majority of people.

And we here represent Michael Jackson’s future. After more than 10 years of research of every pro and con argument we are one hundred per cent certain that Michael Jackson was innocent and consider it only a matter of time when it becomes obvious to everyone else. This confidence arose from examining every story about Jackson and after finding nothing incriminating there we have moved on to explore the unchartered waters and the subjects of our interest now are somewhat bewildering to the uninitiated – like the role of a certain Victor Gutierrez or David Geffen in Michael Jackson’s fate, for example.

So the main difference between us is that we know everything they know, while they don’t have even a fraction of our knowledge. They think they possess some precious insiders’ information and do not understand that we have already dissected their knowledge into a million pieces and have discarded it all after examining it several times over, and are far ahead of these people now. So far ahead that it is actually a bore to go over it again and again.

However I will still make a comment on an issue that needs clarification and further research and is actually what our Friend started with.

Producer: Geffen came on to Michael and got turned down? Well, that’s funny, considering before Michael had a taste for more dubious activities, he had a taste for men. I know of several men who can be reliably stated to have dated Michael, Jehovah Witness-ism to the contrary.

VMJ: Several men reliably stated it? If Scott Thorson is one of those highly reliable people here is a post about this character. As regards the opinion of Hollywood at large, our Friend should know better than others that there are no reliable sources in Hollywood – everyone lies there and everyone repeats someone else’s false story.

And this isn’t just my opinion – it is a statement of the Los Angeles Magazine that presented it as an indisputable fact in its March 2004 issue: Read more…

Blanca Francia’s Testimony Revisited: STRANGE CONNECTIONS

January 30, 2020

The previous post about Blanca Francia introduced you to psychologist Mike Craft, who started working with Blanca and her son Jason within a state-run program for molested children even before Jason was first interviewed by the police and recalled the three alleged tickling episodes. You also learned about attorney Terry Cannon, who reached a settlement with Michael Jackson’s lawyers on behalf of the Francia family.

Both Mike Craft and Terry Cannon surprised me by the time they appeared in Blanca Francia’s orbit.

Diane Dimond writes that the state-sponsored therapy program run by Mike Craft was arranged for Jason after his mother’s interview with the police (September 1993) and this means that the program had begun even before Jason complained about anything at all (in March ’94) and even before he first met with the police (on November 3, 1993).

Mike Craft is a marriage and family counselor. He set up his office in 1992. The number of staff is 1 (one).

If Jason Francia’s so-called therapy by Mike Craft indeed started before he recalled any tickling by MJ, it changes our perception of the situation around Michael Jackson in the most dramatic way.

As to attorney Terry Cannon he stunned me by entering the picture already at Jason Francia’s second police interview on March 24, 1994. This date didn’t jibe with the official version either as we were told that the negotiations over a settlement began only in late ’94/early ’95 after all dust in the Chandler case had settled.

These inexplicable shifts in the timeline were a curious twist to the story and demanded attention. What I found was a sensation that was lying almost on the surface. Read more…

Blanca Francia’s Testimony Revisited: THE TIMELINE

January 25, 2020

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]

Though being already 18 years old Ryan White looked very young, small and no older than 12, and could be easily taken by Blanca Francia for a ‘little’ friend of Michael Jackson.

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.

But 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.

And we proceed to Blanca Francia’s numerous depositions that span the incredible period of nearly 25 years – this is how long every speck of dust around Michael was dissected by law enforcement, the media and his detractors.

Our goal is to see 1) what Blanca and Jason Francia testified to and what is true and false in their story 2) how their narrative progressed as time went by and 3) why and how Blanca reached a $2 mln. settlement agreement with MJ in connection with her son’s claims that he was tickled on three occasions within the five years they knew him. Read more…

A See-Through-Lies Manual on Orietta Murdock, Victor Gutierrez and Joy Robson

December 22, 2019


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 a 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.


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. Read more…

Blanca Francia’s Deposition BLASTS the Wade Robson Story

December 4, 2019

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. Read more…

10 years of vindicating Michael Jackson

November 21, 2019

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 10th 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.10 years

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!

WHAT WE KNOW about Mark Quindoy’s Diary and Wade Robson. Part 3

November 16, 2019

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.


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. Read more…

What Do We Know About Mariano “Mark” Quindoy? Part 2

November 5, 2019

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. Read more…

What Do We Know About Mariano “Mark” Quindoy? Part 1

October 31, 2019

Recently I came across an interview of Mariano “Mark” Quindoy, a former housekeeper at Neverland and his wife Ofelia “Faye” Quindoy who worked at Neverland as chef. The video claims that the Quindoys were employed at the ranch for two years and shows Mariano “Mark” Quindoy saying that during his time at the ranch he eye-witnessed a scene in the pool area where Michael Jackson allegedly kissed a boy and put his hand into the boy’s pants. The name of the boy was not specified.

Mariano “Mark” Quindoy on Current Affair, Jan.17, 1994

This previously unknown video is a clip from the Current Affair program dated January 17, 1994, but it surfaced only recently sparking off numerous exclamations from its viewers like “Shocking”, “Never seen this before. I can’t believe some people think he’s innocent”, “Why the hell did they stay silent?” etc.

It just happened that right at that time I was also rereading the Prosecution Motion of December 10, 2004 introducing the so-called “Prior Bad Acts” into the forthcoming Michael Jackson trial (also known as #1108 Motion), and the details and wording of the statement of the same Mariano “Mark” Quindoy in that paper made it clear that Robson’s and Safechuck’s stories in the “Leaving Neverland” film are for the most part based on Quindoy’s claims – up to the description of some scenes repeated by these two characters almost verbatim.

This suddenly made Mariano “Mark” Quindoy big news again, so we need to closely look into this character and his story, especially into that striking episode near the pool area which Quindoy allegedly observed at Neverland and which, according to #1108 Motion, supposedly involved Jimmy Safechuck. It is the same episode as the one in the video, only described in the prosecution paper in much more detail. Read more…

Danny Wu’s documentary SQUARE ONE about Michael Jackson is a MUST-SEE

October 9, 2019

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. Read more…


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. Read more…

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, 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…

Insight-Oriented Therapy and Wade Robson’s Doctor Larry Shaw

March 15, 2019

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: Read more…

First Reviews of Dan Reed’s Leaving Neverland: IT STARTS WITH A BIG LIE

March 8, 2019

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.  Read more…

%d bloggers like this: