Hollywood and Michael Egan, Wade Robson and Michael Jackson – THE GUILTY and THE INNOCENT
Imagine yourself in a big hall full of people where you can see only one person. Where are you?
You are at a show where someone is placed in the spotlight and all the others are in the dark – both the spectators and the production team all the more so. The show organizers are actually behind the curtain or elsewhere and there is little chance that you will ever see them at all.
This picture is what sex-abuse allegations against one person familiar to us are all about. The organizers forced him into the limelight – all the time staying behind the scenes – and the audience is watching the show from the semi-darkness they are in. The show has been on since it started in 1993 if not earlier.
All the time while this man was kept in this torturous spotlight he was examined on a daily basis and was scrutinized from every possible side by the media and every law enforcement body existing in the country, including the FBI. This went on for at least sixteen years until his death and is still going on until today, for more than two decades now.
During this time the public heard nothing but he-said-she-said stories from various con artists, all of which crashed with a big bang during the 2005 trial when the jury looked into everything the prosecution had collected against him for the previous years but still acquitted him on all counts.
Now another pair of con artists made their appearance, one of whom is not even shy to call himself ‘a master of deception’. Twelve years ago, when being under oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth he told his innocent story with an easy and unaffected smile, and now with the same easy smile he is shrugging his shoulders and proclaiming the opposite – and we are still sitting in the semi-darkness and are still watching the show.
Who do you think this man is? Jimmy Savile? Jerry Sandusky? Someone from Hollywood?
Certainly not. We are sure of it because even if we have no idea which of these people are guilty or innocent the fate of this man is absolutely different from the enjoyable and carefree way these guys lived their lives. His every action was in constant limelight, while the deeds of these people were in complete shade leaving them free to do whatever they liked for many, many years.
So though the allegations against this man and the others may look the same, the media and law enforcement approach to them was dramatically different, and this is why there is no point in even trying to compare the incomparable.
The man we are talking about is Michael Jackson of course, and while he was publicly scrutinized and forced to explain his every move, those other people kept abusing minors with no one even looking in their direction and with zero reaction to their victims’ complaints. When something bad about them surfaced all of it was hushed up and instead of investigations both guys were bestowed various honors – Jimmy Savile, for example, was even made “Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire” and was later knighted.
And all the time while they enjoyed impunity Michael Jackson was trashed for alleged wrongdoing in full view of everyone and was relentlessly persecuted in the media and court.
So even without any further look into the matter of guilt or innocence you cannot put Michael Jackson on a par with these people. He received maximal negativism and the harshest treatment possible and even the tiniest of allegations about him was investigated up to the sheriffs and FBI going to other continents to interview the ‘witnesses’ and search for some ‘victims’.
This is Michael Jackson’s big difference from everyone else and this is the first thing the public should admit and realize.
Another question now. We know that some Hollywood guys suspected of abusing teenagers are occasionally sued by their alleged victims, but their cases are quickly dropped and their stories are almost immediately hushed up. The complainants get minimal attention from the press, are often counter-sued and are always vilified in the media by the defendants’ lawyers as a result of which even the most stubborn of them get nowhere and are simply forced to withdraw their cases. Is the same typical of Michael Jackson’s situation?
Absolutely not. It is even incredible how dramatically different his situation is. Every bastard who arbitrarily accuses Michael Jackson of anything he likes enjoys the best of treatment and ample media attention. His complaint is followed by a thorough investigation lasting for many years, he is given utmost respect by the judge and is guaranteed full observance of his sacred right to accuse Michael Jackson.
And this happens even in the case when the complainant, Wade Robson for example, is an obvious liar whichever way you look at him – because what he says now is in a clear contradiction with what he said before, when he was in his sound mind and speaking under oath.
And though he himself now admits that he is ‘a master of deception’ even this admission does not raise any red flags or is not a source of visible public or media confusion.
Imagine Michael Egan (the accuser of Bryan Singer and three other Hollywood executives) making a complaint against them and saying that the previous time he lied and calling himself ‘a master of deception’ at that – and check your impression of it. You and the judge will think him crazy, not to mention the impossibility of his case going to court and dragging for three years there.
But when it is an allegation against Jackson it is okay. So speaking objectively the continuance of Robson’s case is the result of a huge distortion of public perception as regards Michael Jackson, which in its turn became possible only because of the many years of his bashing and all those allegations becoming familiar.
In psychology this process is called Desensitization, which in this particular case means that the more often a lie is repeated the more familiar it is, and the more familiar it is the easier it is accepted as ‘truth’ – by the public and even the legal system.
So the longer the judge keeps stroking Robson on the head, the more familiar his lies get and the more they turn in people’s minds into some kind of quasi truth. And since this craziness was not done away with the moment it appeared (as it should have) he is even inspired to tell us more of it. His memory is still ‘evolving’, you see, as he is telling us with that little smile on his face.
A. <>You know, this reprocessing of my entire life for me through this healing process, you know, has been and will continue to be, I imagine so, for the rest of my life, meaning, you know, me perspective on things, my understanding of things, is constantly evolving as I remove the clutter from it all, remove the, the emotional and perspective repression of it all that I had compartmentalized for 22 years. So all that to say that, you know, this process evolves as far as what I, what I remember, what comes clear and my perspective on things.
Q. So, have your memories changed as you’ve gone through that process?
A. They’ve evolved.
Q. What do you mean by “evolved?”
A. Yeah, I mean, not changed in a sort of black-and-white sense. Like, I thought it was this thing – well, I mean, they have as far as prior to the healing process, right. Prior to disclosing. But post disclosing the abuse in 2012 and beginning that healing journey, they’ve evolved as far as I remember more details about scenarios. As it goes along, you know, it evolves, details get added to.
How very nice. So Robson is still in the process of remembering ‘more details about scenarios’ and we can expect more of them added, not to mention new turns in the scenario as a whole – with the word scenario being the key to the whole problem.
His method is clear and the way his tales are turning into quasi-truth is clear too – all this nonsense has been going on for too long and is acquiring the superficial veracity only due to its constant media repetition and the ensuing familiarity. And though the above is indeed clear like a clear blue sky, what remains unclear is why things like that happen only when it concerns Jackson?
Indeed, why everything that occasionally surfaces about Hollywood abusers is immediately hushed up, and instead we have to constantly listen to he-said-she-said stories about Jackson which are regularly supplemented by fake sensations like ‘secret FBI files’? And this has been going on for almost 25 years!
Is there a method behind it or is it just the way ‘things happen’?
To me it is absolutely clear that this is a man-made process and an intentional displacement of the public focus. To be able to realize it all you need to do is watch the public gazing at Robson weave his wholly fictional web and see the same public not notice the real abuse of children taking place in the real world around them.
The process is as blatant as seeing the organizers of the show cry wolf – I mean cry “Michael Jackson” – and watching the crowd rush in his direction again, forgetting everything they have just heard about real abusers.
But if this is a show who are its organizers then?
And what do you think?
To me it is again obvious that the people most interested in the distortion of public perception are those who are guilty of these crimes themselves. They are the direct beneficiaries of the game while all others (the media, public, police and even judges) are just involuntary or sometimes voluntary participants in the process.
Whatever the reason for this public naivety, it is hardly forgivable as besides vilifying the innocent Jackson all this time people have been ignoring and overlooking real crimes committed by others and right under their very nose.
And in this connection I need to remind you of the story of Michael Egan who accused several Hollywood guys of abusing him, but in the end had to withdraw his case.
Each time the judge allows Robson to amend his complaint (currently it is his fourth version) there is only one question in my mind – why does this case keep dragging for three years while the case of Michael Egan was stopped almost the moment it started?
Many people will reply that Egan’s case did not go further because his allegations were ‘false’.
However Egan is a real victim of abuse. It was proven during the civil trial in 2000 when Egan and two other victims filed a lawsuit against the company DEN sponsored by some well-known Hollywood personalities – Singer, Geffen, Huffington and others.
The company’s boss Marc Collins-Rector and its two other younger managers Shackley and Pierce were found guilty of sexually abusing Egan and the other complainants and still owe them $4,5 million in the court judgment which the boys never received.
So Michael Egan has already proven himself a victim of Hollywood abusers, while Robson is a proven liar (either before or now), so dismissing Michael Egan and giving the benefit of the doubt to Robson would be a very big fallacy indeed.
Egan’s case has its own drawbacks but the fact that he was abused when he was 15 is undeniable. For details you can read this article or at least a short piece from it quoting Egan’s first lawyer Daniel Cherin:
What Happens When You Accuse a Major Hollywood Director of Rape?
… Daniel Cherin, along with law enforcement encouraged the boys to collect more evidence. “So we went back and copied everything in the file cabinet,” Egan says. “We had photos of the drug bags and child pornography in different cabinets, and video of the gun closet they locked me in.”
In early 2000, Egan was still sending emails to DEN’s executives, asking for money and even looking to hang out. The lawyers for Singer and the other defendants call this evidence of a shakedown; Egan says now it was part of the effort to collect evidence.
Egan’s great escape proved anticlimactic. The police and the FBI never charged anyone—Egan and his mother still aren’t sure why. “My mom heard from them once or twice, but that’s it.”
The three boys filed a civil lawsuit in 2000 for sexual abuse against Collins-Rector, Shackley, and Pierce. They did not name Singer, Ancier, Neuman, or Goddard.
Egan’s lawyer, Cherin, told them he didn’t have enough evidence to connect the others to the abuse—at least not like he had on the three men who actually lived at the house. <> He believed the high-profile targets had the resources to bury them in motions and counter-investigations. “I’m not a daredevil. I don’t get paid to take chances.”
So when you dig into Egan’s and Robson’s stories you find that one was indeed a victim and the other is just a self-admitted ‘master of deception’. But this is not the only discovery you make – the thing that takes you aback most is the big difference in the way they are treated.
Look at the method by which Egan’s lawsuit was halted, for example. You think that the judge dismissed his case as frivolous? Nothing of the kind. The problem is that his lawyer Jeff Herman was sued by two of the defendants for ‘malicious prosecution’ and had to pay them a million dollars in addition to making an apology as part of their settlement agreement (wow, the attorney had to pay the other side just for representing his client!)
As a result Michael Egan was left without an attorney and had to withdraw his case until he found a new lawyer. The judge dismissed it “without prejudice” which means that he can reopen it any time again. I bet you didn’t know it and had a totally different impression from the way the media reported Egan’s lawsuit. (see this article for details)
But though Egan has the right to sue again I doubt that any lawyer will agree to represent him. Firstly, a year after he’d made his complaint he was sent to prison for 2 years for collecting money for a holiday-theme attraction – which he indeed had with his brother – but spending the major part on paying his bills.
And secondly, it is indeed frightening for a defense attorney to be sued just for representing his client, and this is what those Hollywood guys actually did (Ancier and Newman, but not Goddard and Singer).
Remember all those con artists who sued Michael at a mere whim and the fact that none of them, not to mention their lawyers, ever had to answer for their false allegations, and you will see the difference. For some reason people know that it is safe to sue Jackson and his Estate, while the Hollywood guys are really dangerous stuff which no one tries to disturb.
So as a very minimum please don’t you ever repeat those laughable stories about ‘fear’ in connection with Michael Jackson, because in this respect you are definitely looking in the wrong direction.
Another striking difference between Egan and our ‘master of deception’ is that Robson is repeatedly allowed to tell one thing and then another and then contradict himself once again and no one still cares, while Egan was severely scolded for just one inaccurate answer which actually shows that he is no good at lying.
He said that he made his pleading without legal help though the pleading was written on a paper with a law firm logo on it. As a result he received a scolding tirade from an angry judge all of which was immediately spilled to the media of course.
This historic dialogue stunned me by its harshness, especially considering that the complainant is indeed a sexual abuse survivor and even in the worst of cases required a more gentle approach. Here is a reminder of the way it was:
Judge Scolds Hollywood Sex Accuser for Lying in Court
9:15 AM PDT 10/21/2014 by Jonathan Handel
According to a transcript of the hearing obtained by The Hollywood Reporter, when the judge asked Egan what help the firm was providing, Egan answered, “Nothing in this case.” That didn’t sit well with Seabright, who responded sharply, “Well, that’s not true. I mean, facially that’s not true.” He pointed out that the documents had been emailed from the firm, and added, “Don’t say ‘nothing,’ Mr. Egan, okay? … You understand this is a court of law.… You understand if you lie to me you’d get in trouble.”
Egan acknowledged the judge’s statements and apologized, but the exchange continued.
“So be truthful,” said the judge. “I am,” responded Egan.
“Well, no,” interjected Seabright. “You weren’t. Because you said ‘nothing,’ they’re doing nothing. That’s not true.”
Egan then replied that he didn’t know how to file pleadings, so the law firm had helped him with that. This seems to have further angered the judge, who interrupted Egan and said, “You don’t know how to get a stamp and put it on an envelope and write your return address on it and then mail it? You don’t know how to do that?”
Egan conceded that he did, but said, “I’m just at a loss, I’m not an attorney.” Seabright responded, “I’m not buying this.… I’m a smart guy, I get it, and don’t underestimate me.”
Egan finally acknowledged that he’d had substantive help as well, saying that a law clerk had researched and drafted the language in the documents. The law clerk, identified as Trejur Bordenave, was described by the firm’s Vince Finaldi as a law student who no longer works there. A LinkedIn page for Bordenave lists him as a 2014 law graduate who is still at the firm.
The judge allowed Egan’s responsive document — his answer to the suit — to stand, denying Ancier’s motion that it be struck, but said that going forward, Finaldi’s firm would have to either fully represent Egan in the case or not at all and could not engage in any more ghostwriting of pleadings. Finaldi responded, “We will be providing [Egan] no more assistance, because I just can’t incur that kind of liability for the firm.”
Isn’t it amazing how quickly Vince Finaldi realized which side his bread was buttered on and even before starting to represent Egan he already dropped him? Now he represents Robson and knows that over here he has nothing to fear.
As to the big story about Egan ‘lying in court’ let us compare it with how Robson is lying in court and what happens to him after that (nothing happens) and how the media reports it (it doesn’t).
WADE ROBSON LIES
In their December 27, 2016 Motion the MJ Estate lawyers outlined some of Robson’s blatant lies and brought them to the attention of the judge. Here are some excerpts.
Lie 1: Three years ago Robson was asked to produce all the evidence, but he said he had only one email. However recently it turned out he had a treasure trove of them, and it was discovered only by accident, after his mother mentioned them during her deposition. When the Defendants requested him to cure this deficiency please he continued fooling them with false promises which he never fulfilled.
“When Robson was asked to produce all written communications relating to his allegations of abuse in this case, Robson stated under oath that only a single responsive document existed. Documents obtained by third parties, however, showed that these sworn statements by Robson were utterly false. Robson was then forced to change his response entirely, finally admitting that many communications existed and agreeing to produce them. Eventually, Robson would produce several bankers’ boxes full of communications (that he had previously claimed did not exist at all).
During this process, on three separate occasions, Robson stated that he had completed his production and had produced all responsive communications. Each time that representation was made, however, Defendants found clear evidence that Robson had not produced all the communications. Robson was then forced to “supplement” his productions three separate times, and each time he falsely represented that his latest production was “now” complete.
Lie 2: When the news of these emails was finally uncovered he did produce some, but redacted 70 of them, out of which 50 emails were between himself and his mother. The text was deleted under the pretext that they were covered by the client-attorney privilege.
We are of course aware that a mother is an attorney provided to a child by nature, but calling those emails “the attorney’s work product” is indeed taking it too far.
“To this day, Robson has still failed to produce numerous communications with third parties and has never explained why. Moreover, Robson has also redacted the entire content of numerous emails for no plausible reason. For example, he completely redacted over fifty emails between himself and his mother alone, based on the absurd claim that his discussions with his (non-lawyer) mother about the supposed “facts” underlying his allegations are somehow his attorneys’ “work product.”
… many of Robson’s email exchanged with his family remain absent from his production. This simply leads to two obvious questions: (1) What else is Robson withholding” and (2) If Robson does not have these emails anymore, that other documents has Robson deleted?
In the November 2 letter, Defendants provided two examples of such emails. The first is a February 15, 2016 email exchange between Robson and his mother, under the subject line “Security testimony.” In this exchange, Robson describes a purported statement by a former security guard at Neverland implying inappropriate conduct by Defendants, and asks his mother what she things. Eight minutes later, Ms.Robson responded: “Wow. None of that is true…” The remainder of Ms. Robson’s response is (conveniently) obscured in the version produced by her, and Ms. Robson now (conveniently) claims she no longer has access to this email, making its production by Robson himself critical.
The second example is an October 2012 email exchange with the subject line “Questions for Mom – 2.0.” Robson initiated this exchange on October 4, 2012, by asking his mother numerous questions about, among other things, his visits to the United States when he was a child, his interactions with Michael Jackson, and the allegations of abuse. Documents produced by Ms. Robson demonstrate that she and Robson exchanged numerous emails under this subject-line. However, none of those emails have been produced by Robson. ”
Lie 3: Besides the emails kept from the Defendants it also turned out that Robson had written a book and even shopped it to publishers – all the time saying to the judge that he had nothing else to produce.
“In addition, documents in one of Robson’s “supplemental” productions this Fall revealed for the first time that Robson began writing a book prior to filing suit in May 2013, about the allegations in this case, which he unsuccessfully shopped to publishers prior to filing suit. Yet, Robson inexplicably failed to produce a single draft of his book in either this case or in the related probate proceedings years ago.
When Defendants pressed Robson as to why the book had not been produced long ago, Robson first claimed that he was unable to find the book. Four days later, Robson changed his story, claiming that he had actually withheld the book as “privileged” (but never logged it). He then “waived privilege,” and produced one “recently created” PDF version of the book. But numerous documents about the book (including other possible drafts of it) are missing or redacted, and Robson refuses to produce original electronic files with metadata. He also claims – preposterously – that his communications with publishers about the book are privileged.”
Robson’s answers strike me by their flippant and even disrespectful manner in which he treats the court – first he fooled everyone for three years and then gave a lame explanation, then he changed his story, then withheld the book, then promised it, then provided it but not in the original variant, and so on and so forth with no end to it.
In fact Robson behaves like a spoiled child who knows in advance that whether mischief or not everything will be still okay with him.
We can only imagine the reaction of the judge who presided over Egan’s case had he encountered similar lies in Egan’s lawsuit – after the very first occurrence the complainant would have been shred into pieces and heavily fined for contempt of court and that would be it.
Judge Beckloff is not that harsh and is characterized by everyone as a nice man who tends to be a moderator, so it is probably due to his personal traits that Robson will be required only to produce the non-redacted emails and the original version of the book (if he finds them of course), and be a good boy in the future and behave himself. He has not been fined and his computer will not be forensically examined as the other side requested it.
As regards the media turning the fact that Robson lied for three years into any news – what media? What news? Where have you seen it?
One of the lies in Robson’s lawsuit deserves a more detailed discussion. It is a story told by a certain security guard from Neverland named Charlie Michaels.
Her old statement dated 1993 was mentioned by Robson in his email to Mom on February 15th 2016, and though she answered him that none of it was true this false statement happily made its way into Robson’s third amended version filed several days later and is still there in its current fourth variant.
Here is his Mom’s message with the rest of the text deleted by Robson:
“Wow. None of that is true. Micha…. ”
Security testimony (2)
Wade Robson to Mom Robson
February 15 at 8:55 PM
There is testimony from a security guard that states the mother’s day incident was in 1990. What do you think?
“In a witness statement taken by the SBSD (Santa Barbara Sheriff Department) on April 15, 1994 in connection with the Chandler Investigation, Charli T. Michaels (a security guard at Neverland from March 21, 1990 through March 6, 1992) stated that she encountered Wade and his mother during their visit to Neverland in May 1990, and witnessed an incident involving Jackson and Wade. Ms. Michaels stated that on Mother’s Day 1990, she found Joy Robson crying and upset. When Ms. Michaels attempted to console her, Joy told Ms. Michaels that she was upset because she had been restricted from seeing Wade by Staikos While he was in the company of Jackson. Stakos had told Joy that Jackson and Wade were rehearsing a dance routine in the theatre at Neverland, and that she (Wade’s mother) was not allowed to go in or disturb them. Staikos had also prohibited Joy from sleeping in the main house at Neverland while Wade was staying in Jackson’s room. Ms. Michaels also stated that on the same day she had this encounter with Wade’s mother in violation of the rule regarding treatment of guests at Neverland, Ms. Michaels heard that Mr. and Mrs. Quindoy had been similarly reprimanded by Stakios for speaking to Joy on this occasion. Ms. Michaels was also subsequently informed by Joy that she had gotten in “lots of trouble” with Staikos for speaking with Ms. Michaels, and that Staikos had told her not to talk to any employees at Neverland (A copy of Ms. Michael’s witness statement has already been provided to Requesting Party.)
Ms. Michaels also stated that later that same day (Mother’s day 1990) she was < > “
See why Joy Robson said “Wow. None of it is true”? Because indeed none of it is.
- There was no rehearsal in a dance studio on Mother’s day, at least at the time described by Ms. Michaels. By all accounts Robson was sleeping very late that day and this is why his mother was upset. Ms. Michaels simply invented this story together with the idea that Robson’s mother was not allowed into the dancing studio.
- Another of her inventions is that Joy was prohibited from sleeping in the main house. Joy Robson always stayed in the Rose bedroom of the main house, and it was only when Michael’s children were born that this room was turned into the children’s bedroom. However at the time Ms. Michaels was not working there already and none of it matters anyway – Robson and his mother were in Neverland only on 4 occasions together with MJ, so who cares where she slept?
- Joy certainly never got into trouble with Norma Staikos for speaking to this small liar. All guests on the ranch were given the best service possible and there could never be a rule there to reprimand them for speaking to the employees.
A different variant was possible though. For a time being there was a rule at Neverland which dissuaded the employees from speaking to the boss (MJ). We know about it from Kiki Fournier-Chambers who worked on and off in Neverland for 12 years and once mentioned it in her interview. The funniest part of Kiki’s story is that Michael didn’t know about the rule and on one occasion even asked her “Why no one talks to me?” which is when she realized that he had nothing to do with it. But as to the rule for the guests to never speak to the employees, this is another of Ms. Michaels’s inventions.
Any conclusions from the above information?
Firstly, his Mom’s emphatic answer about none of it being true did not prevent Robson from using this false statement in his lawsuit. He knows that it is false but it doesn’t matter. This gravely diminishes Robson’s chances of being a victim of false memories as a result of some ‘insight-oriented therapy’ and strengthens our perception of him as a cold and cynical liar he evidently is.
Secondly, the appearance of Ms. Michaels’ statement in his third amended complaint shows the method by which Robson’s memory ‘evolves’. As soon as he receives some papers from Michael’s haters he turns them into his story. Charlie Michaels’ declaration could come from Ron Zonen who was rumored to provide him with old prosecution files and this also means that the prosecution vendetta against Jackson is still going strong.
Thirdly, this and other people’s declarations from 1993 were already incorporated into the so-called Prior Bad Acts prosecution motion in 2005 and were thoroughly discussed at that time. Now, even if untrue, they are being revived again to give at least some support to Robson’s tales.
If you compare Robson’s fourth version with the initial one you will see that these old declarations come as a replacement for what was Robson’s really big complaint against Jackson – the fact that prophesied him to become a great film director, but the dream didn’t come true and Jackson is of course to blame for it. Even for Finaldi this claim was too much, so he got rid of it and replaced it with some stuff from Charlie Michaels and other similar characters.
In short if it goes on like that by some 5th or 6th version of his complaint Robson will have a more or less presentable case cleaned of its wildest craziness, based on his still ‘evolving’ memories and supported by old and familiar lies from people like Charlie Michaels.
To say that all of it is a bad vaudeville is to say nothing at all. Compare it with the way the case of a real child abuse survivor Michael Egan was dealt with and the contrast will make your head spin.
WHY MS. MICHAELS IS SO PRECIOUS
Now what’s so precious about Ms. Michaels’s story that Robson still wants to use it even despite his own mother saying that it is untrue?
The value of Ms. Michael is in another of her statements – in the same declaration she claimed that later that day she saw Michael Jackson groping Robson in the dancing studio in a separate building of a movie theater. Below is her description of it as it is related in the prosecution #1108 Prior Bad Acts Motion for the 2005 trial (bold type is mine):
“Ms. Michaels then was called to the main house to pick up lunch for Michael Jackson and Wade Robson and take it to them at the dance studio in the theatre. Around 2:00 to 2:30 p.m., while waiting in the main house to pick up the lunch, she saw Wade and Michael at the rear of the house. She lost sight of Jackson and Wade Robson before the lunches were ready, so she took the lunches and drove to the theatre. As Ms. Michaels entered the theatre, she put the lunches on the snack bar in the theatre lobby. She then heard music coming from the dance studio, which was located just to the left of the lobby, but she assumed that Michael Jackson and Wade were still at the house. She approached the studio to open the studio’s door and turn off the music.
As Ms. Michaels opened the studio door, she saw the reflections of Michael Jackson and Wade Robson in the huge mirror on the wall of the dance studio. She was standing approximately five to seven feet away from the mirror. Wade was standing in front of Michael with his back to Michael’s front. They were so close to each other that Michael’s front was actually touching Wade’s back. Both Michael and Wade had their hands on Wade’s genital area and they were doing fast step-dancing and Michael Jackson was doing his ‘euoghy, euogh” scream. Both were screaming as Michael clutched Wade’s genitals. Michael was much taller than Wade. He was bent over Wade from behind him and had both his arms draped around Wade’s shoulders, with his hands on Wade’s crotch. Ms. Michaels could not exactly see where Wade’s hands were, however they were well below his waist and in the area of his crotch. Both Jackson and Robson were wearing similar all-black outfits.
Ms. Michaels immediately left the theatre to avoid detection by either Jackson or Robson. She realized that Jackson’s acts were inappropriate and that Jackson could have shown Wade this particular dance move without standing over him and placing his hands on Wade’s genital area. However, she was concerned that she would lose her job if she shared her observation with anyone in authority.”
Please remove that disturbed expression off your face and enjoy the ridiculous instead:
- Robson slept that whole day but was nevertheless seen dancing in the studio at around 2 pm
- They asked for their lunch at the theater, but at the same time were seen in the rear of the main house where they could have their lunch without asking anyone to carry it for a mile or at least take it to that studio themselves
- The security guard walked into Michael Jackson’s studio because she wanted to turn off the music there (too loud for her?)
- She stood five to seven feet (1,5-2 meters) away from the mirror, but no one saw her or her reflection in it
- She heard some ‘euoghy’ screams despite the music blasting
- And the alleged groping scene allegedly took place right at the time when Michael Jackson was expecting someone to enter the dance hall and bring his lunch there.
The question that will forever haunt me is why Michael allegedly did all those things right at the time when he expected the door to open? Why do all these ‘witnesses’ have one and the same story to tell – that they were asked by Michael to come and this is when they ‘suddenly’ saw it?
Just a short reminder: “He yelled for security and I saw it from where I was standing” (Ralph Chacon), “He asked for French fries and I saw it when I brought them to the arcade” (Phillip Lemarque) and “He asked for his lunch to the dance studio and I saw it when I opened the door” (Charlie Michaels).
Let us see what this little liar could actually see if she opened the door. Thanks to that splendid new real estate brochure we have a picture of the dancing studio in the theater building and right from the place where Ms. Michaels was supposedly standing.
She said she was five to seven feet away from the mirror, so this is where I initially placed the two figures:
But then I recalled her saying that she saw their reflection in the mirror, and this correction required moving the images to a much further point. Like this one, for example:
Now please tell me – can you see anything from this or even the earlier point? No, you cannot.
And will you be able to distinguish any “euoghy, euogh screams” at a distance like that and if the music is blasting? You won’t either.
And Charlie Michaels says that she did, though seeing anything from that spot is what only her perverse imagination could suggest her.
And how could she see Robson there at all if he was not even in that studio that day?
Quite by chance I found this video of Michael rehearsing in his dance studio and showing him from the opposite side. From that point the studio hall didn’t look that long, so if Ms. Michaels crossed the door step and went inside the studio, she could see them – and they could see her.
But the funniest thing about Michael rehearsal there is that at some point during his moonwalk his hands indeed move forward and are placed on his thighs. Like in this screenshot from that video:
So even if we believe Ms. Michaels ridiculous version the move she could observe was just one of the necessary elements of the dance and not what her dirty imagination suggested her.
And this is all they have against Jackson after decades of prosecuting him?
And they call it ‘evidence’?
And we’ve had to listen to this nonsense since 1993 and even today are still discussing it?
Well, guys, this is not even funny. All of it is simply impossible. Tragic, maddening, ridiculous and utterly impossible.
Now if you want to see some really serious evidence, I will provide it to you, only it won’t be about Jackson but about the Hollywood guys of whom you rarely hear, if ever.
These documents are connected with the abuse of Michael Egan and other teenagers who were invited to work with the DEN company and who attended the pool parties of Bryan Singer and other Hollywood players.
The first picture is a screenshot from the documentary by an Oscar-nominee Amy Berg about the strange things going on in Hollywood. The film is called “An Open Secret” and, as if justifying its title, most distributors indeed refused to promote it.
In this piece of the documentary Marc Collins-Rector, a convicted sex offender who was one of those who abused Michael Egan, says that a young actor Brock Pierce who later became Rector’s partner was introduced to him by his friend Bryan Singer.
So as a very minimum we learn here that Bryan Singer was not only an investor in DEN company, but was friends with Marc Collins-Rector who right at the time was abusing teenagers and was introducing young people to him.
Next comes another screenshot from the same documentary, this time featuring a certain Michael Harrah. Mr. Harrah isn’t just a mere nobody – he used to be a manager of child actors and a longtime member of the actors union SAG Young Performers Committee. He himself co-founded this committee in 1975 and even chaired it in 2001-2003.
He remained its member until 2014, when he gave his interview for the “Open Secret” documentary, after which he abruptly resigned. The guild leaders and their lawyers tried to prevent Amy Berg from mentioning the name of their union in connection with this person and threatened to sue her, however she stood her ground and this is how we learn about Mr. Harrah.
But why so much fuss about him?
The reason is provided by Mr. Harrah himself – in his interview for the documentary he admitted that during his 40 years of work with child actors he had underage actors sleep with him in his home and that he abused at least one of them. We are talking of only one because he actually recorded his conversation with Harrah where the latter admitted that “he shouldn’t have done it” (excerpt):
SAG-AFTRA Threatened To Sue Director Amy Berg Over ‘An Open Secret’
by David Robb
June 5, 2015
Joey Coleman, a former child actor who was once Harrah’s client, presents evidence in the film – a taped telephone conversation in which Harrah acknowledges that he’d made “unwanted” advances towards him when Coleman was a kid.
“I didn’t like when you tried to have me sleep in your bed and touch me and everything,” Coleman told Harrah on the phone. “I hated that.”
“Yeah, and that was something unwanted I shouldn’t have done,” Harrah replied, unaware that he was being taped. “And there’s no way you can undo that. But it certainly is something I shouldn’t have done.”
In the film, Harrah says that he had been molested when he was a child actor, but was vague about the details. “I suppose somebody did, but I would be hard-pressed to remember anything specific,” he said. “But it was not uncommon, let’s put it that way.”
Harrah told Deadline that there are currently young people “in their 20s” living with him. Asked if 11-year-old kids had ever lived with him, he said: “There have been kids that come and go.”
One of Harrah’s other former clients, a former child actor who is identified in the film only as James G., recounts how Harrah had invited him to come live at his home while trying to break into show business.
“You know,” he says in the film, “being up sometimes really early to go to these auditions and stuff, that’s when Michael Harrah approached me and said, ‘Well, you can come stay at my house with the other guys that are there.’ He had three other guys stayin’ in the house that were his clients.” The kids’ ages, he said, were “from 10-11, to 16-17, but I still thought it was rather odd, you know, that someone would let their 10-year-old son move in with, at the time I think, a mid-50s-year-old man.”
“But he also repeatedly downplays the severity of child sexual abuse in Hollywood. On the phone with Joey C. in the documentary, Harrah says, “When I’ve had the opportunity to talk to somebody about it, I’ve said, ‘Look, this is not a terrible thing unless you think it is. It’s just something that happens to you in your life.’”
Well, well, well… My congratulations to MJ haters and the general public. Every time they will denounce Michael over his carefree sleepovers with young friends and exclaim in horror “what other adult would do it?” we will tell them what other adult did it – it was the one-time chairman of the young actors’ committee and the very person who was supposed to defend the rights of these children in Hollywood.
And in contrast to Michael who after the Chandler scandal never agreed to stay alone with a youngster in one room (see Frank Cascio’s book for that) and only talked about it, Mr. Harrah never ceased his practice without saying a word about it to outsiders.
In MJ’s case there was never any proof of any wrongdoing, while Mr. Harrah himself admits molestation, only he thinks nothing of it as in his opinion “it is not a terrible thing unless you think it is”. Over there in Hollywood, “it is not uncommon”, you see, and Mr. Harrah does know what he is talking about as he worked in that place for over 40 years.
Apparently, this practice is so common that initially the child-sex abuse survivor Corey Feldman didn’t even understand what was going on – as pedophiles were all around him – and he said he regained his sanity and innocence only when he was with the poor harassed Michael Jackson.
And the best part of the news about Mr. Harrah is that you never heard it. The “Open Secret” documentary was practically suppressed from public view and made its way only to 20 theaters and this was only after a ‘maddeningly difficult road’ to get there, according to its producers. The guild-leaders threatened to sue Amy Berg for those episodes, but she refused to be intimidated (she is an Oscar nominee for a film about abuse within the Catholic church), and seeing the resistance they grudgingly backtracked.
However now everything is fine with the Hollywood people – their fright is over, things have gone quiet, everyone continues defaming Jackson and the spectators keep watching the show.
The final picture comes from the infamous Ronald Emmerich/Bryan Singer pool parties regularly organized by them after the gay-pride parades. The parties start in the daytime, go well into the night and regularly host 600-700 young ‘twinks’ as they call them.
Here is a quote from Daily Beast about these events:
Singer’s pool parties have been a topic of discussion in gay entertainment circles for years. Some parties, co-hosted with fellow out director Roland Emmerich, have featured more than a thousand celebrants. Emmerich told The Advocate, “when [Singer] makes a New Year’s party, there’s like 600, 700 twinks running around and he’s hiding in his room. That’s quite typical.” Emmerich estimates that the last party they hosted, in 2009, drew 1,200 guests.
… “I don’t recall anyone bringing a bathing suit,” says Dottley. “It was a healthy mixture of underwear and no underwear.” He pauses. “Mostly no underwear, to be honest.”
Well, the fact that ‘it is mostly no underwear’ can be very well seen in this picture [the source]:
You see that it is the daytime, and what goes on there at night?
The night scene below is the only one photo available to us from Singer’s parties and probably the only picture ever made there at all.
So what do we see here?
We see a serious document. You don’t need to be an expert to notice that there are wrong things taking place here – there are at least three youngsters among this naked (or half-naked) crowd which is also probably half-drunk. And among the three youngsters there are two very young children – and we know it because their heads are much smaller than the heads of all the others.
In fact any forensic expert will determine that this is indeed the case. I’ve blown up the respective fragments and put them over the photo (blurred, but this is the most I could do) just in case you didn’t notice.
It is none of my business to criticize Hollywood morals and if the public likes it that way, I can’t help it.
But the question that really bothers me is why everyone is preoccupied with Jackson though there isn’t a single shred of evidence against him, and no one pays attention to this documentary proof of minors partying with drunk and naked adults in these Hollywood pools? And why is there no attention to Mr. Harrah?
And why do we have to constantly return to the little fantasies of certain Ms. Michaels while the real elephant in the room is child abuse in Hollywood and why is no one, including the media and law enforcement talking about it?
What amazes me most is the contrast in the approach to Michael Jackson and all these Hollywood guys.
The problem is that the focus of public attention cannot be so gravely displaced and put on Jackson only all by itself, in a natural way. This can happen only as a result of someone’s deliberate effort to distort public perception and direct all flash lights at just one person simultaneously dimming the light in the gray area all around him.
I know that it is no use waiting for an explanation of this phenomenon from the media and the organizers of this one-sided circus – it is their agenda, their goal and the very effect they are pursuing.
But my question is addressed to ordinary people – don’t you understand that you are being manipulated?
And isn’t it time to understand that since they selected Michael Jackson for this torturous show it is actually him who is the INNOCENT one in this crowd.
* * *
New evidence about rampant child abuse in Hollywood has come from unexpected quarters. Milo Yiannopoulos, a conservative columnist and internet personality says that very young boys (emphasis on “very”) are given lots drugs in Hollywood and have sex with older men there.
He knew about it or probably even witnessed it at Hollywood parties “years ago”. And there is no reason to believe that anything has changed for the better since then.
So everything is as usual – the same drug-taking and the same old men have sex with VERY young boys there. Anything that accidentally surfaces is immediately hushed up and everyone is encouraged to talk about the innocent Michael Jackson instead.
A classic COVER-UP OPERATION.