Skip to content


January 16, 2019

In the face of a new slander campaign against Michael Jackson that is still going strong even ten years after his death, let us try to find out who is most probably behind it, who started it in the first place and who was so much intent on ruining Michael Jackson’s career according to Michael himself.

And if we are to listen to what Michael said about it, the person who ruined Michael was David Geffen.

Yes, Michael Jackson believed that the person who sank his career was David Geffen.


The information that Michael Jackson ‘hated’ Geffen is still available on the web, however nothing is said about Geffen’s hatred for Michael Jackson. But even if the required information is not easily accessible to us, there can’t be any doubt that Geffen was indeed Michael Jackson’s foe.

This conclusion follows from David Geffen’s notorious reputation of a person horrendously vindictive towards anyone who has ever crossed his path. And there needn’t to be a valid reason for turning Geffen into your most implacable foe  – an ugly feud may start with no reason at all, just after a chance remark or a joke perceived by Geffen as a slight. Even his friends refuse to speak about Geffen for fear that they may accidentally drop something that may not be to his liking.

‘The Daily Beast’ reporter Nicole LaPorte says about it:

“Geffen is famous for his decades-long, and very ugly, feuds. … When I called a friend of Geffen’s and asked him if he’d speak to me, I was met with a heavy silence on the other end of the line. And then a deep-throated growl: ‘The last person who wrote a book about David Geffen is dead! And he was young. And healthy. And now he’s dead!’ Click.”

It seems that Geffen’s friends are so afraid of their ‘friend’ that they even think him capable of killing. But whether true or not, his unique vindictiveness allows us to read the statement about MJ’s hate for Geffen the other way around – if even the amiable Michael hated Geffen, the vindictive Geffen hated Michael even more, like no other person on the planet would, though he certainly never showed it in public as was his usual custom (Geffen usually shrugs off any unwelcome truth about himself as ‘Hollywood silliness’).

Many of you have probably heard of the so-called enemy list of Michael Jackson’s which was mentioned in the media with a sneer and chuckle, but no one ever explained why David Geffen was said to be on the top of that list.

Indeed, why on earth would Michael hate Geffen if the latter had been ‘advising him on his career’ for more than a decade and was said to be his ‘friend’ all along? Without at least some explanation of this rumor any information about Michael’s hate looked like an absurd and preposterous whim on the part of a ‘weirdo’ star.

And it was meant to look that way, which is why all traces about the reason for a falling out between Michael and Geffen were thoroughly erased from the web.

However despite all the effort some traces of it still remain and these traces explain to us that Michael Jackson hated David Geffen because a closely-knit group of people in Hollywood headed by Geffen had sunk his career, and Michael was perfectly aware of it.

Here is one of the pieces that contains this truly priceless information:

“… Jackson reportedly hates Geffen for being a part of what he calls Hollywood’s “Gay Mafia,” which he believes sank his career.”

Hollywood Gay Mafia? And this was said by Michael Jackson? The focus in this statement shouldn’t of course be on the word ‘gay’ as Michael never had anything against gays and was life-long friends with many of them, like Arnold Klein, for example.

The focus in this statement should be on the word ‘mafia’ because this is how Michael perceived the closely-knit group of extremely powerful people in Hollywood who are relentless in pursuing their goals and are not above destroying other people’s careers, reputation and even lives.

Specifically, Michael pointed at David Geffen and his Hollywood friends, many of whom were non-gays but were very close to him and shared his ways and means.

So now that we’ve learned that Michael considered Geffen and his people to be directly responsible for destroying him, there is another question – where does the above statement come from and can we believe it?


This statement comes from a source you both know and don’t know.

You know it because it comes from the Vanity Fair article by Maureen Orth called “Losing his grip” published in the April 2003 issue of the magazine (though it was released a month earlier, on March 3 for some reason).

And you don’t know about it because since the initial publication Maureen Orth has changed the text and removed this precious detail, so it is no longer there in the online version of the article.

The deliberate removal of this paragraph is an extremely telling point, and we still need to look into its significance a little later. In the meantime let us see what traces of the original information are still available to us and how far this information initially spread.

The Vanity Fair article must have been redacted almost immediately after its release as Michael’s reasons for hating Geffen were copy pasted by a very limited number of media outlets, the traces of which remained in only two of them – in the New York Post and on a Fox News page which functioned until recently, but is no longer there and is now displaying a 404 sign.

In fact, if Michael’s words hadn’t remained in the New York Post we wouldn’t have learned that he ever said them and that they were part of the original Vanity Fair text.

Here is the NY Post piece, complete with Maureen Orth’s ridiculous voodoo story.


By Bill Hoffmann

March 4, 2003 | 5:00am

Just when you thought Wacko Jacko could not get any more bizarre, a new report says Michael Jackson hired an African voodoo chief to put a death curse on Steven Spielberg and David Geffen.

And the King of Pop sealed the deal by bathing in sheep’s blood and having dozens of cows slaughtered, according to a story in the April issue of Vanity Fair.

Jackson began his quest for revenge by forking over $150,000 to a witch doctor named Baba, who put a hex on the Hollywood bigs three years ago in Switzerland, the mag says.

“David Geffen be gone! Steven Spielberg be gone!” chanted Baba, who assured the Gloved One that Geffen – who heads DreamWorks Pictures with Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg – would be dead within one week.

To strengthen the curse, the report says, Jackson went to another witch doctor and “paid six figures for a ritual cleansing using sheep’s blood” and the slaughter of 42 cows. For his money, he also reportedly got the “blood of a number of small animals for yet another slaughter.”

Some of the cash was paid to a go-between, a mysterious woman named Samia, who came to Jackson with a letter of greeting from a Saudi prince who is now the kingdom’s chief of intelligence, Vanity Fair says.

Spielberg and Geffen were two of 25 people on Jackson’s “enemies list,” the mag reported. Jackson reportedly hates Geffen for being a part of what he calls Hollywood’s “Gay Mafia,” which he believes sank his career. And he’s mad at Spielberg for nixing a deal to star him in a new version of “Peter Pan.”

Neither Geffen or Spielberg could be reached for comment. Jackson’s company, MJJ Productions, did not return a call. [ ]

opera Снимок 1

The point about Michael being mad at Spielberg is correct. In 1990 Michael was involved in a certain secret Project M where a little-known scriptwriter Darlene Craviotto was hired by Geffen’s friend Jeffrey Katzenberg of Disney to write a script for a Peter Pan movie in collaboration with the enthusiastic Michael Jackson who was supposed to play the main part. And Ms. Craviotto said that the movie was to be directed by Steven Spielberg.

But after she recently wrote a book about it we found out that Disney had no rights for producing the film, so the project was doomed from the start and when it naturally went nowhere, all the blame for its failure was placed on Spielberg – by those who masterminded the sham project, of course.

Spielberg was a suitable scapegoat as he was about to make ‘Hook’ at Columbia Pictures which did have rights to a Peter Pan story. The overall situation brought us to a conclusion that both Michael Jackson and Steven Spielberg fell victims to a scam, and that Michael could be even deliberately alienated from Spielberg (see this series for details, please).

As usual, the scammers stayed behind the scene, however the few remaining trails are invariably leading us in the same direction – to the above mentioned group of David Geffen’s friends, Katzenberg and probably even Geffen himself, who as Michael said destroyed his career.

Besides the NY Post the reference to Michael’s statement about Geffen and his ‘mafia’ can also be found in some forum chats, and judging by what people say there this information was even reported on Fox TV News as one of the chat participants saw it on TV.

In their discussion taking place two days after the publication, on March 5, 2003, some people assume that all of it could be just some tabloid stuff, but upon learning that it was reported by Fox News take the information seriously.

“I saw this reported on Fox News yesterday. Now, it might have been during some type of light, celeb-rumor type segment … wasn’t paying that much attention… but still… not exactly a tabloid.”

Besides these few remaining online traces, the original text with Michael Jackson’s words about David Geffen and his Hollywood ‘gay mafia’ ruining his career, is probably still in the physical copy of the Vanity Fair April 2003 issue which is sold online.

The April 2003 issue of Vanity Fair had a “special investigation by Maureen Orth”: “Michael Jackson: You Cannot Make This Stuff Up. New details on the boys, the business, the bizarre blood rituals”. The article went online on March 3, 2003

It can be bought by anyone who is willing to check it up  – unless this particular copy was really printed in April and not in March when this news first appeared but was later removed.


But is the alleged Michael’s statement credible? Indeed, how do we know that the words attributed to Michael Jackson were what he really thought and said?

In my opinion, the very fact that the telling paragraph disappeared from the article leaving almost no trace behind it serves as the best proof that this particular point in Maureen Orth’s narration is the most credible of all.

The thing is that the bulk of Maureen Orth’s article is a terrible mishmash of vile gossip, lies, half-truths about MJ and their biased interpretation, up to quoting Victor Gutierrez and gleefully repeating his stories. And all of it is what Maureen Orth wanted us to know.

But what she and others didn’t want us to know was initially mentioned there through an oversight and was then quickly removed so that no one ever learned about it.

So this disappearance act alone is in and of itself proof enough that while the remaining text may be full of lies in their many variations, Michael Jackson’s removed statement that David Geffen and his “Gay Mafia” at Hollywood ruined his career is true and Michael really thought and said it.

Those who initiated Maureen Orth’s long story and guided her in her writing surely didn’t want anyone to even consider the option that David Geffen could be the root of Michael Jackson’s problems, so the mere mentioning of it, even in the ridiculous voodoo context highly negative to Michael, was erased by them from the original, with all references to it in other media outlets removed too.

Only imagine how significant that point was if they eliminated all traces of the original statement even in the copy-pasted material in the other media!

And how deep should be Geffen’s media connections if he and his people managed to suppress this information even after its release and kept it a secret for so long!

And how closely guarded should this secret be if we are learning about it only 16 years later and quite by chance too, by coming across its remnants that miraculously survived someone’s thorough job of cleaning the web!

Incidentally, here is a short piece that describes the power of Geffen over the media. It was published in 2006 when there was some talk about Geffen’s plans to buy the Los Angeles Times. Another Vanity Fair journalist Kim Masters (Geffen’s pal) said about it the following:

“I’ve heard from multiple sources in L.A., including an editor at the Times, that Geffen told a Timesman that were he to succeed in buying the paper, his first order of business would be firing a reporter in the business section who had crossed him.

Those who have dealt with Geffen while covering this business should find that obvious. Geffen is famously vindictive. One reporter now at the Times once called me in tears after an encounter with him on the phone (one truly has to be on the receiving end of his verbal savagery to appreciate it). And does anyone think he’ll tolerate articles that annoy him or his friends? And he has lots of friends—from Hollywood to Washington, from Steven Spielberg to Hillary Clinton.”

So does anyone still doubt that Geffen has every opportunity to pull down any unwanted material and freely promote his own agenda in the media?


To see the context for Maureen Orth’s article let us go back to the moment when the so-called ‘April’ issue of the Vanity Fair magazine was released on March 3, 2003.

It was the time of a huge public outcry over the disastrous Martin Bashir’s film “Living with Michael Jackson” that aired in Britain on February 3 and three days later in the US.

On the same day the film aired in America an anonymous source leaked to the press the text of Jordan Chandler’s declaration made in 1993 with graphic descriptions of the alleged sex acts – which naturally added a ton of more fuel to the fire. Previously the public had read those reports only in their media interpretation as all documents of the civil case were sealed as part of the settlement agreement, and now all of a sudden the full text of the declaration saw the light of day. Jordan Chandler’s lawyer Larry Feldman was adamant that he had nothing to do with the release. “You can say that categorically we did not release the complaint,” he said.

In short all of it looked like too much of a coincidence and as a well-orchestrated effort to smear Michael Jackson of which Maureen Orth was also a part. In her extremely long Vanity Fair article Orth refreshed every scrap of the allegations and gossip told about MJ for 10 years prior to that, adding to them the novel rumors about the alleged voodoo rituals which painted Michael both as a cold manipulator and a ‘weirdo’.

Those juicy details were provided to Maureen Orth by Michael’s former business advisor Myung Ho Lee who at that moment was suing MJ for the fee he claimed for the failed projects he initiated and invested Michael’s money in. The claim was countered by Michael’s complaint that Myung Ho Lee had embezzled some of his funds.

In his book “MJ: The genius of Michael Jackson”  Steve Knopper provides us with some details of the above:

In the late nineties, Michael had turned to Korean-born and University of Chicago–trained lawyer Myung-Ho Lee, who ran a Seoul company called Union Finance and Investment Corporation. Lee set to ruthlessly overhaul Michael’s finances.

“Michael gave him all kinds of ability and authority and power, and he exercised it to push John [Branca] out, any way he could, and push me out,” says Zia Modabber, one of Michael’s longtime lawyers, who had defended him in a number of cases after the Chandler settlement turned Michael into a legal punching bag.

Lee became close enough to Michael’s business affairs to realize the singer was “cash poor.” Michael had exhausted a $90 million loan in 1998; through Bank of America, Lee secured new loans for a total of $200 million over the next two years.

With Lee’s help, Michael paid $7.4 million to MJ Net, a German entertainment-memorabilia company, for use of his likeness on products, including a state-of-the-art audio speaker system with photos of Michael on the front panels. He invested $2 million in a fuel-cell technology company. He was “extremely interested” in a company that had engineered a magnetic motor, for use as a high-efficiency generator, and attempted to invest $10 million before reducing his stake to $2 million.

For all these deals, Lee took a 2.5 percent fee. Eventually, Lee sued Michael, divulging juicy details in his complaint: Michael had wired $150,000 to a Mali bank to pay Baba, a voodoo chief who ritually sacrificed forty cows in a ceremony designed to curse Steven Spielberg and David Geffen. By way of response, Jackson’s attorneys accused Lee of using Michael’s assets to enrich himself in elaborate ways: he paid for his sister’s $50,000 Lexus and the rent on two Century City condos, including furnishings, utilities, and cable bills.”

It’s interesting that by the late 90s John Branca had been back on Michael’s team, but the new advisor who seemed to emerge from nowhere, exercised all his power to push Branca out again, same as Michael’s lawyer Zia Modabber who handled the partially successful Michael’s lawsuit against Diane Dimond and Victor Guttierrez (Diane Dimond wasn’t found liable but Guttierrez was and was to pay over $2 mln for his lies, but fled to Chili instead).

As to Branca, this was his second dismissal – the first time was in 1990 when he was fired on David Geffen’s insistence. He reentered the scene in 1993 when “some lawyer” on Michael’s team advised him to sell the ATV catalog.  Branca reacted with “Are you crazy, Michael?” and made a deal with Sony instead, equipping Michael with an additional $90 million.

It’s also interesting that one of the characters from Orth’s article, the woman named Samia, is mentioned by Steve Knopper too, so it seems that this person did indeed approach Michael Jackson (or was sent to him by someone) with a promise to help him buy a villa and a yacht.

Steve Knopper:

“At one point, Michael met a woman named “Samia,” who claimed to be a personal adviser to a Saudi Arabian prince. While Lee’s people were investigating Samia, Michael communicated with her directly, believing promises she would buy him a $40 million villa and a yacht.

The same was presented by Maureen Orth in a much more sensational manner:

“David Geffen, be gone! Steven Spielberg, be gone!” The witch doctor cursing Michael Jackson’s enemies and blessing the tarnished King of Pop himself in a voodoo ritual in Switzerland in the summer of 2000 had promised that the 25 people on Jackson’s enemies list, some of whom had worked with him for years, would soon expire. The voodoo man later assured one close observer of the scene that David Geffen, who headed the list, would die within the week. But Geffen’s demise did not come cheap. Jackson had ordered his then business adviser, Myung-Ho Lee, a U.S.-educated Korean lawyer based in Seoul, to wire $150,000 to a bank in Mali for a voodoo chief named Baba, who then had 42 cows ritually sacrificed for the ceremony.

The pop star, who is said to be $240 million in debt, had paid six figures for a ritual cleansing using sheep blood to another voodoo doctor and a mysterious Egyptian woman named Samia, who came to him with a letter of greeting from a high-ranking Saudi prince, purportedly Nawaf Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, now the chief of intelligence of Saudi Arabia. She had taken an eager Jackson to her basement in Geneva, where, he later told associates, he saw with his own eyes piles of $100 bills which Samia said totaled $300 million. It was “free money,” she said; he could have it, and she could also get him a villa and a yacht.”

The $150,000 wire to Mali is mentioned by both authors and may be correct too, though whether Michael wired the money for a voodoo ritual or contributed it to some African charity fund we don’t know.

However one more precious detail we learn from Maureen Orth’s article is that Michael allegedly wanted to ‘curse’ Geffen in 2000, and this means that Michael shared his thoughts with Myung Ho Lee three years prior to Orth’s article and therefore considered Geffen responsible for sinking his career sometime in the 1990s.

The period Michael referred to must have been between 1991 and the summer of 1995 when a row over the song “They Don’t Care About Us” broke out and soon thereafter Michael stopped all communication with his then manager Sandy Gallin and friend David Geffen due to their lack of support over the song’s unfortunate lyrics (see this post for details please).

Though of course it doesn’t rule out that Geffen could work on ruining Michael’s career well after they parted ways too.

So the essential question now is what point in time was regarded by Michael as the moment when his career sank, which will also explain to us when Geffen and his ‘mafia’ started working against Jackson, at least according to Michael’s perception of it.


The photo of Michael Jackson attending David Geffen’s birthday party together with Madonna comes from Geffen’s Instagram and dates back to February 21, 1991. This was the peak of their relationship – by that moment Michael had completely replaced his management team with people advised to him by Geffen and was about to sign with Sony a new contract (in March 1991), the biggest attraction of which was an agreement to involve Michael in feature films.

davidgeffen Instagram: My birthday 1991. Posted on May 13, 2016  (David Geffen’s birthday is on February 21)

In this photo Michael is happy and full of hopes for a bright new future ahead of him and a stellar career in Hollywood promised to him by Geffen who had his own movie company, was friends with every big Hollywood boss and who persuaded Michael to hire his friend Sandy Gallin as a new manager who had all the necessary movie connections and experience.

This moment in Michael’s life seems to be a watershed between his earlier steady success and strange and unpredictable events that began to take place soon thereafter. The year 1991 is also noteworthy for a sharp contrast between the way Michael Jackson’s cooperation with David Geffen was reflected in the media before and after that.

Prior to 1991 the media was full of reports about Geffen and his friends being extremely helpful to Michael Jackson. Given that virtually nothing is said about their cooperation now, you will be amazed that at that time Geffen was part and parcel of almost every article that mentioned Michael Jackson’s business plans. Here are just a few examples:


“Perhaps most anticipated is his upcoming feature film for David Geffen`s Geffen Films Co. …Even with the delays, Geffen Films is still gung-ho on the project”


“Anyone in Hollywood would love to be in business with Michael Jackson, but Geffen got him because he said ”Let’s make a movie” three years ago [1982], before Jackson’s ”Thriller” sold 20 million albums.


“In 1985, Michael Jackson could be anything he wanted — and he wanted to be a movie star. His adviser, record executive David Geffen, suggested the singer meet with Disney.”


“Michael Jackson, a huge Disney fan, was still enjoying the fame and notoriety of his hit album Thriller when his financial adviser, David Geffen, suggested Jackson make a movie for Disney. Geffen called his long-time friend, Jeffrey Katzenberg (then head of the studio), with the idea. Katzenberg and Eisner countered with creating a 3-D movie/rock video for Disneyland. Most of the project was supervised by Katzenberg.


“Having set records for the largest grossing tour in history and the largest paid attendance Jackson plans to focus on recordings and films…Finding the right property for a specialized talent like Jackson has proved to be a challenge….Even multimedia producer David Geffen was unable to find the right project when he was retained by the singer around the time of the Jacksons’ 1984 “Victory” tour.

“I couldn’t come up with anything,” Geffen acknowledged in a separate interview Thursday. “It’s my failure, not his. I just wasn’t interested in doing a bad movie. …”Don’t bet against him,” Geffen cautioned. “He’s very single-minded and he’s a very hard worker. He’ll get it done.”

Jeffrey Katzenberg, chairman of Walt Disney Studios, is among the top producers who is reportedly trying to develop a film project for Jackson.


“It’s time to do something else.” Industry bets are on a movie career. “He won’t suffer at all,” says producer and longtime Jackson friend David Geffen. “He just bought a ranch in the Santa Ynez Valley, which he probably wants to enjoy. And he wants to make records and movies.” Though Geffen has tried and failed to come up with a film project for Michael, he believes the star will find a script.

“Michael’s very specific in his tastes. You can’t just cast him in anything,” says Geffen. “But he’s a hard worker, and his talent is a given. Michael’s not the sort you’d bet against”

18th August 1990

It is announced that Michael has hired Sandy Gallin as his new personal manager.

In March 1991 Michael signed a new contract with Sony with the help of two new lawyers advised to him by Geffen – Bert Fields and Allen Grubman. At the time Geffen was still mentioned as a ‘longtime friend’ and ‘a confidante in the talks.’

March 1991:

“In Michael’s contract, the change of administration at Sony during the negotiations added to Jackson’s bargaining power,” says Bertram Fields, one of the attorneys who represented Jackson in the Sony negotiations. The Jackson pact was so complex that it took a year to complete. Negotiations were started by Jackson’s then-lawyer John Branca, and concluded by attorneys Fields and Grubman.

Geffen, a longtime friend of the singer, also served as a confidante during the talks.

Geffen says Jackson commanded the record figures because he is the biggest-selling recording artist in history. “Michael is a unique artist, and therefore his contract is unique.”

November 1991 does not sound that glorious but Geffen is still presented as someone who has ‘close ties to MJ but no business relationship’:

“…the consensus in the entertainment industry is that “Dangerous” will be an overwhelming success, even if it does not match the stratospheric sales of “Thriller.” “The times may have changed but he’s changed with them,” said David Geffen, the pop-music impresario, who has close ties to Mr. Jackson but no business relationship. “Remember that he’s been doing this since he was 6 years old, and he’s stayed on the money for a long time.”

But friends say Michael Jackson feels more in control of his life than he has since his days as a child star. Over the last several years he has replaced his old management team with Mr. Gallin and Mr. Fields, and is said to be taking a more active role in his business dealings.  Mr. Jackson’s supporters believe the possibilities for him are virtually limitless. “The only question,” said Mr. Geffen, “is where does he want to put his time.”

The year 1992 seems to have nothing about Geffen-Michael Jackson’s ‘friendship’, and 1993 brings a crash to Michael’s career during which Geffen is simply never mentioned. The most that can be considered as a reference to David Geffen is a vague impression that he is one of those well-informed sources who speak to the media ‘on conditions of anonymity’ only.


“… Mr. Jackson now faces a professional and personal crisis unusual even by the garish, high-profile standards of Hollywood. Some of the entertainment world’s most formidable figures who know Mr. Jackson said privately today that the current situation seems nothing less than tragic for the shy, reclusive and childlike entertainer, who has, by all accounts, few close friends. His future seems unpredictable.

Prominent executives and others who have worked with Mr. Jackson in recent months have expressed concern about his apparently fragile emotional state, even before the recent allegations. At a private dinner several months ago to discuss Mr. Jackson’s film career, some of the biggest players in Hollywood joined the superstar. Several people who attended the dinner said that while the discussion was going on, Mr. Jackson, inexplicably, placed his head on the table and began to cry uncontrollably. The dinner reportedly broke up soon after.

So even several months prior to the allegations (made in August 1993) Michael had already been totally frustrated by lack of any progress in his film career. And when the scandal broke out his last hopes for a better future crashed with a bang – his reputation sustained a fatal blow and even his financial standing was gravely shattered too.

“The numerous cancellations and postponements on the expensive tour so far, and its abrupt halt more than a month to go, would result in multi-million-dollar losses of income to Mr. Jackson, as well as losses to the tour sponsors. At the same time, the singer recently backed out of a video and song for the new Paramount film “Addams Family Values.” As a result, Mr. Jackson paid back the studio an estimated $5 million, said one executive who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Rusty Lemorande recalled how Michael’s career in Hollywood came to an end even before it started. The scandal hit right at the moment when their two movie projects were well on the way and then ‘suddenly, nobody wanted to touch him’.

“One was set up at Warners. And the other was set up at Turner – who owned the remake rights. And everything was going great. Fantastic!  And then the first scandal hit.” 

“Suddenly, nobody wanted to touch him… It was quite sad that it never happened, because it was very important for Michael to be in movies.

He also said:

“That really killed his movie career.”

Actually, November 1991 was the last time we heard about any cooperation between Geffen and Michael Jackson.

In October 1994 Geffen announced the creation of DreamWorks together with Katzenberg and Spielberg which delivered Michael another blow – he was said to be deeply offended by the fact that they stole from him the boy-on-the moon logo.

And in the summer of 1995 it was all over. Amidst the media row started by the ‘anti-Semite’ lyrics leaked by Bernard Weinraub (Geffen’s pal) from the yet unreleased song, Geffen appeared in the media once again presenting his best and last act of support for Jackson by saying that the latter was genuinely sorry and was just naïve.

“At worst, sometimes he’s naive, and I think to the degree that anybody is bothered or offended, he’s genuinely sorry”, said Geffen who is Jewish.

Michael asked him and his manager Sandy Gallin to be more vocal and explain that he wasn’t an anti-Semite, especially since they had heard the song well in advance and never objected to its lyrics, but they refused, leaving Michael to his own devices, after which all communication between them ceased.

Since that moment nothing has been heard about the relations between David Geffen and Michael Jackson, and even after Michael’s death Geffen refused to give any interviews about him. He declined to be interviewed even for Zack Greenburg’s book about Michael’s business affairs though there was a time when he called himself Michael Jackson’s closest business advisor.

Instead, Geffen sent Greenburg an email: “I don’t want to talk about MJ. All too sad”.


Indeed, all of it is too sad.

If I were to determine the moment in Michael’s life when his career sank, I would single out the year 1993 when Michael’s career suffered a disastrous downfall triggered off by the worst accusations possible.

And if Michael Jackson were alive now he would probably agree that this was the moment his career sank. His music began to be taken off the radio, his endorsement deals were cut and were never again, the several movie projects Michael planned with his friends were dead with no prospect of revival, the Dangerous tour was cancelled resulting in $20million damages, and this in addition to the settlement sum with the Chandlers.

And to crown it all someone on his team advised him to also sell his ATV catalog, which didn’t happen only thanks to Branca’s intervention. The catalog remained a good source of income for Michael for years ahead, but we can easily imagine what would have happened if he had followed that advice – without his most valuable assets Michael could have easily gone bankrupt almost immediately afterwards.

So whichever way you look at the events in 1993 it was indeed the breaking point in Michael’s career.

But if this was the moment which Michael meant when he spoke about his career ruined by Geffen and his Hollywood ‘gay mafia’, the question arises how they did it.

Because if the child abuse allegations were the main reason for his career wreckage, it means that the Hollywood mafia wrecked it by putting their hand to those allegations. 

Indeed, there are many details to that disaster that still remain a mystery and are suggestive of foul play.

For example, no one can explain why the graphic details of the allegations were regularly leaked to the press and why the Santa Barbara authorities were keen on hunting down Michael Jackson only, ignoring complaints from genuine victims of child abuse like Corey Feldman.

Corey was molested by several people in Hollywood and it was exactly Corey Feldman’s molester to whom the police spoke in advance and who sent the detectives after Michael Jackson, while he himself was never arrested (back in 1993 Sergeant Deborah Linden even laughed about it in Corey’s face: “If we run across him, we’ll let you know. Hahaha”).

Another mystery never explained is what Evan Chandler meant when he said in a telephone conversation with his son’s stepfather Dave Schwartz that ‘the plan was not just his’ and that ‘there were other people involved’.

“Everything is going according to a certain plan that isn’t just mine. There’s other people involved –“ Evan Chandler 

Or what his son Jordan meant when he refused to participate in the 2005 Arvizo trial and replied to the authorities that ‘he had done his part.’ What part was Jordan playing and was the whole thing a game?

Similarly it is absolutely unclear how the photo albums by certain authors with a questionable past appeared in Michael Jackson’s home. One book was sent by a fan called “Rhonda” with many love signs on its cover and the second one was autographed by Michael (saying that he hoped his children had the same happy childhood as the kids in those photos) and was meant to be given back to the one who presented it. But instead both books found their way into Michael’s locked file cabinet, the only key to which was kept by Michael’s maid Blanca Francia who left Neverland in 1991 and was summoned by the police to open it in 1993. Can anyone explain to me why the former maid kept the key and for two years too, and how the police knew whom to ask for it?

Another strange occurrence is that the 1993 media witch-hunt started when the young journalist Diane Dimond was approached by someone in the street and this person provided her with a ready-made file on Michael’s so-called ‘victims’. Victor Gutierrez, the author of the file, had been making rounds of all Michael’s child friends for several years prior to that, and though he was a self-admitted attendee of a boylover NAMBLA assembly he nevertheless became Diane Dimond’s right hand and ‘best source’ in their crushing campaign against Jackson.

Diane Dimond’s other source was a certain Rodney Allen who tried to frame up Michael Jackson in Canada but the plot was uncovered by the Canadian police, after which it turned out that Rodney Allen was a pedophile. However it didn’t prevent Tom Sneddon, the Santa Barbara District Attorney, from using his services in the 1993 Michael Jackson case. In which capacity? We still don’t know it.

Another young journalist, Maureen Orth who joined the Vanity Fair staff exactly in 1993 also started her career with writing an article about Jackson called “Nightmare in Neverland” in July 1994  – when a year long criminal investigation was close to its end with no charges made – and continued with a series of articles which even according to Randall Sullivan of the Rolling Stone “drew largely on anonymous or pseudonymous sources to portray Jackson in a light as lurid as anything the tabloids had ever cast upon him.”

For our convenience the Vanity Fair collected all her articles on a single page devoted to Michael Jackson’s death in 2009 under the title “MICHAEL JACKSON IS GONE, BUT THE SAD FACTS REMAIN” and for some reason this nasty anthology ends with a big photo of …. David Geffen and an appeal to follow news about him. Here is the beginning of it:

The anthology of Maureen Orth’s articles is dedicated to Michael Jackson’s death

The middle part of it:

opera Снимок

Orth’s first article “Nightmare in Neverland” came in July 1994 when the year-long ciriminal investigation was already drawing to an end (no charges were made)

And here is the end:

opera Снимок

The list of articles about Michael Jackson ends with a photo of David Geffen as if it were a tribute to HIM

Isn’t it funny to have David Geffen’s photo right after the articles where Michael Jackson named him as the person who ruined his career? Oh, I forget that no one knows about it as the news about it has been removed…

But even though now we know that Michael blamed Geffen and his Hollywood ‘mafia’ for what they did to him, many questions still remain unanswered.

Especially now that a slanderous movie about Michael Jackson called “Leaving Neverland” and based on Robson’s and Safechuck’s groundless allegations is planned to soon premiere at the Sundance film festival.

Why did this respected film festival decide to present a film about two obvious liars who testified to Michael’s innocence twice and then made a sudden turnabout?

Why are they given so much media attention and preferential treatment despite their vague stories, while no one listens to the genuine victims of child abuse and their voices are barely heard?

Why is there so much money to back these two guys? Who are those ‘selfless’ sponsors who seem to provide them with unlimited funds to keep their legal teams busy with several lawsuits and 6 years of litigation, while the genuine victims with credible stories have to resort to crowd-funding to be able to get justice for themselves?

And where is this justice? Have you seen it? For Corey Feldman and Corey Haim, for example? Where is a stream of good investigative journalism to promote their cases against the Hollywood molesters, especially since some perpetrators are already known, but are still going on with their activities?

And is it possible that Geffen and the Hollywood ‘mafia’ who sank Michael Jackson’s career in the 1990s are still at it even today? And that they are not only after Jackson and ruining his name, but they are also there to obstruct justice in real crimes against youngsters?

The only good of the film to be soon presented at the Sundance film festival is that it gives people a chance to ask these and many other similar questions and demand immediate answers to them NOW.

80 Comments leave one →
  1. soncece_23 permalink
    December 18, 2019 7:25 am

    Geffen was in MJs managerial team in 80ies? My god what was MJ thinking hanging around those sickos! Didnt he notice they blocked his movie career? The biggest star of 80ies and he didnt get 1 good movie offer while Cher Bowie Parton got them. That should rise the alarm bells someone in his “team” was seriuosly plotting against him and obstructing him in his movie-making breaktrhough


  2. Battenburg permalink
    September 16, 2019 10:27 am

    “But director Dan Reed said he feels the Emmy ‘validates’ the documentary”


    No, it doesn’t validate (or invalidate) anything.

    But, of course, it’s exactly what Dan Reed needs to further push his agenda.

    “Look! We won an Emmy for non-fiction, therefore what we said must be true!”.

    After so much of LNL has been disproven, he’s desperate for anything he can get and he’ll no doubt be referring to this any time someone challenges him over his fantasies.


  3. September 16, 2019 8:15 am

    I will be away for some time, so will comment later. And at the moment just want to say that when the injustice is so brazen it always backfires. The more they do it, the sooner people will leave the Matrix – and the better it is.
    Here are some comments.


    If guilt is to be determined by an accusation on its own, presented in a blockbuster film format while completely barring the other sides argument along with the evidence that contradicts the film’s narrative, what does that say about us as a society?

    Whether or not you think a Jackson’s guilty isn’t the issue. It’s how we evaluate the evidence. Letting one side speak while completely ignoring the other is not how this should work. A media peddling one narrative over the other is not how this should work.

    The embrace of these accusations and others without the slightest bit of skepticism or investigation is terrifying to watch. That’s not to say accusers shouldn’t be listened to. But the evidence needs to be equally considered, on the side of the accused, as well as the accuser.


    But that’s the beauty of MJ’s legacy, highlighting corruption and injustice

    ChanelleaP: A Soundtrack, an official photoshoot of the cast and director, an award, an interview special by one of the most powerful talkshow hosts…sounds like the ultimate hollywood summer blockbuster.

    Harrison Funk:

    I’ve lost ALL respect for emmys and members of the academy (Oprah’s sheeple). Y’all are a bunch of idiots!

    Justice for the falsely accused:

    When people called the @Emmys to point out some proven lies in Leaving Neverland, their answer was that they did not care if the content of the film was true or false. So truthfulness is not required from documentaries these days? Good to know.

    Nicholas Hollywood:

    The #Emmys are now a joke. Nothing has any meaning or value anymore. We are living through dangerous times. Things must change. Shame on you, @HBO. Shame on you, @TelevisionAcad. Leaving Neverland is FICTION.

    TSCM @MJJRepository:

    Condolences to the 5 competing producers who assumed #Emmys would judge their films based on quality and credence. You never stood a chance against the predetermined, emotional mindlessness of “believe all accusers even those who are proven frauds.”

    John Ziegler:

    History will NOT look kindly upon this travesty. I’ve seen a lot of bad jokes in this realm, but this is the worst. Robson and Safechuck have to be laughing at the moron/whores at the #Emmys


  4. September 16, 2019 7:17 am

    Best Drone Shots?- Battenburg

    It should have been nominated for Best Actors in the fiction category. Instead it was “a Creative Arts Emmy for Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Special”. In other words the award was given for AN OUTSTANDING FRAUD. The MJ Estate has already reacted to it:

    Emmys 2019: Michael Jackson Film Leaving Neverland Wins Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Special

    Dan Reed’s two-part Michael Jackson documentary Leaving Neverland took home a Creative Arts Emmy today for Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Special. The documentary was also nominated for Outstanding Directing for a Documentary/Nonfiction Program, Outstanding Picture Editing for a Nonfiction Program, Outstanding Sound Editing for a Nonfiction Program (Single or Multi- Camera), and Outstanding Sound Mixing for a Nonfiction Program (Single or Multi-Camera).

    Leaving Neverland originally premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on January 25. It was subsequently aired by HBO in March over the course of two days. The controversial film follows James Safechuck and Wade Robson who allege they were sexually abused in the 1990s by Jackson, starting at the ages of 7 and 10, respectively.

    “For a film that is a complete fiction to be honored in a nonfiction Emmy category is a complete farce. Not one shred of proof supports this completely one-sided, so-called documentary which was made in secrecy and for which not one person outside of the two subjects and their families were interviewed,” a spokesperson for Michael Jackson’s estate said in a statement reacting to the win.

    Read “HBO’s Michael Jackson Documentary Leaving Neverland Is Damning—But Flawed” on the Pitch.


  5. Battenburg permalink
    September 16, 2019 5:07 am

    What was the category?

    Best Drone Shots?


  6. September 15, 2019 11:07 am

    I hear that ‘Leaving Neverland’ fake won an Emmy award? Well… they couldn’t think of anything better to fully devalue it. The last shreds of illusion have disappeared. I think that this will open up the eyes of millions to the foul underbelly of this business. At least for me Emmy exists no longer.

    Hopefully everyone here understands who is pulling the strings?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Anna Muss permalink
    August 10, 2019 6:30 pm

    Thank you for taking so much time, and doing all of this research, for those of us searching for the truth. It’s been very informative. As there’s a plethora of it, I don’t know if I’ll be able to read all of it, but I’ll try to read a little bit over time. Also, thank you for finding things that had been erased from the Web. I’m glad you listed your sources for all of this information. That’s very important when doing research. Wish I could say the same for a certain documentarian
    who shall remain nameless. Keep doing what you’re doing, and I hope this will ultimately prove to everyone that the aforementioned documentary is nothing but hearsay. If any of the people directly or indirectly responsible for MJ’s death and his career spiraling downward are still living, I hope that these people will face criminal charges. They sound like not just a danger to MJ, but also to other celebrities.


  8. Beca permalink
    April 22, 2019 1:53 pm

    14 June 1995, in the prime time interview with Lisa Maria, Michael Jackson said his 3 best friends were Geffen Spielberg and katzenberg. Just watched that after seeing this video which suggests geffen is very bad man so was very surprised Michael would be best friends with him.


  9. Suparna Goswami permalink
    April 18, 2019 7:51 pm

    Great post Helena! Will share the link on Taj Jackson’s twitter account.


  10. permalink
    April 16, 2019 12:51 am

    I think Geffen reeled MJ in with promises of making movies at Columbia to get at his ATV music catalog. Then reneged on that deal. MJ also said that they were trying to kill him for his music catalog. Conveniently there was a time limit to the movie clause. In 1993!! The studio head at the time for Columbia Pictures was married to the man who was writing about the “anti-semitic” lyrics as well. Again Geffen and one of his good buddies who was one of MJ’s talent agents listened to the lyrics and said they were genius. Both were jewish. So essentially they lured in MJ to merge the ATV catalog with Sony. Promised him the movie deal with Colubia Pictures. But due to the 1993 allegations MJ wasn’t able to finish the tour and he definitely couldn’t finish the Moonwalker movie before the time was Up. So contractually MJ couldn’t sue for breach of contract.

    I believe because Chandler was in a movie MADE BY COLUMBIA PICTURES they were a plant. This whole thing was carefully orchestrated by a multimedia mogul.

    But another HUGE piece, I believe MJ was supposed to be a partner at DreamWorks, hence the Neverland looking logo. Who took his place?? DAVID GEFFEN!

    Do you see how nefarious this all is??

    MJ was smart! He was an incredible business man. He knew all the newest technology. He knew all three at SKG. and he wanted to be in movies.. Put it all together.

    He almost bought the comic book franchise but was told not to. Hello Disney!

    I think you are so right about this post. And it’s very hard to find anything linking Geffen negatively with MJ let alone my DreamWorks theory.

    MJ had one of the devils right Matolla but I
    don’t think he ever called out Geffen.. I think Geffen funded Leaving Neverland. Oprah watched it on his yaht for her birthday and then had that sick viewing show special. Don’t get me started!!

    But the ATV/Sony catalog was purchased after MJs death for 750 million. It was worth 40 BILLION! !

    follow the money… This was a HUGE conspiracy and Geffen is right in the center of the web!

    I also think Geffen is the man Feldman is afraid to name. A HOLLYWOOD MOGUL WHO OWNS ONE OF THE TOP STUDIOS! Geffen was a talent agent at WMA.

    Geffen is worth like 40 Billion. I think he killed Corey Haim and MJ. he’s supposed to be in the Velvet Mafia. There are rumors he’s a known pedophile. I just pray Feldman isn’t next!


  11. March 19, 2019 2:33 pm

    “Nothing happens to the real abusers” – Debra fiore

    This is the crucial point. Even if few direct traces of foul play are there in the open, there is overwhelming indirect evidence of the same.

    And one of the points here is that real abusers are rarely prosecuted, and if they are, they get minimal sentences and no attention from the media. Look at what happens to those several young men who spoke against Bryan Singer and the two journalists from the Atlantic who worked for 12 months to investigate the allegations?

    Nothing happens – the media keeps complete silence about that case. The journalists had a very hard time trying to get that material published in the Esquire as it was rejected at the last minute even after all final approvals, but was fortunately later taken up by the Atlantic.

    • Does it ever happen to stories about Michael Jackson? No, never.
    • When was the final variant published after a year-long investigation and after being cancelled by the Esquire and taken up by the Atlantic? In January 2019.
    • And when was Leaving Neverland suddenly announced at the Sundance festival? In January 2019 too, just two weeks prior to what was supposed to be big news about Bryan Singer.
    • Which one was picked up by the media and which was hushed up?

    Do your maths, guys and just put two and two together.

    Here is a tweet from the two journalists on how hard it was to find a platform to write about Bryan Singer:

    And this is the short of their article about Singer where the latter naturally plays the “homophobic” card.
    However it doesn’t matter who he is – if someone is a predator, his sexual orientation should not matter and should not be an obstacle for the (alleged) victims to have justice for themselves!

    New Allegations Emerge Against Bryan Singer in the Atlantic’s Exposé
    JAN 23, 201911:53 AM

    The Atlantic has published a lengthy report on Bohemian Rhapsody director Bryan Singer containing new allegations of sexual misconduct including sex with underage boys. The magazine says that reporters Alex French and Maximillian Potter consulted “more than 50 sources” during their yearlong investigation into accusations against Singer.
    Those sources include Cesar Sanchez-Guzman, who is suing Singer for allegedly forcing him into oral and anal sex during a yacht party in 2003, when Sanchez-Guzman was 17. (The lawsuit is still pending due to a reopened bankruptcy case.) He told the Atlantic that after the encounter, Singer approached him and said, “Nobody is going to believe you,” promising to help Sanchez-Guzman break into the film industry. There are also four new accusers speaking on the record about Singer for the first time, some of whom chose to use pseudonyms. These are:
    • Victor Valdovinos, who accuses Singer of molesting him in 1997 when he was 13 years old and an extra on the set of Apt Pupil. Singer was involved in another lawsuit that accused Apt Pupil’s filmmakers of asking minors to remove their G-strings before appearing on camera in a shower scene. It was ultimately thrown out.
    • “Ben,” who says he attended pool parties at Singer’s home in the ’90s when he was a teenager. “He would stick his hands down your pants without your consent,” he told the Atlantic. “He was predatory in that he would ply people with alcohol and drugs and then have sex with them […] it wasn’t a hold-you-down-and-rape-you situation.”
    • “Eric,” who recounts allegedly having sex with Singer on and off for five years, beginning when he was 17. “If you weren’t young and cute enough to be their boy, you could still ingratiate yourself by bringing boys to them,” he said of Singer’s social circle. “That’s how I met Bryan, and that’s how I wound up at the den estate—people trying to ingratiate themselves.”
    • “Andy,” who says he was 15 when he and Singer had sex in 1997 at Singer’s home in Beverley Hills. He says he knew Singer through Marc Collins-Rector, with whom he also says he had a sexual relationship as an underage teenager. Collins-Rector was indicted in 2000 on charges “related to transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of sex.”

    Singer’s lawyer, Andrew B. Brettler, told the Atlantic that Singer has never been arrested for or charged with any crime, and that Singer “categorically denies ever having sex with, or a preference for, underage men.” Singer issued a statement Wednesday, after the article’s publication:

    “The last time I posted about this subject, Esquire magazine was preparing to publish an article written by a homophobic journalist who has a bizarre obsession with me dating back to 1997. After careful fact-checking and, in consideration of the lack of credible sources, Esquire chose not to publish this piece of vendetta journalism. That didn’t stop this writer from selling it to The Atlantic. It’s sad that The Atlantic would stoop to this low standard of journalistic integrity. Again, I am forced to reiterate that this story rehashes claims from bogus lawsuits filed by a disreputable cast of individuals willing to lie for money or attention. And it is no surprise that, with Bohemian Rhapsody being an award-winning hit, this homophobic smear piece has been conveniently timed to take advantage of its success.”

    Singer’s name was conspicuously absent from Golden Globes acceptances speeches for Bohemian Rhapsody. He was replaced as director by Dexter Fletcher shortly before production wrapped; the Hollywood Reporter claimed he was fired for clashing with the studio and star Rami Malek, but Singer has said that he was caring for a sick parent.

    Let me also note that the investigation materials could not be published for so long that Bryan Singer knew everything about it well in advance. He himself says about it.

    And I find it extremely interesting to compare the story of Bryan Singer’s boy who alleges that he sat half-naked with a towel over his waist in some green room the whole day on the set where Singer was filming and Bryan Singer allegedly abusing him there (see the Atlantic article for that) – with the story of Wade Robson who alleges exactly the same about Michael and the recording studio.

    To me the Bryan Singer story sounds as a blueprint for Robson’s story. And to you?


  12. Debra fiore permalink
    March 19, 2019 8:29 am

    I believe Michael Jackson was and is still innocent. I believe that horrible David Geffen is behind it all he is a fucked up human being. Oprah by his side. Nothing happens to the real abusers

    Liked by 1 person

  13. March 16, 2019 6:17 am

    “Sandy Gallin” – Ned

    Whatever you meant by just writing his name in your comment, I have two special posts about Gallin’s role in Michael Jackson’s career –
    and part 2:


  14. March 16, 2019 6:07 am

    “So, this article brings up what my concerns are… WHO PAID FOR THE AIRING OF THIS FAKE DOCUMENTARY? WHO IS PAYING FOR THESE LEGAL FEES etc.?” – Jobel Star

    Yes, there are too many questions about “Leaving Neverland” movie and the two guys’ long litigation process in general. Look at the legal fees, for example. Even if we accept the unlikely scenario that both consecutive legal teams, first Gradstein and then Finaldi, have been doing their work for the two guys pro bono (for six years), there is still a question of who is paying for the appeal. The appeal is always handled by special appellate lawyers and is a very costly business very few people can afford. All in all the expenses should amount to hundreds of thousands dollars, if not more, and this raises the question of an outside source financing it.

    Another point is how come Robson and Safechuck have so easy access to the media – the Radar Online, for example, looks like a media outlet they have in their pocket. Not only did it report their allegations in most salacious detail and every single move of their lawyers, but they also published several fabrications on their behalf readily copy-pasted by others.

    The obviously lavish financing of “Leaving Neverland” is just another glaring example. And its promotion and inclusion into the Sundance film festival program at the last minute too, when all deadlines for such entries had expired. And turning it into the opening film of the festival, though this must have required changing all the schedule and additional costs for the organizers.

    Or look at the private screening of “Leaving Neverland” on David Geffen’s yacht to Oprah on the day of the premiere or soon after it – as if a four-hour film about alleged pedophilia was an appropriate birthday present to her.

    In other words there is much more to Robson’s and Safechuck’s case than meets the eye. But unless we have hard evidence of some foul play behind it I suggest we don’t go any further into it. Let us just keep in mind that something is not quite right about the whole thing and be on the alert in case something else surfaces in this respect.


  15. March 15, 2019 8:07 am

    Now THIS is a Documentary. Not Leaving Neverland. Documentary by definition means to teach the FACTS based upon evidence. It is not a one sided opinion. So, this article brings up what my concerns are…WHO PAID FOR THE AIRING OF THIS FAKE DOCUMENTARY?
    As Taj says….there are too many loop holes. Good thing this article is available. Truth will prevail.


  16. Ned permalink
    March 14, 2019 4:11 am

    Sandy Gallin.


  17. Ohcrap permalink
    March 9, 2019 11:25 am

    Just WOW….GREAT ARTICLE! I hope Oprah enjoyed watching the “documentary” with Geffen…Society needs to take this people down somehow!


  18. February 3, 2019 12:57 pm

    Let me inform everyone of the new MJCast episode 095 on the fake documentary Leaving Neverland here: Date of release is February 3, 2019.

    It has also been added to the side bar on this blog as a must-hear discussion (scroll down to see the link). Besides the hosts Q and Jamon the other participants are Taj Jackson, Charles Thomson, Marcos Cabotá (a film director who has seen the film and was one of its earlier critics) and Samar Habib (of the MО Academia Project).

    Here is a short word from the panelists:

    “The recent Sundance screening of Dan Reed’s inflammatory film, Leaving Neverland, has, without a doubt, rocked the Michael Jackson community. Despite being based on the easily discredited stories of Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck, and lacking any sort of real investigation, balanced interviews, or responsible journalism, this film has reignited the media’s firestorm against Jackson’s legacy, even as Michael is not here to defend himself.

    In this special roundtable episode, The MJCast brings together a panel of experts and those who have seen the film and are taking action against it. Q and Jamon lead the discussion, and are joined by Taj Jackson (member of 3T and son of Tito Jackson, who is currently raising funds to produce his own docu-series), Charles Thomson (The MJCast’s Legal Correspondent and award-winning investigative journalist who has exposed a range of actual child abusers and cover-ups for The Yellow Advertiser in the UK), Marcos Cabotá (a film director who has seen the film and was one of its earlier critics) and Samar Habib (of the Michael Jackson Academia Project, who has been a leading figure in the online movement against the film).

    The panellists discuss Reed’s film, the Sundance Q&A session, and the media reaction, as well as developments coming together to counter the film, such as Taj’s docu-series, which can be supported on GoFundMe. Taj also speaks to his own experiences of actually spending time with Michael at Neverland. The group offers talking points for anyone struggling with how to respond to people who say that Michael Jackson was an abuser, as well as coping strategies and words of encouragement.

    Now, more than ever, it is the time to come together as fans, to support each other, and to remind the media and general public of the truth. The MJCast hopes that this episode provides resources, strength, and a sense of community during this challenging moment.”


  19. susannerb permalink
    February 2, 2019 5:47 am

    I also agree 100% with the open letter of Sean O’Kane. It’s a voice of reason in these difficult times and we all should take this advice seriously to not make things worse.
    Even if we know there are certain forces at work here, we are not powerful enough to silence them. All we can do is remain calm and respond unagitated with all the facts we have available. And this is our advantage: We have the facts! The accusers cannot provide and will never be able to provide evidence for their claims, and this will reduce their credibility in future.
    The saddest thing is definitely what Taj says in the interview: That Michael’s children have already given up hope that this will ever change, that the perception of their father will be restored. With all this happening there is in fact reason for losing hope. But if they ever read this blog I would like to tell them that there IS hope. Perhaps we will not see it in our lifetime, but future generations will realize the scam. And liars like R&S, who destroy others for their own satisfaction, will fall one day in very deep holes. They are already doomed!
    Michael’s children should ask the Estate to provide money for a counter-attack, to find a reliable film director to make a powerful documentary.

    Taj indeed was strong in this interview, stronger than his uncle Jermaine. Even though Jermaine made a few good points, it’s not very helpful to cry and repeat to let Michael rest (although I understand him). There is no other way than to point to the facts, to the court transcripts, documents, depositions, witnesses, contradictions etc, to be able to give examples for the scam, to examine vigorously all the liars, and to ask serious journalists to investigate all of it carefully. And all we can do as supporters is to gather, assort and provide this material for everybody.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. sanemjfan permalink
    February 1, 2019 7:16 pm

    Here is Taj’s first interview on the documentary! He did a good job!

    Liked by 1 person

  21. February 1, 2019 5:17 pm

    And one more paragraph from the Open Letter. This smear campaign is surely organized, but in my opinion it is enough to just know of the forces behind it, and act with our eyes open and full understanding of who they are.

    Is There A Larger Force At Work Here?
    So I have read on many forums about a ‘conspiracy’ against MJ. We know they exist and the latest one has been in refence to Sundance/Harvey Weinstein/Oprah/David Geffen/HBO etc etc, let’s not go there right now – It’s complicated and can take us down a very deep rabbit hole, distracting from the necessary action that’s required in retaliating against the #LyingAboutNeverland MOCKumentary.

    We can deal with the ‘bigger picture’ when the time is right. The general public do not care, or rather have the time to listen about conspiracy theories involving Michael Jackson. On top of that because of the nature of such things, conspiracy theorists are widely viewed as a bit outrageous and those that promote them are often seen as bonkers. We have to deal with being seen as crazy just because we are Michael fans. Let’s not add to that and give them any further ammunition!

    And also this:

    Channel 4

    The executives at Channel 4 are rubbing their hands with glee at the reaction to Leaving Neverland. From what I gather from the inside, they are loving the attention the fans are giving to the show. Remember, these networks are expected to create controversial subject matters, regardless of the truth, as long as it generates hysteria. You know in the Kanye West and Jay-Z song ‘N*ggers in Paris’, there’s a part where it comes to a crescendo and you can hear the actor Will Ferrell say the words “its provocative it gets people going” – Well that’s what they are hoping for.

    For us as fans it poses a complicated dilemma, on one hand do we stay silent and not give it any attention for fear of indirectly promoting it to people? Might that seem as though MJ’s supporters are small due to his declining popularity? Or, do we stand up and beat our drums so loudly in response, and in doing so, cause waves of free promotion for the network?

    ‘Dammed if we do and dammed if we don’t’ springs to mind. It’s not up to me to tell you what your decision should be; that’s your prerogative. Just don’t forget the silent majority of MJ supporters that do exist amongst us.

    Although there is no definite date as to when the show will air, it’s likely to be in two parts at the beginning of March (in the UK). In my opinion, it will be catastrophic, and we must expect the worst outcomes imaginable. I’m sorry, but it will be a difficult time and we will be challenged. I know there are many of you who are divided on this matter, ranging from ‘it will blow over, we have experienced worse’ to ‘this is the end of Michael Jackson.’ Whatever your view, we should all prepare for the worst and formulate a plan of action so we are ready to go once this thing airs. If it turns out that it is not as bad as I fear then great but let’s be prepared for all eventualities.

    Responding To Critics/Haters/Misinformed

    It’s very easy to get wound up, angry and defensive when faced with those who will believe the lies and fall for the nonsense and want Michael to be guilty. DO NOT STOOP TO THEIR LEVEL.

    Let’s not fight fire with fire and instead extinguish it with Truth, Facts and Logic (think TFL, which will be handy for the Londoners amongst us as it refers to our local travel system). We have truth and evidence on our side and ultimately they cannot refute that. It is a fact that Wade Robson ardently defended Michael many times over the years. All the things they have claimed about Michael are simply that: claims. Furthermore, those claims are not supported in any way whatsoever by the evidence available.

    If you are struggling to answer questions in a hurry – DON’T. Instead, locate the answers from another fan who you consider to be more knowledgeable, or copy easy-to-understand responses from other Tweets etc – I’ve done it loads of times before. It’s better to do that than come across as a person lacking the correct information as that could just damage our credibility.

    And there is much more there!


  22. February 1, 2019 5:06 pm

    “he isn’t very good in debate type interviews where he has to cite facts on the spot.” – William King

    William, I’ve just read an open letter to all MJ fans by Sean O’Kane, published on
    One of its paragraphs says about Jermaine and the Jacksons at the moment:

    I witnessed Jermaine Jackson on British Television this week. I’ll be honest; I think he could have responded in a more forthright way. Right now, what we need from the Jackson family is a no-nonsense approach and real evidence that they are fighting this. We, the fans, can only do so much. They are the big machine in all of this.

    I worry that they do not know the facts in the way that we do and I hope that we see more measured intelligent fans and supporters on radio stations and TV screens in response to the show rather than Jackson family members who might be ill-equipped to deal with the questions. They are grieving and hurting right now. Placing them in front of TV screens with no deep understanding or energy to FIGHT is suicide.

    The open letter is VERY GOOD, its full text is here:

    Liked by 2 people

  23. William King permalink
    February 1, 2019 4:21 pm

    @helena I think a lot the problem with Jermaine is he isn’t very good in debate type interviews where he has to cite facts on the spot.


  24. February 1, 2019 2:56 pm

    Since this comment comes under the post about David Geffen it seems to be the right place to also mention another big difference between Geffen and Michael Jackson.

    Michael was a God-believer (and doer), while one of Geffen’s favorite works of literature is “Faust”. Those who don’t know this old German legend can consult Wiki:

    Geffen’s biographer Tom King wrote about it in his book The Operator, page 447:

    Geffen got the movie he had wanted so badly. But, shortly, Murray [Bill Murray, the actor] instructed Ovitz to get him out of the deal, saying he was “uncomfortable with David’s aura.” Geffen grew incensed as Ovitz explained that they were changing their minds.

    Even though the movie would turn out to be a flop for Warner Bros., Geffen recommitted himself to making Ovitz’s life a nightmare. Some of Geffen’s friends thought it fitting that he counted “Faust” among his favorite works of literature: If you accepted a favor from Geffen, it often meant that one day you might have to grant the one wish he decided would even the score.

    Does anyone here doubt that with so big difference of opinion over everything the friendship between these two people could not last?


  25. February 1, 2019 1:24 pm

    “Jermaine Jackson interview on Good Morning Britain:

    Jermaine Jackson made some good points there, but some questions remained unanswered. For example, why he and the family are so sure of Michael’s innocence. The usual argument in such cases is “that we weren’t there”, so how do you know?

    Well, we weren’t there, but Jesus Christ was. I mean in the literal meaning of this word.

    Michael placed the image of Jesus Christ right over his bed, so Christ was a witness to everything that was taking place at the time Michael lived there. The media incessantly speaks about the pictures of children in Michael’s home but there isn’t a single mention of the image of Jesus Christ over his bed – which is a very telling omission, by the way.

    In 1993 it was there too as we see it in the outtakes from Oprah Winfrey’s interview with Michael in February that year. And the image was there for a reason. At any period of his life Michael always believed in God, only God was taking different forms for him – from Jehovah to “she” in one of his poems, and the face of a small child where he saw God most frequently of all.

    What cannot be disputed is that in his harshest time Michael always prayed and relied on the help from the Almighty. So that image over his bed is serious matter. It shows Michael’s constant frame of mind, and this frame of mind under no circumstances would allow to commit those unspeakable crimes, especially with Jesus Christ looking at him.

    Here is this image over his bed – between the drawing of some fairy on the left and the drawings of a boy talking to a teddy bear and an elephant on the right: Image of God over Michael Jackson's bed

    And the second proof has a direct connection to the first one.
    Even when Michael was asleep or under sedation he was thinking about God and about children as angels.
    Here is the transcript of the tape which Murray recorded when Michael was falling asleep in May 2009:

    MJ: …I’m taking that money, a million children, children’s hospital, the biggest in the world. Michael Jackson’s Children’s Hospital. Gonna have a movie theater, game room. Children are depressed. The – in those hospitals, no game room, no movie theater. They’re sick because they’re depressed. Their mind is depressing them. I want to give them that. I care about them, them angels. God wants me to do it. God wants me to do it. I’m gonna do it, Conrad.
    CM: I know you would.
    MJ: Don’t have enough hope, no more hope. That’s the next generation that’s gonna save our planet, starting with – we’ll talk about it. United States, Europe, Prague, my babies. They walk around with no mother. They drop them off, they leave – a psychological degradation of that. They reach out to me – please take me with you.
    I want to do that for them.

    I’m gonna do that for them. That will be remembered more than my performances. My performances will be up there helping my children and always be my dream. I love them. I love them because I didn’t have a childhood. I had no childhood. I feel their pain. I feel their hurt. I can deal with it. Heal the World, We Are the World, Will You Be There, The Lost Children. These are the songs I’ve written because I hurt, you know. I hurt.

    (13 seconds silence)
    I’m asleep.

    The words under sedation or in sleep always come from the deepest subconscious of one’s mind.
    And what did Michael have in his subconscious?
    Only that.

    Here are the screenshots from the TV report of Conrad Murray’s Day 7 of the trial, October 5, 2011. The recording was made on May 10, 2009:
    Murray's tape of Michael Jackson - part 1
    Murray's tape of Michael Jackson in sleep - part 2


  26. Jason permalink
    February 1, 2019 5:32 am


    The fax love written by Jackson don’t talk at Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck ?

    Who’s this Doo Doo Head, Chantel and Joey ?
    I’m so curious !

    Thanks to awser !
    * * * * *
    Doo Doo Head = Robson
    Chantal = sister
    Joey = mother


  27. William King permalink
    February 1, 2019 1:04 am

    Jermaine Jackson interview on Good Morning Britain:


  28. January 31, 2019 5:41 am

    Now look at this great find – all the “love” faxes that were used in that #LyingAboutNeverland film as “evidence” of grooming. The collection was posted by Justice for The Falsely Accused


    Here are all the “love faxes” that were attached to Robson’s case files as “evidence”.

    Some samples:
    Hello Doo Doo Head. You are the Best of the Kid Dancers. Keep on Toward Perfection. You are now Inspiring me to get Better. Love [Hello Chantel. I love you Too]

    Make me Happy little one and Be the Best. I love you.

    Chantel, I Love you Because you’re very Kind and Sweet. Yesee-Weessee

    Joey, Whatever I can do to Help I Will. I love you all. Stay Happy Always. I Love You all. MJ

    Some reviewers say that this was one of the most “shocking” parts of the film.


  29. January 30, 2019 8:52 pm

    Liked by 1 person

  30. January 30, 2019 6:02 pm

    Goodness gracious. I cannot believe that they may be so OPEN about it. Look at Oprah Winfrey and where she celebrated her birthday. The party was aboard David Geffen’s yacht where they had a private screening of “Leaving Neverland”! And this despite that fact that Michael Jackson’s family is not allowed to see it and will have to watch it when it airs on TV…

    Geffen served it to Oprah and Gayle King as some kind of delicatessen.

    Guys, this amounts to a pleading guilty confession in their case against Jackson.

    Oprah celebrates her birthday in St Barts aboard David Geffen’s $300M megayacht watching Michael Jackson documentary with her best friend Gayle

    – Oprah Winfrey flew down to St Barts on Monday to celebrate her 65th birthday aboard the megayacht Rising Sun, owned by her close friend David Geffen
    – The group spent three days docked in Gustavia and on Tuesday enjoyed dinner and cake on the boat’s deck in honor of the birthday girl
    – She was joined by Gayle King and the CBS This Morning anchor’s son Will for the trip, which lasted just three days
    – After enjoying some birthday cake on Tuesday, the group watched the Michael Jackson sexual assault documentary Leaving Neverland
    – Rising Sun headed back to St Marteen on Wednesday so that the group could jet home

    PUBLISHED: 15:29 GMT, 30 January 2019 | UPDATED: 17:35 GMT, 30 January 2019

    Oprah Winfrey escaped to more tropical climates over the weekend to celebrate her 65th birthday in sunny St Barts.
    The billionaire birthday girl jetted out of California on Monday and headed own to the island nation, where she and best friend Gayle King were guests on the megayacht of good friend and constant travel partner David Geffen.
    Also joining the two aboard the $300 million Rising Sun was King’s son Will Bumpus and another young man, who after enjoying dinner and some cake spent the rest of the evening watching the upcoming HBO documentary Leaving Neverland.
    King shared photos of the evening on her social media, writing: ‘Happy birthday DEAR @Oprah who did NOT want a bd cake so I requested the kind I like! It was delish perfect for the birthday girl !’
    It was a brief trip for the group, who spent two days docked in Gustavia before heading to St Marteen on Wednesday morning to jet out of the tropical paradise.

    King later raved about Leaving Neverland, which details how Michael Jackson allegedly raped two young boys for years.
    ‘Just watched ALL FOUR hours of Leaving Neverland.. powerful, compelling & a game changer for those who have been afraid to speak up of child sex abuse,’ wrote King.
    ‘My heart goes out to Wade Robson & James Safechuck. Thank YOU for sharing your pain it will make a difference. Bravo to producer Dan Reed.. I’m still reeling.’

    This is not the first time Jackson has been accused of sexually assaulting young boys, and both Safechuck and Robson had shared their stories in the past.
    Jackson on the other hand went great lengths to avoid any discussion of those allegations, even with Oprah.
    The Queen of Daytime did sit down with Jackson however for one interview in 1993 that attracted an audience of 90 million people and remains to this day the most watched interview in television history.
    That was filmed just before the first allegations about Jackson had been made public, and so the conversation centered more around Jackson’s difficult childhood, his love life and his plastic surgery.

    – Luxe life: After enjoying some birthday cake on Tuesday, the group watched the Michael Jackson sexual assault documentary Leaving Neverland (Rising Sun above in 2018)
    – Fame game: Rita Wilson, Patti Scialfa, Bruce Springsteen, King, Nancy Shevell, Paul McCartney, Oprah, David Geffen, Dasha Zhukova and Jimmy Iovine on Rising Sun in 2016
    – Gal pals: Clockise from top left: King, Dane Sawyer, Maria Shriver, Oprah, Geffen and Julia Roberts on Rising Sun in 2015

    It is unclear if Winfrey and King watched Leaving Neverland with their host for the week, who had a tumultuous relationship with the King of Pop.
    Geffen and Jackson were at times the best of friends, while there was also a period during which the singer was said to have placed curses on the billionaire.

    This was reportedly over Jackson’s desire to be a silent partner in Dreamworks with Geffen and Steven Spielberg, a plan that reportedly did not work out in the end because of the pop star’s demands.
    Geffen has recently posted two photos of himself and the King of Pop on his Instagram from the 1980s, including one of the pair with Madonna.
    No one appears more on Geffen’s Instagram than Oprah however, who is a frequent guest aboard the Rising Sun.
    She was on the yacht this past August for a trip around Italy with Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson, Bradley Cooper and Lloyd and Laura Blankfein.
    That trip has become an annual tradition for Oprah, who in 2017 enjoyed the Amalfi coast with Geffen and guests Diane Sawyer, Barry Diller and Diane von Furstenberg.

    By the way it is also the first time we hear that Geffen had a “tumultous relationship” with Michael Jackson. Only he deflects our attention from the main reason (citing only Dreamworks) and innocently notes that it was Jackson who placed curses on him (and not the other way around).

    Oh, Geffen’s people are definitely monitoring every word said about them on the web.

    Poor Michael. There can’t be any doubt now that this is what he had to deal with the whole of his life. And even now, ten years after his death.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. January 29, 2019 4:27 pm

    Another voice of reason – this time from Joe Vogel who published the following for the Forbes (by the way he says that Robson is claiming $1,5 billion, so the first thing to do is to find out from the Estate whether Robson and Co. indeed claim $1,5 billion. This figure alone may explain the emotions and crocodile tears of both Robson’s and Safechuck’s families so lavishly shed over the screen at Sundance 🙂

    Jan 29, 2019, 08:39am
    What You Should Know About the New Michael Jackson Documentary

    Joe Vogel
    Hollywood & Entertainment
    I write about popular music, especially artists from the ’80s

    When Michael Jackson died in 2009, Wade Robson—the former choreographer whose allegations of abuse are at the center of a controversial new documentary, Leaving Neverland—wrote in tribute to his friend:

    “Michael Jackson changed the world and, more personally, my life forever. He is the reason I dance, the reason I make music, and one of the main reasons I believe in the pure goodness of humankind. He has been a close friend of mine for 20 years. His music, his movement, his personal words of inspiration and encouragement and his unconditional love will live inside of me forever. I will miss him immeasurably, but I know that he is now at peace and enchanting the heavens with a melody and a moonwalk.”

    Robson was twenty-seven years old at the time. Four years earlier, he testified at Jackson’s 2005 trial (as an adult) that nothing sexual ever happened between them. Prior to the trial Robson hadn’t seen Jackson for years and was under no obligation to be a witness for the defense. He faced a withering cross-examination, understanding the penalty of perjury for lying under oath. But Robson adamantly, confidently, and credibly asserted that nothing sexual ever happened.

    What changed between then and now? A few things:

    – In 2011, Robson approached John Branca, co-executor of the Michael Jackson Estate, about directing the new Michael Jackson/Cirque du Soleil production, Immortal. Robson admitted he wanted the job “badly,” but the Estate ultimately chose someone else for the position.
    – In 2012, Robson had a nervous breakdown, triggered, he said, by an obsessive quest for success. His career, in his own words, began to “crumble.”
    That same year, with Robson’s career, finances, and marriage in peril, he began shopping a book that claimed he was sexually abused by Michael Jackson. No publisher picked it up.
    In 2013, Robson filed a $1.5 billion dollar civil lawsuit/creditor’s claim, along with James Safechuck, who also spent time with Jackson in the late ‘80s. Safechuck claimed he only realized he may have been abused when Robson filed his lawsuit. That lawsuit was dismissed by a probate court in 2017.
    – In 2019, the Sundance Film Festival premiered a documentary based entirely on Robson and Safechuck’s allegations. While the documentary is obviously emotionally disturbing given the content, it presents no new evidence or witnesses. The film’s director, Dan Reed, acknowledged not wanting to interview other key figures because it might complicate or compromise the story he wanted to tell.

    It is tempting for the media to tie Jackson into a larger cultural narrative about sexual misconduct. R. Kelly was rightfully taken down by a documentary, and many other high-profile figures have been exposed in recent years, so surely, the logic goes, Michael Jackson must be guilty as well.

    Yet that is a dangerous leap—particularly with America’s history of unjustly targeting and convicting black men—that fair-minded people would be wise to consider more carefully before condemning the artist. It is no accident that one of Jackson’s favorite books (and movies) was To Kill a Mockingbird, a story about a black man—Tom Robinson—destroyed by false allegations.

    The media’s largely uncritical, de-contextualized takes out of Sundance seem to have forgotten: no allegations have been more publicly scrutinized than those against Michael Jackson. They elicited a two-year feeding frenzy in the mid-90s and then again in the mid-2000s, when Jackson faced an exhaustive criminal trial. His homes were ransacked in two unannounced raids by law enforcement. Nothing incriminating was found.

    Jackson was acquitted of all charges in 2005 by a conservative Santa Maria jury. The FBI, likewise, conducted a thorough investigation. Its 300-page file on the pop star, released under the Freedom of Information Act, found no evidence of wrongdoing.

    Meanwhile, dozens of individuals who spent time with Jackson as kids continue to assert nothing sexual ever happened. This includes hundreds of sick and terminally ill children such as Bela Farkas (for whom Jackson paid for a life-saving liver transplant) and Ryan White (whom Jackson befriended and supported in his final years battling AIDS); it includes lesser-known figures like Brett Barnes and Frank Cascio; it includes celebrities like Macaulay Culkin, Sean Lennon, Emmanuel Lewis, Alfonso Ribeiro, and Corey Feldman; it includes Jackson’s nieces and nephews; and it includes his own three children.

    The allegations surrounding Jackson largely faded over the past decade for a reason: unlike the Bill Cosby or R. Kelly cases, the more people looked into the Jackson allegations, the more the evidence vindicated him. The prosecution’s case in 2005 was so absurd Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi described it like this:

    “Ostensibly a story about bringing a child molester to justice, the Michael Jackson trial would instead be a kind of homecoming parade of insipid American types: grifters, suckers and no-talent schemers, mired in either outright unemployment… or the bogus non-careers of the information age, looking to cash in any way they can. The MC of the proceedings was District Attorney Tom Sneddon, whose metaphorical role in this American reality show was to represent the mean gray heart of the Nixonian Silent Majority – the bitter mediocrity itching to stick it to anyone who’d ever taken a vacation to Paris. The first month or so of the trial featured perhaps the most compromised collection of prosecution witnesses ever assembled in an American criminal case – almost to a man a group of convicted liars, paid gossip hawkers or worse…”

    In the next six weeks, virtually every piece of his case imploded in open court, and the chief drama of the trial quickly turned into a race to see if the DA could manage to put all of his witnesses on the stand without getting any of them removed from the courthouse in manacles.”

    What’s changed since then?

    In Robson’s case, decades after the alleged incidents took place, he was barbecuing with Michael Jackson and his children. He was asking for tickets to the artist’s memorial. He was participating in tributes. “I still have my mobile phone with his number in it,” Robson wrote in 2009, “I just can’t bare the thought of deleting his messages.”

    Then, suddenly, after twenty years, his story changed and with his new claims came a $1.5 billion dollar lawsuit.

    As an eccentric, wealthy, African American man, Michael Jackson has always been a target for litigation. During the 1980s and 1990s, dozens of women falsely claimed he was the father of their children. He faced multiple lawsuits falsely claiming he plagiarized various songs. As recently as 2010, a woman named Billie Jean filed a frivolous $600 million paternity lawsuit against Jackson’s Estate.

    As someone who has done an enormous amount of research on the artist, interviewed many people who were close to him, and been granted access to a lot of private information, my assessment is that the evidence simply does not point to Michael Jackson as the “monster” presented in Leaving Neverland. In contrast to Robson and Safechuck’s revised accounts, there is a remarkable consistency to the way people who knew the artist speak of him—whether friends, family members, collaborators, fellow artists,recording engineers, attorneys, business associates, security guards, former spouses, his own children—people who knew him in every capacity imaginable. Michael, they say, was gentle, brilliant, sensitive, sometimes naive, sometimes childish, sometimes oblivious to perceptions. But none believe he was a child molester.

    A fair documentary would allow those voices to be heard as well. Instead, Leaving Neverland presents a biased, emotionally manipulative hit piece that dismisses the perspectives of hundreds of first-hand witnesses in favor of allegations by two men contradicting their own sworn testimonies.


  32. January 29, 2019 8:51 am

    Another piece of good evidence from Wade Robson’s recent past. Roger Friedman reports:

    Watch Lost Video Interview in Which Michael Jackson Accuser Wade Robson Reminisces About Happily Being Discovered by King of Pop
    by Roger Friedman – January 28, 2019 9:35 pm

    Here’s a “lost” video just posted on You Tube January 25th. It’s an Australian interview with Wade Robson, Michael Jackson’s accuser in “Leaving Neverland.” I don’t think this is in the new documentary. Wade happily recalls being discovered by Michael as a 5 year old, and how Jackson “sponsored” him and his family in their move to L.A. Around 2:10 Wade picks up the story. Thanks to Troy Krajancic from Auckland, New Zealand for finding the video. I guess it’s possible Wade was in total denial during the interview, or he deserves an Oscar. But he’s smiling and laughing as he reminisces, there’s no sign that he’s discussing his childhood abuser. It’s unclear when this was taped, but Wade is 36 now, he couldn’t have been less than 26 then.


  33. January 29, 2019 6:36 am

    Yes, the video is fairly good. Some comments are also very much to the point, for example, this one:

    “In Hollywood, the non-pedos get smeared and the real Pedos are hidden and protected.”


  34. William King permalink
    January 29, 2019 5:39 am

    A excellent rebuttal by YouTube who goes by RazorFist:


  35. susannerb permalink
    January 28, 2019 7:41 am

    And this is what Frank Cascio posted on this:

    Guys, I’m getting ready for a post on this Jacobshagen issue. Stay tuned!

    Liked by 1 person

  36. January 28, 2019 3:53 am

    Brett Barnes’ reaction to the fantasy piece shown at Sundance:

    Michael Jackson’s Boyhood Friend Defends Singer Amid ‘Leaving Neverland’ Claims
    January 27, 2019 at 1:38 pm PST
    Daniel Goldblatt

    A man who was friends with Michael Jackson when he was 10 years old — and has testified that nothing sexual ever happened between them — is defending the pop icon following the release of the documentary “Leaving Neverland.”

    Brett Barnes, who traveled the world with MJ in the early 90s, lashed out against the film on Twitter, mocking the fact people have been accepting the allegations made as if they are fact.

    “So people are getting their facts from a movie now?” Barnes wrote. “I wonder how they feel about the documentary showing the great alien invasion of ‘96. I think it was called Independence Day.”

    Brett Barnes
    So people are getting their facts from a movie now? I wonder how they feel about the documentary showing the great alien invasion of ‘96. I think it was called Independence Day.

    8:25 AM – Jan 27, 2019
    608 people are talking about this

    When Robson came forward with his claims in 2013, Barnes made vague mention of the allegations, writing, “I wish people would realise, in your last moments on this earth, all the money in the world will be of no comfort. My clear conscience will.”

    Barnes is referred to in “Leaving Neverland” but he was not interviewed for the film.

    In 2005, Barnes testified at Michael Jackson’s child molestation trial in Santa Maria, California. Barnes said that while he did sleep in the same bed as Jackson, nothing sexual ever happened between the two.

    According to reports, during his testimony, when asked if Jackson ever molested him, Barnes responded, “Absolutely not. And I can tell you right now that if he had, I wouldn’t be here right now.”

    As The Blast previously reported, the estate for Michael Jackson believes the film is a “tabloid character assassination.”

    In a statement, the estate told The Blast, “The film takes uncorroborated allegations that supposedly happened 20 years ago and treats them as fact. These claims were the basis of lawsuits filed by these two admitted liars which were ultimately dismissed by a judge.”

    The estate also took issue with director Dan Reed on the topic of not interviewing people like Barnes who have said Jackson never molested them, saying, “By choosing not to include any of these independent voices who might challenge the narrative that he was determined to sell, the director neglected fact checking so he could craft a narrative so blatantly one-sided that viewers never get anything close to a balanced portrait.”


  37. January 27, 2019 5:18 pm

    And Corey Feldman once again focused on the pedophilia problem in Hollywood and Michael Jackson being his safe haven in this interview released on January 5, 2018.
    As usual, the interview is sincere and enlightening.


  38. January 27, 2019 5:07 pm

    Here is the Estate’s statement made on January 26, 2019 after the film was shown:

    JANUARY 26, 2019 9:05AM ET
    Michael Jackson Estate Slams ‘Leaving Neverland’: ‘Tabloid Character Assassination’
    “We are extremely sympathetic to any legitimate victim of child abuse. This film, however, does those victims a disservice,” estate says of documentary’s two accusers


    Hours after Leaving Neverland, the documentary about Michael Jackson‘s alleged sexual abuse of underage boys, left the audience shell-shocked at its Sundance premiere, the Jackson estate released a statement slamming the HBO-bound film.

    “Leaving Neverland isn’t a documentary, it is the kind of tabloid character assassination Michael Jackson endured in life, and now in death. The film takes uncorroborated allegations that supposedly happened 20 years ago and treats them as fact,” the estate wrote in a statement sent to Rolling Stone.

    The estate also called Wade Robson and James Safechuck, whose accounts of sexual abuse by Jackson is the focus of the two-part, 233-minute documentary, “admitted liars” who “provided no independent evidence and absolutely no proof in support of their accusations, which means the entire film hinges solely on the word of two perjurers.”

    The estate added that Robson was “grateful” for Jackson’s role in his life for 20 years until, following Jackson’s death, the choreographer was denied in a Michael Jackson themed Cirque du Soleil production, at which point “his assault allegations suddenly emerged.”

    Safechuck’s motive for participating in Leaving Neverland, the estate claimed, “has always been about money – millions of dollars – dating back to 2013 when both Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who share the same law firm, launched their unsuccessful claims against Michael’s Estate.”

    “We are extremely sympathetic to any legitimate victim of child abuse. This film, however, does those victims a disservice,” the estate said. “Now that Michael is no longer here to defend himself, Robson, Safechuck and their lawyers continue their efforts to achieve notoriety and a payday by smearing him with the same allegations a jury found him innocent of when he was alive.”

    Read the Michael Jackson estate’s full statement below:

    “Leaving Neverland” isn’t a documentary, it is the kind of tabloid character assassination Michael Jackson endured in life, and now in death. The film takes uncorroborated allegations that supposedly happened 20 years ago and treats them as fact. These claims were the basis of lawsuits filed by these two admitted liars which were ultimately dismissed by a judge. The two accusers testified under oath that these events never occurred. They have provided no independent evidence and absolutely no proof in support of their accusations, which means the entire film hinges solely on the word of two perjurers.

    Tellingly, the director admitted at the Sundance Film Festival that he limited his interviews only to these accusers and their families. In doing so, he intentionally avoided interviewing numerous people over the years who spent significant time with Michael Jackson and have unambiguously stated that he treated children with respect and did nothing hurtful to them. By choosing not to include any of these independent voices who might challenge the narrative that he was determined to sell, the director neglected fact checking so he could craft a narrative so blatantly one-sided that viewers never get anything close to a balanced portrait.

    For 20 years, Wade Robson denied in court and in numerous interviews, including after Michael passed, that he was a victim and stated he was grateful for everything Michael had done for him. His family benefitted from Michael’s kindness, generosity and career support up until Michael’s death. Conveniently left out of Leaving Neverland was the fact that when Robson was denied a role in a Michael Jackson themed Cirque du Soleil production, his assault allegations suddenly emerged.

    We are extremely sympathetic to any legitimate victim of child abuse. This film, however, does those victims a disservice. Because despite all the disingenuous denials made that this is not about money, it has always been about money – millions of dollars — dating back to 2013 when both Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who share the same law firm, launched their unsuccessful claims against Michael’s Estate.

    Now that Michael is no longer here to defend himself, Robson, Safechuck and their lawyers continue their efforts to achieve notoriety and a payday by smearing him with the same allegations a jury found him innocent of when he was alive.

    – The Estate of Michael Jackson


  39. January 27, 2019 9:22 am

    Jacobshagen’s lies are so captivating that they deserve a separate post. In the meantime here are some highlights from his present story reported by the Daily Mirror:

    “Michael invited us to other concerts, including the HIStory Tour, when I was 14. I travelled with him to other countries.”

    “Michael, meanwhile, told the Mirror about the time Jackson stripped off in front of him in a hotel hot tub. It was 1998 – three years after they met.”

    And here is a video where he and his mother say that they met Michael Jackson in 1998.
    And 1998 was after the History tour ended (start date – September 7, 1996, end date – October 15, 1997). So there was no way Jacobshagen could accompany Michael on that tour. Or any other tour as History tour was Michael’s last.

    Here is the video (in German). Those who know German say that both he and his mom talk about meeting Michael in 1998:

    But that is not all.

    The fans who know Jacobshagen personally say that he met Michael Jackson just once. There are still horrified comments on the MJJCommunity forum about Jacobshagen and his book about MJ (then favorable to Michael) where they warn others not to believe a word of what Jacobshagen says.

    I befriended M. Jacobshagen for nearly 3 years. i spoke to him on phone regularly and had met him on several fan events. YES it´s true he met Michael Jackson in 1998 FIRST AND ONLY TIME and had the big chance to spend one day with him including visiting Circus Krone and having dinner together with MJ and another family from Hamburg..
    …further on M.Jacobshagen claimed in his book he would had spent nearly both legs of the History Tour with Jackson and his staff……Business Partners and close associates of M.Avram can confirm today that Jacobshagen never had been seen during any other event relating to the History Tour: NEVER! anytime, any place…… end my post here once again i only want to warn the public out there. Don´t believe just a half in his book!

    Hello, I was there in Munich in 1998. Michael Jacobshagen is not telling the truth. He met Michael Jackson few days before he was with him at Circus Krone on 28.03.1998. I was there with the Fanclub “Angel”.
    After his experience with MJ at the Circus Krone they went to the Hotel “Bayrischer Hof” and spent time together with Anton und Franziska Schleiter and another English or American boy. In the evening he left the Hotel with some autographs of MJ and I protected him for some crazy fans they would steal the autographs from Jacobshagen. Its fact that he Not spent the night in the suite of Michael. The next day I talked with him in the Hotel lobby. This was slso seen by Wayne Nagin that Jacobshagen was talking to fans about his experience. Jacobshagen asked Wayne Nagin several times if he can go to Michael Jackson. Wayne Nagins answer was: No! That was the end of his longtime friendship with Michael Jackson.
    The Fotos on his Internet Site of him in Disneylad Paris 1995 ( a Boy with a cappy of Bayern München) shows Not him. Take Look on this Video and you can see the Face of the Boy, its NOT Jacobshagen:…%3D9xztTknHN_o

    I got to know the author of this book in 1998, when he met Michael for the FIRST time in Munich. He was 13 then and has been a regular fan…he DID NOT meet Michael before march 1998 nor did he ever meet or talk to him afterwards!
    I know that for a fact!
    I have not read his book, but whatever he writes there about being on tour with MJ…it is 100% FALSE!

    And this is what Jacobshagen says now and the Daily Mirror gleefully repeats.

    ‘Michael Jackson called me Rubba Rubba boy in bed and I now realise he abused me’ 
    EXCLUSIVE Michael Jacobs-hagen was just 14 when he joined the singer on a string of tours but now he’s a dad himsef he realises he was abused

    He shared a bed with Michael Jackson and was nicknamed “Rubba Rubba” boy by the superstar.

    When he was a baby-faced 14-year-old Michael Jacobs-hagen joined Jackson on a string of tours – smiling for the world’s media as he posed happily with the singer.

    But today he reveals for the first time the full, horrific details of his bizarre relationship with the star who took him into his bed.

    And he admits that only now, as the father of a three-year-old himself, does he realise the twisted and serious nature of the abuse he suffered at the Jackson’s hands.

    Speaking exclusively to the Sunday Mirror, Michael, 35, said: “He overstepped the mark with me and with other children.

    I’m almost the same age now Michael was when he met me.
    “If I was to share a bed with a child, this would not be right. It is not normal and it’s not right.
    He was always asking me to sleep in his bed. I would say, ‘No Michael, I can sleep in my own suite’, but he was saying ‘Please, please… for Michael Jackson’.

    “Since I had a son, it made me look at everything in a different way and I realise now how wrong it was. Becoming a father changed my feelings.”

    Touched him inappropriately after cuddling up to him in bed And it was always worse if the star had taken medication.
    Stripped naked as they shared a Jacuzzi.
    Gave him a book “full of photos of naked boys”.
    Bought his silence with gifts – and even gave his mum a Cartier watch.

    Michael is now a public relations manager and lives in Munich, Germany, where he was famously snapped at a hotel window with Jackson and pictured in newspapers round the world as the boy in the back-to-front baseball cap.

    The King of Pop – in his trademark face mask – was 38 and touring Europe promoting the HIStory greatest hits album.

    Michael spent three weeks with the singer in the hotel suite.

    He said: “When I got back to school, pictures had been in all the media. Other kids would say, ‘You make sex with Michael Jackson’ and ‘You’re gay’.

    “It affected me psychologically, but I never told Michael. It made me feel shame. Teachers warned my mother about allegations about Michael, but she said it was my decision if I wanted to keep seeing him.”

    Michael had been thrilled to meet Jackson during an earlier visit to Disneyland Paris – after his mum asked an aide if her lad could be introduced to the star.

    He recalled: “Suddenly I was being picked up and taken to another hotel. When I went into his suite and Michael Jackson was there waiting for me, I just thought ‘Wow’. I was a huge fan.

    “He gave me a hug and said in German ‘I love you’. We spent the day playing games like hide and seek and on his PlayStation.

    “After that he kept phoning every day asking ‘Do you want to come again?’ and we spent the whole holiday together.

    Michael invited us to other concerts, including the HIStory Tour, when I was 14. I travelled with him to other countries.

    “When I slept in his bed, we wore just boxer shorts and he would put his arm around me and push his body to my body, like you would with a girlfriend.

    “He would put our bodies on each other and kiss me on the head and cheek. I woke many times and his hands were on me… one hand on the top of my legs and one hand around me.

    “When he was high on his medication he would get closer in the same way as when a man gets drunk. It disinhibited him.

    “He’d pull me closer and be grabbing me more and kissing me more on the head and on the cheek, He would also stroke my hair.

    “I didn’t feel comfortable with it, but I thought ‘I can’t say No’. When you’re 14 and you’re there with the biggest megastar in the world, you say ‘okay’.

    “He never carried out an explicit sexual act on me, but there were sexual intentions.

    “He must have been getting something out of it sexually. I feel now like he was testing me, seeing how far he could go.”

    The star was infatuated with Michael and sent notes saying he “truly missed him” – as well as instructions on hotel meets.

    Michael also told how Jackson gave him a copy of The Boy: A Photographic Essay, containing naked snaps of young lads.

    He said: “I found it strange. He said ‘This is one of my favourite books’ and he wrote personal notes inside. In one he called me ‘his special friend’ and his ‘rubba rubba friend’ because of what used to happen in the bed.”

    Years later, another copy of the book was found in Jackson’s bedroom at his Neverland ranch in California after he was arrested on suspicion of abuse.

    Jackson’s 14-week trial was held in Santa Maria, California, in 2005. He was cleared of 10 charges – even though alleged victim Gavin Arvizo told the trial he had slept in the same bed as the star as a 13-year-old.

    Michael, meanwhile, told the Mirror about the time Jackson stripped off in front of him in a hotel hot tub. It was 1998 – three years after they met.

    He said: “We were in the Jacuzzi inside Michael’s bathroom. He took his swim shorts off and said ‘If you want, you can take yours off as well’.

    “I told him ‘No, I don’t do that. I don’t feel comfortable being naked. I was 14, but I always looked younger.”

    The teenager told no one – not even his mum, who had split from his dad – about *****’s behaviour. But then the star had groomed him to remain silent and even bribed his mum.

    Michael went on: “He would buy expensive things.

    “He bought my mother a Cartier watch. We would go to toy shops or the Disney store and buy whatever I wanted.

    “And he would drink wine and offer it to me. But I always said no. He called white wine ‘Jesus juice’ and red wine ‘Jesus blood’.”

    Michael only came clean with his mum after Jackson died from a prescription overdose in 2009.

    He said: “She said that she gave him too much trust. She was very upset. All the time I was with him he needed psychological help. He was not okay.”

    Michael now has a son aged three but is estranged from the tot’s mum.

    He last saw Jackson in Las Vegas two months before his death at the age of 50.

    He added: “When I became a man he did not have so much interest in me. When I went to visit the last time he didn’t ask me to sleep with him. I had to sleep on the couch.

    “His fans won’t like me saying these things. They treat him like a God. But the truth is the truth.”
    ‘Michael Jackson called me Rubba Rubba in bed and I now realise he abused me’

    Liked by 1 person

  40. January 27, 2019 5:56 am

    “I just heard something awful. Though, maybe it won’t be depending on what comes out. Apparently some con man sold his story to The Daily Mirror (I think it was Mirror) tabloid that he was molested by Michael when he was a kid, and didn’t realize it till he was an adult himself.” – Asma

    Oh, this is Michael Jacobshagen. Our Susannerb has some history of fighting with this guy in 2017 (he is from Germany), only at the time he was a big Michael “fan” who was telling lies in favor of Michael and ending his emails with “Thank you for fighting for Michael Jackson”. Here is the example of it:


    Susannerb wrote two posts about him saying that lies told even in support of MJ are still lies and he should be ashamed. In reply Jacobshagen threatened to sue us.

    Susanne’s first post is here:

    The second post is in its draft version which was never published because something more urgent arose at the time (it was in October 2017). But I will ask Susannerb to publish it (I can’t do it myself as it will come under my name in this case). But here is an excerpt from it which shows what an unspeakable liar this Jacobshagen is.

    On the initiative of a group of MJ fans, German journalists of a cable TV program did some investigation on Michael Jacobshagen and aired a report on September 12, 2017, on the German SAT1 channel. The report was about 15 minutes long and was primarily about MJ memorabilia, letters and signatures which Jacobshagen sold to MJ fans and which now turned out to be falsified.

    Our reader jacksonaktak already provided a short summary of the report in the comments section of the July post, but I’m going to repeat the most important content once more:

    The report presents three examples of deceived fans and an interview with Jacobshagen in which he says at the beginning that he is thankful for the treasure Michael left him personally. Notes allegedly written by MJ are shown, and Jacobshagen claimed it is in Michael’s interest to make all of them public. He claimed again he remained Michael’s close friend until his death and met him regularly in later years, “for example in 2006 in England”.
    At the end he is confronted in the interview with the evidence of his fraud.

    The first example of a fan was the case of Thomas Käppeli, a Swiss fan, who also met Michael personally in Switzerland. He bought notes and other memorabilia from Jacobshagen for 30,000 €, allegedly with original MJ signatures.

    A short time after he had told Jacobshagen that he would prefer notes of MJ referring to Switzerland and written with a marker instead of a pencil, Jacobshagen surprisingly offered him 5 “original” MJ notes written with a marker and referring to Switzerland (“I love Switzerland” etc.). This made him extremely suspicious.

    The next example was presented by another fan who saw a BAD LP on Ebay offered for 2 €, with a positive ranking of Jacobshagen. A month later the exactly same LP, which could be recognized because of a certain price tag in a certain corner, was suddenly “originally signed” by Michael Jackson and offered for 250 € on Jacobshagen’s account.

    The third example was a fan who had bought MJ autographs from Jacobshagen and was wondering about the photo paper the autographs were written on. The photo paper of Hewlett Packard had a numerical code on the back and his research revealed that the paper was manufactured years after Jackson’s death.

    Dieter Wiesner, who was Jackson’s manager for a period of time, told in the report he had asked Michael’s mother and brother Jermaine about Jacobshagen and they denied knowing him. As Wiesner is in possession of original notes and signatures of Michael, he provided them for a comparison with the notes Jacobshagen sold. The journalists contacted a handwriting expert of the forensic institute of the state criminal police (LKA) of Brandenburg and asked for an expert opinion. This woman compared the handwriting and concluded that the notes in question are “most probably not authentic”. She said: “In the comparison we can see that it was tried over a longer period of time to exercise the handwriting, but he was not successful in completely capturing the form of the authentic handwriting.”

    At the end, the report tells that Jacobshagen offered the journalists hand-written MJ notes for 1000 € without being asked and that they pretended to show interest.

    Then they had the following conversation:

    Reporter: You were with him, when he wrote that?

    Jacobshagen: Yes, of course, he stood directly in front of me and then he gave it to me.

    Then the showdown begins:
    The reporter says to Jacobshagen that the papers at hand had been presented to the LKA Brandenburg for examination and they came to the conclusion that they are counterfeits written by the same hand, but not by MJ. They hand the letter with this result over to Jacobshagen.

    J: That’s not true, it’s all from MJ himself.

    R: Do you believe that the LKA is mistaken?

    J: I don’t know which people sit anywhere, I am very surprised. I was there, I know what happened.

    R: How much money have you got for these notes which allegedly are from MJ personally?

    J: I can’t say that, there were also a lot of gifts.

    R: I’m going to ask the man they belong to. Mr. Käppeli, would you come in?

    Mr. Käppeli enters the room. Jacobshagen’s face freezes at that moment.

    R: Mr. Käppeli, how much did you pay for the material you bought from Mr. Jacobshagen?

    Mr. Käppeli: Altogether 30,000 €.

    R: He paid 30.000 € and the LKA says they are counterfeits.

    J: I can’t comment on that.

    He looks utterly perplexed and doesn’t find words.

    A short statement of Jermaine Jackson follows. He says he doesn’t know Michael Jacobshagen or whatever his name is, he never met him. He is angry and disappointed that Jacobshagen abuses the name of his family to deceive fans.

    The report ends with the information that several cheated fans are preparing criminal complaints and claims.

    Susannerb then wonders why the media is zealous in going after only those liars who support Jackson and do not target those who tell lies against him. Indeed there are reasons to believe that the journalists went to the bottom of that story only because they were keen on exposing a so-called Michael Jackson fan.

    But they didn’t know that their thorough investigation of Jacobshagen then would turn against this con-artist now.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. Des permalink
    January 27, 2019 5:36 am

    I really want his children to know we share their pain ,we are hurting too we are thinking of them and we love them and we are so so sorry for what they going through,stay strong there’s tsunami of love comes your way.

    Liked by 2 people

  42. Asma permalink
    January 26, 2019 9:30 pm


    I just heard something awful. Though, maybe it won’t be depending on what comes out. Apparently some con man sold his story to The Daily Mirror (I think it was Mirror) tabloid that he was molested by Michael when he was a kid, and didn’t realize it till he was an adult himself.

    I see it that it would be ridiculous for another to claim yet again that an accuser only realizes after having a child. But I am once again worried for Michael’s name. Why can people not see through these lies? It is obviously so ridiculous! It is exactly as you are saying. As soon as they see people unite for him, they throw a wrench so they can have the control. I am beside myself with anger at this point.


  43. January 26, 2019 8:50 pm

    “Despite mountains of evidence, *they* have control of the buttons and mechanics of the public’s minds. They are pushing it to their hearts’ content and no one is ever the wiser. It’s bad enough to witness this type of manipulation, but when used to slander an innocent man, then feed off his corpse is very difficult to swallow.”- Asma

    Oh, Asma, you couldn’t say it better. This is exactly what I meant.

    *What* is *in* it for them to do this? I mean even money has a limit.

    Of course it is difficult for me to speak for them, but my impression is that it is a sense of power over people’s minds which is driving these operators. They must feel intoxicated with their might in forming public opinion and turning ‘the masses’ against the victim chosen by them (Michael Jackson, for example). In case they see people unite they throw in some disagreement into their midst, and then sit back and take delight in what they did.

    When they throw Michael to vultures I can practically see them sitting there and enjoying the sight. It must be a gripping feeling for them to act in the role of gods.

    By the way Peter Weir, the director of “The Truman Show” (1998) and its scriptwriter Andrew Niccol had Michael Jackson as a prototype for the film.

    “You watch The Truman Show and, I mean, Jim Carrey did a fantastic job, but Michael Jackson is Truman. He’s who I based him on and he is the nearest thing to Truman.” – Peter Weir

    The original script was ending in a tragedy but was changed for a happy end.


  44. January 26, 2019 8:25 pm

    “This is beyond crazy,the world has gone mad,there’s no hope for the real victims ,we are leaving in a world that the truth does not count anymore.How is it possible for that men to keep saying that he didn’t know it was sexual abuse, and people seat there and listen to him” – Des

    It set me thinking that all those involved in it have reached the same degree of falsehood as the pro-regime media in my country. What is also common is that they deeply despise people for whom they make their ‘product’.

    Yes, they DESPISE their viewers because they see how easy it is to manipulate them and that people are ready to swallow everything they feed them. Of course in public they will say all the right words, but the underlying feeling behind it is their deepest CONTEMPT for us, simpletons.

    They are sure that people will swallow even their craziest stories (and in part, they are right). It seems that trolling the masses is a kind of a sport and perverse entertainment for these people. And “Leaving Neverland” documentary absolutely falls into this trolling category.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. January 26, 2019 7:54 pm

    “Here’s one silver lining on an otherwise terrible day for all of us: this filmmaker was able to watch the documentary and discern the truth!” – sanemjman

    Yes, Marcos Cabota’s comment is very valuable as he is a professional filmmaker (and an honest man, as it turns out).

    Just saw this #LeavingNeverland documentary. As a professional filmmaker, is easy to detect that it’s more a mockumentary than a proper impartial documentary. Couldn’t believe a word of the both “victims”. Bad acting. At times, shameful. Directing and script was even worse. 1/10

    Charles Thomson said the same.

    Charles Thomson
    It’s not even a documentary. A documentary is journalistic and investigative. You don’t just point your camera at a proven liar and hit record.
    16:07 – 25 янв. 2019 г.

    Liked by 1 person

  46. January 26, 2019 7:40 pm

    Truth unites even those people whom you couldn’t suspect of being “rabid fans” of Michael Jackson. Here is, for example, an article by Roger Friedman – a true voice of reason with several good points:

    Michael Jackson Criminal Defense Lawyer Thomas Mesereau Is “Shocked” By Claims Made By Wade Robson: “He was adamant that nothing had happened to him. So were his mother and sister”

    by Roger Friedman – January 26, 2019 1:27 pm

    EXCLUSIVE This morning I spoke with Thomas Mesereau, Michael Jackson’s brilliant criminal defense lawyer in his 2005  child molestation and conspiracy trial. Michael was found not guilty on all counts.
    The first witness Mesereau put on the stand in Jackson’s defense was Wade Robson, who now claims Jackson molested him when he was a child. In 2005, Robson, Mesereau says, was “adamant” that Jackson had never done anything wrong to him. Robson’s mother and sister also took the stand and said the same thing.
    The Robsons flew in from Australia for the trial. They stayed at Neverland. Mesereau interviewed them extensively.
    Mesereau told me: “I found Wade articulate and likeable. But he staunchly defended Michael. His mother and sister supported him in their statements. On the stand, Wade was then subjected to a withering prosecutor. I’m shocked that he’s taken a position contrary to what he told me, and what he testified to in court.”
    Mesereau hasn’t seen the documentary “Leaving Neverland” but he is very surprised. And this is a man who has examined and cross examined some of the toughest witnesses ever.
    One important thing Mesereau agreed with me on. Santa Barbara District Attorney Tom Sneddon, now deceased, thoroughly investigated Jackson twice, over a 10 year period. He looked ceaselessly for young boys who might have been abused by Jackson. Sneddon was obsessed with tagging Jackson. It was Sneddon who slid his card on the door of the Arvizo family after he saw them on TV, and crafted an unsuccessful prosecution against Jackson using their crazy testimony.
    Sneddon knew the names of Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck, the two men who claim in the documentary to have been molested. If Sneddon had thought there was any real story there, he’d have gone after it. He never did.

    Meanwhile, Robson has started a not for profit foundation and is soliciting donations. There can be no transparency, as he’s parked his 501 c3 very cleverly under something called the Hawaii Community Foundation. That way, Robson doesn’t have to file a form 990. We’ll never know if the makers of “Leaving Neverland” have donated money to it, for example. This was done on purpose. Leonardo DiCaprio does the same thing with his Foundation. It’s hidden.

    Safechuck, meantime, is accused by Jackson fans of creating his story from a very disgusting book published years ago by a man named Victor Guitierrez. Jackson sued Guitierrez and won a $2.7 million judgement against. The writer has never paid up, and now lives in Chile. I threw my copy out a long time; I didn’t want it in my house.

    “Leaving Neverland” can’t be taken seriously, and I’m surprised the press in Sundance– who didn’t cover Jackson — was so swayed by it. The movie offers no independent evidence, or third parties, just the claims of Robson and Safechuck. Just because it’s graphic, doesn’t mean it’s true. The rush to judgement here is alarming, and dangerous.


  47. January 26, 2019 7:23 pm

    “So basically the film said everything we already knew it would. This is actually a good thing.” – William King

    That was the first part of the film. Today I looked for information about the second half where, I suspect, various learned pundits are to “explain” two incompatible things – Robson’s present story and how he could be so relaxed and confident while testifying for Jackson. Haven’t found the account of the second part yet (probably didn’t try hard enough when diving into this mud).

    Now the that ball is in our court, it’s our time to respond and respond with the demonstrative truth. We’re about to shut this thing done once in for all. Don’t be intimidated by the language their using — they have no facts or evidence on their side the way we do.

    Intimidation is not even the word to use here. My reaction to this mockumentary is different and surprised even myself – it suddenly gave me calm, probably because it demonstrated their intentions openly as well as the fact that they have nothing against Michael but words. No evidence, no facts, just sheer prop-a-gan-da. Just as Frank Cascio tweeted:

    information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular point of view.”Why didn’t Brett, myself or the hundreds of others who had nothing to gain and have opposing views get a call for this “documentary”? @danreed1000

    And speaking about Frank Cascio, this is also a unique chance to finally see everyone’s true worth and for Michael’s fans and supporters – same as all honest people – to find common ground at last. In the face of so gross a lie this is a chance for unity and truth at last.

    United we stand, divided we fall (c). Those who were distracting people from the main issue – the fact of Michael’s innocence – wanted division, but involuntarily brought everyone back together. This should come as an unpleasant surprise to these people.

    Liked by 2 people

  48. Asma permalink
    January 26, 2019 2:13 am

    Hello Dear Helena and everybody,

    Today indeed has definitely been a terrible day. I even actually broke down and cried. I did not even cry like this when he died. I take your words seriously that what we need to focus on is not for today, or tomorrow but the day after tomorrow and allow history to have it’s final word. It is so hard, though. Despite mountains of evidence, *they* have control of the buttons and mechanics of the public’s minds. They are pushing it to their hearts’ content and no one is ever the wiser. It’s bad enough to witness this type of manipulation, but when used to slander an innocent man, then feed off his corpse is very difficult to swallow. *What* is *in* it for them to do this? I mean even money has a limit.

    As for luv4hutch on what your friend says? Honestly to me it just sounds like more Hollywood mafia insider talk. I am not saying your friend is of ill will, but it does sound like he has been conditioned by his surroundings to think and say about Michael exactly the way media giants and tabloids conditioned the public in how to think and what to say about Michael. Just because someone is connected, doesn’t mean they are not prone to a certain type of conditioning exclusive to the company that encircles them. It is not as if every single person within the industry knows every aspect of details the powers that be keep secret to ensure their constant leverage. Many times the higher ups want to make sure their secrets are only known to a very select few in their circle to ensure the knowledge is protected, and thus their power.

    Also, I’m sorry, but the not being able to speak because of legal issues? That makes no sense. If that were the case why didn’t the knowledge come out during the trial? Why didn’t the FBI find out the specifics of this oh so secret knowledge of Michael and his “under aged kid” friends? It’s vague, and plays on the fallacy of the need to believe in authority, because he is so well connected and was seemingly correct in the past about certain things, you are prone to trusting him. If what he is saying is truthful, then the exchange would be far more straightforward.l than this. Sounds like more psychological manipulation (with a strong possibility that your friend himself is a victim of) if you ask me. All pink smoke and mirrors but nothing tangible and substantial to hold onto.

    Anyone connected in the industry who talks about Michael in this manner is suspect, in my opinion. I am not saying your friend is doing this intentionally. He likely is duped, also. Because the truth is, the focus of his “friendships” with kids is just manipulated smoke and mirrors originating from the falsified Bashir show. Michael’s team put out a rebuttal video, and I *watched* the rebuttal video *when* it came out. It was more than enough for me to see how Bashir lies and twisted Michael’s words and image around. He was *never* “just friends” with under 18ers. He *had* several adult friendships. Many of them *women*. The kids were not there by themselves, their *parents* were present and many of them *with* their parents were family friends. He was like the cool uncle we all wanted to play with when *we* were kids. Problem is that angle is deliberately distorted.

    Anyone who invokes “his friendships with kids” automatically tells me they know nothing about his case, frankly. They are parroting the same urban myth started by the very people your friend *is* connected with that is and *has* been easily debunked with material evidence in court and beyond for over a decade, over and over again.

    Liked by 2 people

  49. Des permalink
    January 26, 2019 12:38 am

    This is beyond crazy,the world has gone mad,there’s no hope for the real victims ,we are leaving in a world that the truth does not count anymore.How is it possible for that men to keep saying that he didn’t know it was sexual abuse , and people seat there and listen to him,and if he didn’t know ,Michael knew what he was doing to him,if that’s what was happening how can Michael have him as his first witness defending him in the 2005 trial .What about if he had snapped under pressure ! I am lost this is bazaar.


  50. sanemjfan permalink
    January 25, 2019 10:48 pm

    Here’s one silver lining on an otherwise terrible day for all of us: this filmmaker was able to watch the documentary and discern the truth! He is literally the ONLY person who saw it that condemned it wholeheartedly. Let’s hope that the general public is able to do the same when it airs in a few months. It wouldn’t surprise me if those bastards air it on or near June 25th in order to capitalize on the inevitable attention that MJ is going to get for the 10 year anniversary of his death. 😦

    Liked by 2 people

  51. William King permalink
    January 25, 2019 8:13 pm

    The other thing I see that’s good in this–or at least a silver lining–is their stories didn’t change too much. I was worried they’d change it to cover up holes and contradictions with the facts that we’ve already put out there to make their story more believable. This means that pretty much all the evidence at hand will be useful in combating these “new” lies.


  52. William King permalink
    January 25, 2019 8:03 pm

    @helena So basically the film said everything we already knew it would. This is actually a good thing. It means were far more prepared for their lies than even we originally anticipated. I didn’t see anything in the summary for the film that was different from before. Now the that ball is in our court, it’s our time to respond and respond with the demonstrative truth. We’re about to shut this thing done once in for all. Don’t be intimidate by the language their using — they have no facts or evidence on their side the way we do. Thank you Helena.


  53. January 25, 2019 7:17 pm

    I hear that the film at Sundance received a ‘standing ovation’ and think we should know what filth they are spilling there. Here is the story from the Daily Mail.

    All I can say to it is that MAFIA IS AT ITS WORST.

    ‘He was a pedophile’: Michael Jackson documentary Leaving Neverland sickens Sundance with ‘sexually explicit and devastating’ proof that King of Pop was a ‘monster’ who ‘sexually abused a lot of children’
    • The Michael Jackson documentary Leaving Neverland had its world premiere on Friday at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah 
    • The four-hour documentary, which will air on HBO, details the allegations that Jackson sexually abused Wade Robson and James Safechuck  
    • ‘Michael Jackson witnesses/sex abuse victims coming off very credible. It’s so sexually explicit that counselors are in the lobby,’ wrote Mara Reinstein 
    • ‘MJ gave one of his young male victims jewelry in exchange for sexual acts, and even staged a mock wedding,’ wrote Patrick Ryan 
    • Robson has previously detailed Jackson masturbating while watching Robson naked on all fours and fondling his genitals 
    PUBLISHED: 21:31 GMT, 25 January 2019 | UPDATED: 22:54 GMT, 25 January 2019

    Leaving Neverland had its world premiere on Friday at the Sundance Film Festival, and critics were quick to comment on the four-hour documentary that details allegations of sexual abuse against Michael Jackson.
    The film focuses on the accounts of Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who have long claimed that they were raped and molested by the singer at his Neverland Ranch.
    Jackson denied all allegations that he abused underage boys during his lifetime, and his estate has done the same in the decade since his death. 
    ‘Leaving Neverland is a horror film – an intimate, obviously believable, sometimes sexually explicit story of two boys who became Michael Jackson’s special “friends” – i.e., lovers – while their oblivious parents went along. Jackson was a fiend – a smooth predator, a monster,’ said Jeff Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere.
    ‘Feel sick to my stomach after watching Part 1 of #LeavingNeverland doc. Michael Jackson witnesses/sex abuse victims coming off very credible. It’s so sexually explicit that counselors are in the lobby,’ wrote Mara Reinstein of US Weekly. 
    Robson and Safechuck both received a standing ovation from the audience after the film before tearfully answering questions about the documentary.
    Both men go into graphic and specific detail about what allegedly happened in Jackson’s bedroom when they were just children, with both men claiming they were abused from approximately the age of 7 until they were 14.   
    Scroll down for video

    Devestated: The Michael Jackson documentary Leaving Neverland had its world premiere on Friday at the Sundance Film Festival in park City, Utah (Jackson above with accuser Wade Robson)

    Take: ‘Michael Jackson witnesses/sex abuse victims coming off very credible. It’s so sexually explicit that counselors are in the lobby,’ wrote Mara Reinstein

    Revelations: ‘MJ gave one of his young male victims jewelry in exchange for sexual acts, and even staged a mock wedding complete with vows and diamond ring,’ wrote Patrick Ryan
    Many of the critics did not get into the specifics of the film, though there were a few details revealed on Twitter.  
    ‘Among the many, many disturbing revelations of #LeavingNverland: MJ gave one of his young male victims jewelry in exchange for sexual acts, and even staged a mock wedding complete with vows and diamond ring,’ wrote Patrick Ryan of USA Today.
    ‘Many common parallels in victims’ stories: MJ grooming them to hate their parents and women in general, saying God brought them together, eventually “casting them out” for younger boys. “There was a lot of jealousy and hurt. You were no longer special.”‘ 

    Eugene Hernandez, the Deputy Director at the Film Society of Lincoln Center, also provided some details, writing: ‘Halfway thru the doc, which in its 1st half graphically details Michael Jackson sexual abuse of Robson & Safechuck, I wondered why it needed 2 more hours… but in its 2nd half it reveals the journey of the victims to be able to talk about it.’
    He weighed in after the film as well, writing: ‘This is deeply moving exploration of abuse from perspective of its victims/families. Overall well-shaped & constructed. Raises so many difficult questions abt parental roles, celebrity, secrets, fame, enabling behavior & abuse. Topics that could fill a 4 hour follow-up.’ 
    As critics posted their thoughts, an army of Michael Jackson fans latched on to attack and refute the claims made in the film, despite the fact that the film was played for the first time in Utah on Friday. 
    It did not impact those who saw the film however, who were almost unanimous in their belief that this film presented damning evidence to support the allegations made by Robson and Safechuck.

    Warning: Amy Kaufman of the Los Angeles Times said that before the movie screened, a warning was issued to guests by the director of the documentary.

    Prepared: Matt Donnelly of Variety noted this too, tweeing: ‘#Sundance has provided health care professionals in the theater

    Midway: ‘Whatever you thought you knew or were aware of, the content of this is more disturbing than you could imagine. And again, we’re only halfway through, ‘ wrote Kevin Fallon of The Daily Beast

    Details: Eugene Hernandez, the Deputy Director at the Film Society of Lincoln Center, also provided some details, writing: ‘Halfway thru the doc, which in its 1st half graphically details Michael Jackson sexual abuse of Robson & Safechuck’

    Speaking out: Kaufman also revealed that the film resonated with one man in particular after the screening
    Indiewire critic David Ehrlich wrote: ‘spoiler alert: Michael Jackson 100% sexually abused a lot of children.’ 
    Even at intermission many were left shocked by what they had seen halfway through the film.  
    ‘On a 10-min break halfway through Sundance’s 4-hour Michael Jackson child sex abuse documentary. Whatever you thought you knew or were aware of, the content of this is more disturbing than you could imagine. And again, we’re only halfway through, ‘ wrote Kevin Fallon of The Daily Beast. 
    Amy Kaufman of the Los Angeles Times said that before the movie screened, a warning was issued to guests by the festival director.
    ‘John Cooper warns the #LeavingNeverland audience that the docuseries contains explicit descriptions of sexual abuse involving minors and there are Healthcare professionals from the state of Utah in the lobby should filmgoers need to talk’ wrote Kaufman.

    Matt Donnelly of Variety noted this too, tweeting: ‘#Sundance has provided health care professionals in the theater for audience members potentially upset by #LeavingNeverland’s explicit descriptions of sexual abuse against underage boys. They are in the wings ready with counsel.’ 
    Kaufman also revealed that the film resonated  with one man in particular, writing: ‘Incredibly emotional reaction from the audience after #LeavingNeverland. One audience member says he was molested as a child and that Robson and Safechuck “are going to do a lot more f–king good in the world than Michael f–king Jackson.”‘ 
    Multiple critics were far more brief in their assessment of he film, but all used the same phrase.
    ‘Absolutely devastating,’  noted Marlow Stern of The Daily Beast and Hollywood Reporter writer  Tatiana Siegel.
    The word disgust also came up in a number of tweets responding to the film.

    Thought: Multiple critics were far more brief in their assessment of he film, but all used the same phrase

    Stunned: ‘Absolutely devastating,’ noted Marlow Stern of The Daily Beast and Hollywood Reporter writer Tatiana Siegel

    Terror: ‘Leaving Neverland is a horror film – an intimate, obviously believable, sometimes sexually explicit story of two boys who became Michael Jackson’s special “friends,” wrote Jeff Wells 
    ‘You should have seen the faces of the audience members during the ten-minute intermission of “Leaving Neverland.” at the Egyptian. They had that look of hollowed-out nausea, submerged disgust…trying to hide their revulsion. The Jackson guilt denialists are finished. Jig’s up,’ wrote Wells.
    ‘Leaving Neverland is also, of course, a very sad story. Damage & dysfunction is passed on. You’re only as healthy or sick as the amount of ugly secrets you’re carrying around. Oh, and the two complicit mothers of the victims are dealt tough cards by their trying-to-heal sons.’ 
    Jackson’s family is not staying quiet and last week the normally press shy Jacksons lashed out at HBO for picking up the documentary and Sundance for screening the feature.
    Jackson’s nephew Taj, whose father is Tito, voiced his disgust on Twitter.  
    ‘To all the sponsors of @Sundance. I suggest you do your own homework on Wade Robson and James Safechuck,’ read one of the tweets.
    ‘By supporting their lies, you are now part of this and we will remember that when everything implodes. You can’t plead ignorance anymore.’
    He also wrote: ‘I’m sure there are some incredible films that will be premiering and shown at the festival. Films that people put their hard earned money and life into. But @Sundance is jeopardizing these films to accommodate, promote, and showcase a film that stars two proven scam artists.’
    Jackson’s official account also shared a tweet aimed at shaming HBO which read: ‘In 1992, Michael gave HBO their highest rated special ever. Now, to repay him they give a voice to admitted liars. #StopLeavingNeverlandNOW.’
    That was a reference to Jackson’s first ever televised concert, which aired on the network in October of 1992 after being filmed in Bucharest. 
    The special smashed the pay cable provider’s previews record, scoring a 21.4 rating and 34 share  in the approximately 17.5 million homes with subscriptions.

    Hitting back: This has prompted members of Jackson’s family to last out at the festival and HBO, who will air the documentary later this year

    Backlash: ‘By supporting their lies, you are now part of this and we will remember that when everything implodes. You can’t plead ignorance anymore,’ wrote Taj Jackson
    Robson is known to many as the man who reportedly came between Britney Spearsand Justin Timberlake, and inspired Timberlake to write the break-up anthem Cry Me A River.
    The Australian-born dancer, 36, previously filed a lawsuit against Jackson’s estate in 2016 asking for $1.62 billion in damages.
    In his complaint, Robson claimed that he was raped by the King of Pop for seven years, starting when he was seven and ending when he was 14.  
    That suit was eventually tossed, with the judge ruling that the singer’s estate could not be held responsible for the allegations being made by Robson.
    The court made no comments in the validity of the lawsuit, but Jackson’s family was very vocal about the fact that Robson had testified on the singer’s behalf at his 2005 trial.   
    Robson said in his court filing that the alleged abuse he suffered at the hands of Jackson included: ‘kissing and french kissing; Michael Jackson rubbing [Robson’s] penis and having [Robson] rub his; Michael Jackson masturbating while watching [Robson] from behind on all fours, naked, with his knees and palms extended like a dog on all fours; Michael Jackson spreading [Robon’s] buttocks and sticking his tongue into and licking [Robson’s] anus while he masturbated using lotion; the mutual fondling of genitals with their hands and mouth; mutual fellatio’ and more.
    He also alleged in his suit that Jackson lost interest in him when he turned 14, but prior to that had told the young boy: ‘We can never tell anyone what we are doing. People are ignorant and they would never understand that we love each other and this is how we show it.  If anyone were to ever find out our lives and career would be over.’ 
    Fans of Jackson and his family were shocked when they learned about the filing given that Robson had been a crucial witness in Jackson’s acquittal on similar charges back in 2005.
    At that trial he testified under oath that Jackson had never once touched him inappropriately or abused him during their time together. 
    Robson responded to the criticism by stating: ‘I did not believe that I was forced. I believed that I was a consenting participant in the sexual acts.’

    Liked by 1 person

  54. January 24, 2019 7:45 pm

    I know, but what really got my attention was that he used “we” in his statement, again referencing to his working for people associated with him and the Estate for 15 years. He said “WE told him to stop hanging out with young children, and he wouldn’t listen.” Again, his insight on many things has panned out, and he has given me documented proof that he has industry connections throughout Hollywood. But this through for a loop. Likewise, when he said he’d done digging on Disney’s termination of James Gunn, saying that there were much worse reasons for this than the tweets he made long ago (and apologized for many times over the years before this became an issue) or the photo of him at a “To Catch a Predator” themed costume party with him dressed as the Child Catcher (and one of his friends later being convicted as a sex offender), but something far more dark and compromising. Something Disney could not reveal to the public because if they did say “this is why we can’t work with him again”, they’d have to reveal everyone in the company in the same situation, and basically decimate their workforce. Like with Michael, what he said about Gunn just didn’t seem to add up. I know many offenders create parallel lives with bright, shiny surface as a shield for their actual activities, but Gunn just doesn’t strike me as one of those people. He’s been very transparent about his past proclivity for shock value humor and the reasons why he did it, so it just doesn’t seem like he could get away with that. Like Michael, he seems to wear his sincerity on his sleeve. But the statement through for a loop and I did feel a bit depressed.


  55. January 24, 2019 7:23 pm

    “we analyse everything about him,but most of the time we don’t know ourselves who we are.” – Des


    Liked by 1 person

  56. January 24, 2019 7:20 pm

    “Just please tell me what you think of all this.”- luv4hutch

    I was planning to write about it. Unfortunately, this film has intervened and sent my attention elsewhere. But I will come back to this topic as it is very important.
    At the moment just please don’t worry. What this person said was a widely accepted perception of Michael in Hollywood and entertainment industry. And all of it fits in very well into the scam. Michael’s only fault was that he was a big kid who didn’t realize the danger of those rumors. Even his friends approached him with their worries, but he thought nothing of it. By the way his reaction to his friends’ warnings is exactly how an innocent (though carefree) person would behave.

    Liked by 1 person

  57. Des permalink
    January 24, 2019 7:00 pm

    My humble opinion on Luv4hutch ,Michael was a money making machine for all the people around him,and also gave them a good life style .Many of them were real friends many used him ,loneliness make you vulnerable Michael loved almost everyone and everything but he loved children more and we all know why.Their were the only ones that didn’t judge him and staring at him like he was from another planet.Now me that I am nobody every time that it’s possible (am not Michael Jackson I don’t have the luxury for many things) but my kids they will try and make it possible,it can be anything from food to animals to friends your name it ,and I did and still do the same thing for my children and grandchildren and family and friends .When someone dies and that person like roses people will put roses in his or hers coffin,as simple as that,and for Michael I don’t see anything wrong make it possible for him to be around children,the man could not go anywhere. Michael has a big family ,from a very young age had children around him nephews and nieces and cousins,many times on the stage together with other children he had his nephews or nieces or family and friends children,he loved children but children loved him back too.I see my grandson he is six years old he loves Michael Jackson he knows the words of his songs he dances to his music and he loves watching him not just singing and dancing but talking too,I wish that I was aloud to put videos on the internet but not aloud from the parents .When we say (enabled him)enabled him to what to abuse children? If your friend saw something inappropriate why didn’t he say something I just don’t get it ,or is it because the estate doesn’t do anything to protect Michael’s image because they were the ones pushing children around him for publicity and for him to look weird . I don’t know ,we analyse everything about him,but most of the time we don’t know ourselves who we are.


  58. January 24, 2019 2:18 pm

    Helena, I have something grim to share. I am friends with someone who has definite ties to the entertainment industry, and we talk because of our shared love of the music of Meat Loaf and Jim Steinman, and are in fact working on an alternate timeline together regarding the troubled Steinman-helmed musical Dance of the Vampires, which you can see being posted here: He also has connections where he has worked with people associated with all the major studios, many artists, and people like mega-manager Irving Azoff, so he has some genuine insider’s knowledge.

    Anyways, he told me that he has worked with people associated with Michael and the Estate for 15 years, and that “any defense of MJ is laughable. I was there, but I can’t legally reveal anything because of confidentiality agreements, especially those by the Estate.” And he stated “it wasn’t just being friends with children and offering his bed to them. There was some attempt to get him to be seen as hanging out with people at least 18 years old, but he refused. And everyone dropped the matter. As long as they were willing to get paid, they enabled him. But I can’t say anymore.”

    My gut of course tells me that this can’t possibly be true, but he’s had the inside scoop in the past and has never been wrong before. I also will not give his real name, because if I do and you dig into him, he’ll know it was me who told you, and we are quite good friends. Just please tell me what you think of all this.


  59. louissy permalink
    January 24, 2019 1:03 pm

    Dear Helena, so u think that Robson don’t lie but only imaginaed it and dreamed. U think that due to doctors he became victim but not just for money which he wants


  60. Des permalink
    January 24, 2019 7:47 am

    Dear Helena,there so many fans that they not on the social media,I wish there was some other way to help Taj Jackson with donations.we are too many of us that we are around Michael’s age and we are not comfortable exposing our selfs to the internet especially financially.Michael has millions of fans all over the world young and old, but the only way to voice our voice these days is through social media . I have learned so much about Michael from all of you and honestly many nights I can not sleep,I think about his life about his children about his mother and tears rolling down my face.Michael was like his mother,didn’t want to hurt anybody,she sawed him how to love to be tolerant to forgive to be so spiritual,I wonder how she feels now. I am not in way blaming her,but sometimes even the most religious people asked God how much more can someone take?why most of the time good people suffer more.We all want to help in any way we can ,but now all his family should get involved and help ,his brothers did some stupid things last year , and when the brothers do those things to their dead brother what the haters gonna do! I hope with this documentary that they not going to try and make Michael look like an angel,because he was a human.


  61. January 23, 2019 6:06 pm

    The full article at the Atlantic:

    It turns out that the journalists’ investigation of Bryan Singer had a difficult fate. Here is a statement of the two journalists who say that their investigative report first went through an editorial process at Esquire, a rigorous fact-checking and legal approval, and was about to be published when it was suddenly killed by the executives without any explanation.
    Then the article was taken to the Atlantic where it again went through an editorial process, another fact-checking and “robust legal vetting”, and only now it sees the light of day.

    If only the media had a fraction of similar meticulousness when it came to Michael Jackson! The bias is not only undeniable but now also has an explanation. This post is the most appropriate place for this news.


  62. January 23, 2019 5:24 pm

    The latest news about Bryan Singer:

    JANUARY 23, 2019 4:00AM PT
    Bryan Singer Hit With Fresh Allegations of Sex With Underage Boys
    Senior Media Writer@GeneMaddausFOLLOW

    Bryan Singer, the director of “Bohemian Rhapsody,” is facing new allegations published in the Atlantic on Wednesday that he engaged in sexual misconduct with underage boys.

    In the report, four men allege that Singer had sexual encounters with them when they were teenagers in the late 1990s. One of the men, Victor Valdovinos, says he was a 13-year-old extra on the set of “Apt Pupil” when Singer fondled his genitals.
    The three other accusers are identified in the story by pseudonyms. One, identified in the story as Andy, says that he had sex with Singer when he was 15. Another man, identified as Eric, says he was 17 when he began having sex with the director. Singer would have been 31 at the time. The third man, Ben, alleges that he and Singer had oral sex when he was 17 or 18.
    “He would stick his hands down your pants without consent,” the man told the Atlantic. “He was predatory in that he would ply people with alcohol and drugs and then have sex with them.”

    Singer’s attorney, Andrew Brettler, denied to the magazine that Singer had ever had sex with underage boys, and disputed various details of the accusers’ accounts.
    Singer was fired two weeks before the end of production on “Bohemian Rhapsody” in December 2017. The film received five Academy Award nominations on Tuesday, including best picture and best actor for Rami Malek as Freddie Mercury. Singer remains the credited director, but was not nominated. He is next scheduled to direct “Red Sonja” for Millennium Films.

    The authors of the Atlantic article, Alex French and Maximillian Potter, spoke to 50 sources over the course of a 12-month investigation. French and Potter are both affiliated with Esquire, French as a writer at large and Potter as the editor at large. The article was initially expected to appear in that magazine.
    On Oct. 15, Singer posted on Instagram that Esquire was looking to write a negative article about him.
    “In today’s climate where people’s careers are being harmed by mere accusations, what Esquire is attempting to do is a reckless disregard for the truth, making assumptions that are fictional and irresponsible,” Singer wrote.

    In April 2014, Michael Egan sued Singer, alleging that the director had raped him several times in Hawaii in 1999, when Egan was 17. That case was dropped several months later, after discrepancies emerged in Egan’s story.

    Cesar Sanchez-Guzman sued Singer in December 2017, claiming that Singer raped him on a yacht in 2003. Singer has denied the allegation, and the case is still pending.
    “The industry will brush things under the rug and pretend nothing happened,” Sanchez-Guzman told the magazine. “Most people don’t see the truth.”

    I wish these men every possible success. The case against Singer can hardly be disputed, especially since we’ve seen with our own eyes underage boys at one of Singer’s parties. At least two of them could be no more than 12-13 years old. Look at the left-hand far end of the pool and you will see two heads much smaller than those of grown-up men.
    underage boys at Bryan Singer's pool party


  63. January 22, 2019 5:34 pm

    “I am sure that no renowned scientist of any science, who is a leading expert with internationally acclaimed publications, will participate in it.”- susannerb

    Over here you are wrong, Susanne. This is exactly what the engineers of this scam will do, or rather, have already done. Back in 2013 there was some information on the web that Dr. David Arrendondo was involved and that after his “second break-down” Robson began insight-oriented therapy with Dr. Shaw.
    Both doctors have a good reputation, and I am saying it to everyone here so that they brace themselves for what they will soon hear and see.

    The insight-oriented therapy employed is a tricky thing and numerous articles say that during the therapy sometimes even psychedelic drugs – like amphetamine, for example – may be used (with the respective consequences of illusions, fantasies, etc).

    Insight-oriented psychotherapy is a category of psychotherapies that rely on conversation between the therapist and the client (or patient). Insight-oriented psychotherapy can be an intensive process, wherein the client must spend multiple days per week with the therapist.
    The oldest form of insight-oriented psychotherapy was developed by Freud and is known as psychoanalysis.

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

    Numerous clinical papers on the effectiveness of psychedelics in insight-oriented drug therapy have been published. These psychedelics were used to treat a wide variety of psychological issues, including “alcoholism, obsessional neurosis, and sociopathy”. Furthermore, it was found that psychedelics were effective in easeing the process of dying patients. A major reason for the clinical interest in psychedelic drugs for psychoanalysis was the belief of some experimental subjects that the experience of using psychedelic medication reduced their feelings of guilt and made them less depressed and anxious and more self-accepting, tolerant, and alert.

    The length of treatment depends on the needs and circumstances of the patient. A time limit may be set to work towards achieving one goal or if more sessions are needed, community therapist may be advised. It can be effective for: mood disorders, anxiety disorders, substance abuse disorders, eating disorders, sexual dysfunctions, adjustment disorders, personality disorders and relational, family or academic problems.
    However, the popular treatment methods used can also generate placebo insights within clients. Because patients may face a lot of epistemic pressure in the therapeutic encounter, they may experience “insights” such as illusions, deception, or adaptive self-misunderstandings—and it can also generate therapeutic artefacts that seem to confirm these insights.

    Dr. David A.Jopling of York University says about it:

    “The powerful treatment methods to which clients are subjected generate some of the very psychological and behavioral facts that clients claim to “discover” in their explorations. This impugns the scientific status of the insight-oriented psychotherapies.”

    From the very onset of this drama I said that it is only with the help of very qualified psychologists that the Robson matter can be resolved. It is an absolute must to find out what kind of “treatment” Robson received, whether any psychedelic drugs were used on him and all his medical records should be reviewed by all means.

    Otherwise we may easily have another McMartin school case.

    P.S. If there had been a trial the review of Robson’s medical records would have been the necessary part of court proceedings, but without it I have no idea how this can be handled. This is why I wanted the case to go to court from the very start of it.

    Liked by 1 person

  64. January 21, 2019 4:11 pm

    Susanne, this is what I’ve been dreaming of all along. Let me just repeat your words:

    Michael’s advocates need to go to the bottom of the frame-up against Jackson, that it is not enough to talk about charity and his goodness and his wonderful soul, because the people nowadays have no ability anymore to tell the difference between truth and lies. If fans want to convince somebody of the fact that Jackson is innocent they have to go deeply into investigation to present detailed facts, not only about Michael, but also about the accusers.
    If the film presents experts explaining psychological reasons, these experts have to be investigated.
    If the film presents witnesses or therapists, these people have to be investigated.
    If the film presents pseudo-psychological theories, these theories and their creators have to be investigated.
    We cannot do much against the masterminds behind the plot and against powerful people like Geffen, but we can provide powerful information based on facts, which is available. Our work is for the generations that will come long after we are gone, after people like Geffen are gone and after his accusers are gone. There will come a time when they cannot tell their lies anymore.

    As a sample of this kind of work here is a very good summary of Wade Robson’s “case” recently made by Michael Jackson’s supporters. Those who cherish the truth please spread it. I’ve also added it to a MUST SEE category on this blog.

    Michael Jackson And Wade Robson: The Real Story


  65. January 21, 2019 8:21 am

    Helena, with your words you really struck a chord with me. I am also very worried about the effect of this film. But that’s exactly the point we have to see now more than ever: That Michael’s advocates need to go to the bottom of the frame-up against Jackson, that it is not enough to talk about charity and his goodness and his wonderful soul, because the people nowadays have no ability anymore to tell the difference between truth and lies. If fans want to convince somebody of the fact that Jackson is innocent they have to go deeply into investigation to present detailed facts, not only about Michael, but also about the accusers.
    If the film presents experts explaining psychological reasons, these experts have to be investigated.
    If the film presents witnesses or therapists, these people have to be investigated.
    If the film presents pseudo-psychological theories, these theories and their creators have to be investigated.
    We will have to investigate all the people presented in this film, because I am already sure that no renowned scientist of any science, who is a leading expert with internationally acclaimed publications, will participate in it.
    Also Dan Reed as the director and his motives should be investigated. He is not even on Wikipedia, who is he? I know about a couple of films he made earlier, but there is not too much information on him in the internet (not to be confused with the musician Dan Reed).

    I must say that many of the comments from fans I saw on the Sundance forums are not helpful. They won’t reach anything, especially when they are rude. But there are also some very good comments which provide real information. That’s what we need to do. We cannot do much against the masterminds behind the plot and against powerful people like Geffen, but we can provide powerful information based on facts, which is available.

    There is a chance that the accusers may “overdo” it in this film like they already did it in their depositions so that their accusations sound completely implausible. But there are always people who will believe it because they want to believe it.
    Our work is for the generations that will come long after we are gone, after people like Geffen are gone and after his accusers are gone. There will come a time when they cannot tell their lies anymore.

    Liked by 1 person

  66. January 20, 2019 6:42 pm

    “The sobering truth is that the mission to undo him extends far beyond his death, and this film is the culmination of such. I hope I’m wrong to be so worried.” – ShadowDeeps

    I think you are not wrong to be worried. The temporary effect of this film will be devastating. Considering that it is a four-hour film, it is meant not only for the festival, but also to air as a serial on TV in Britain and US. It will be shown again and again, on several channels and for four days too, and all of us know how much the population loves sensational stories.

    This is indeed the culmination of their mission to undo Michael Jackson.

    The length of the film suggests that it is going to be a pseudo-science film involving psychology “experts” who will tell the gullible public some scientific-sounding nonsense about Robson’s “trauma” and how “repressed” his mind was – and all of it to explain his testimony about Michael’s innocence at the 2005 trial, as well as his later tributes to him and his ardent desire to direct the Cirque du Soleil show about MJ.

    Safechuck’s situation is slightly different as he didn’t testify at the trial, but he defended him as a child and worked in Michael’s team as a grown-up when they were filming a History trailer (there are even videos of him carrying an umbrella over him and LMP during filming in Hungary).

    So to explain their U-turn most of the film will surely consist of pseudo-scientific talk. In reality no science can explain why Robson said that he had never been as much as touched by MJ and spoke in so easy a manner at the trial (he even made jokes on the stand) and now he claims that he was “raped”, but didn’t think that it was sexual abuse (at the age of 23) and it was only a therapist who explained it to him.

    It seems that no person in his right mind will believe it. However when some “therapists” tell them that Robson was brainwashed (intimidated, perplexed, hypnotized, etc), the average viewer will not doubt their word and will take this “learned” opinion for granted.

    Unfortunately, this attitude is the mark of our times. Today people’s gullibility in combination with ignorance, zero ability to tell the truth from lies and no desire to even know the truth is like the plague. I have a very pessimistic view of humans right at the moment – we have so many examples of people believing that white is black, even when they see the opposite with their own eyes, that it would be a miracle if they recovered.

    On Russian TV, for example, there was a certain “documentary” meant to prove that the Earth is flat. I regard such efforts of our TV as an open mockery and them simply having fun at people’s expense, but you know what? I’ve heard that some believed it and the film even got a prize at some local festival.

    I think that today the fake film about MJ will do much damage. But does it mean that we should stop telling the truth about Michael Jackson? Absolutely not. We are working not for today, and not even for tomorrow, but for the day after tomorrow. The only thing I am really against are appeals like “leave him alone” and “he did so much to charity”. These words are true but will not help.

    What we need is serious work to get to the bottom of the frame-up against Jackson and leave all the proof to the generation to come. And wait for history to say its final word.

    Everyone who wants to know the truth about a scam against Jackson (and tell it to others) should turn into an investigator. It is hard work, but it is worth it. It will clean the air and will help to heal others from the plague.

    Liked by 2 people

  67. ShadowDeeps permalink
    January 20, 2019 2:46 am

    As a long time fan of MJ, I’m also earnestly concerned that this “documentary”, as it were, could spell unending doom for his legacy and all else regarding him. Between the four hours in total that the documentary will run and the horrific lies it will attempt its very hardest to convincingly impose upon the public, I’m honestly scared that this could be the end of anything and everything MJ. The documentary could be so damaging that there will be no respite or recovery.

    I feel this especially holds true because the “me too” and “times up” movement, or era, whatever it would seem fit to deem it as, has conditioned people to take all accusations of misconduct at face value and as insuperable truth, and to shame those who dare to question otherwise. This isn’t to say I think ill of the movement, as I feel it is of the utmost importance to expose real predators, bring them to justice, and to support real victims, now more than ever.

    The problem, however, is exactly that – Michael Jackson was not a real predator and Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck are not real victims. They themselves are the opportunists, the extortionists, just as the Arvizos and Chandlers (or at least Evan Chandler) were. It’s clear now more than ever before, that, because their (Wade and Jimmy) previous lawsuits failed and were dismissed by court of law, their last resort, their only other option to cash in on MJ, IS this “movie”. Wade and Jimmy (if I’m not mistaken) both testified under oath, in 2005, that MJ never did anything to them, ever. Wade always defended MJ without batting an eye before 2013, and never let an opportunity to pay respects slip him by before the accusations. There are way too many inconsistencies within his “stories” for the supposed “abuse” to have ever happened. Jimmy’s “story” has no basis in reality either.

    But as your post suggests, there’s more to all this than just using MJ’s name to turn profits. The sobering truth is that the mission to undo him extends far beyond his death, and this film is the culmination of such. For the sake of Michael’s family and all those who hold him dear, I hope I’m wrong to be so worried. I can only hope “Leaving Neverland” is a flop that, at worst, prompts people to reexamine the trials of MJ, but only to reinforce a sound conclusion rather than lend any credence to Wade, Jimmy, et al.

    Liked by 1 person

  68. January 19, 2019 6:41 pm
    “By the way, have you, or anyone here, seen this article? I am sharing because Les Moonves it was discovered black balled Janet Jackson. Michael’s sister.” – Asma
    Asma, thank you for the article. Even if Les Moonves hadn’t black balled Janet Jackson it would still be worth reading. There are so many familiar faces there – David Geffen with Ivanka Trump and her husband, Geffen and Oprah Winrey, Geffen and Dasha Zhukova, the former wife of Russian oligarch Abramovich and friend of Mr. Putin. What a small world we live in.
    Les Moonves, Julie Chen escape scandal on David Geffen’s $590 million yacht January 2, 2019 at 2:40 pm It seems that once you become one of the world’s super-rich and super-powerful, you might get an invitation to hang out on David Geffen’s $590 million yacht in some glorious, sunny locale. That’s even the case if you’re Ivanka Trump in 2016 and your father is the controversial Republican presidential nominee, or you’re Les Moonves and Julie Chen, and you need to escape a sexual misconduct scandal that has devastated at least one of your careers. Page Six reports that the disgraced former CBS chief and his wife celebrated New Year’s with “the power crowd” in St. Barts aboard the Rising Sun, the 450-foot yacht owned by entertainment mogul David Geffen. Sources told Page Six that Moonves and Chen flew from Los Angeles to the Caribbean island on a private jet after Christmas. Moonves resigned as CEO and chairman of CBS in September after multiple women accused him of sexual harassment and assault in a pair of scathing exposés in the New Yorker. An insider told Page Six, “Les isn’t hanging his head in shame; he’s living it up on a yacht in St. Barts. It seems that the Hollywood moguls look out for each other, no matter what.”
    A very true observation.
    …The network’s internal investigation brought the total number of alleged victims to 17, and detailed how Moonves allegedly demanded sex from female colleagues before and after he came to CBS in 1995, saying he’d give them acting and other work opportunities in exchange for intimate relations. The alleged misconduct included the former CBS chief demanding oral sex from at least four employees and having an employee “on call” to perform oral sex on him. Moonves has officially denied harassing or assaulting anyone, claiming that the sexual encounters with the women were consensual. For Geffen, the allegations apparently are not a problem. But the 75-year-old record producer-turned-studio executive and Moonves go back at least two decades, Page Six added. In 1994, he and his DreamWorks co-founders, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg, asked Moonves to be the fourth partner in founding the studio, Katzenberg revealed in March 2018. At the same time, Geffen, who is worth an estimated $8.6 billion, has garnered publicity for generally showing discerning tastes when it comes to choosing which A-listers he will invite onto his yacht, reportedly the 11th largest in the world. In fact, Geffen likes to share photos of many of his famous guests on Instagram. In the summer of 2016, after Trump clinched the Republication nomination, Geffen hosted Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner on his yacht when it sailed to the coast of Croatia. The couple, who have since become highly polarizing White House senior advisers, were photographed by the tabloids jet skiing and sunbathing on the boat, according to People. Geffen also has hosted Ivanka Trump’s friend Dasha Zhukova. She’s the ex-wife of Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich, a longtime supporter of President Vladimir Putin. (Incidentally, Abramovich, like Geffen, had his yacht anchored off St. Barts this past week and hosted Paul McCartney on his $1.5 billion boat over the holidays, the Daily Mail reported.)
    Here are some photos from David Geffen’s Instagram: Geffen with Barry Diller and Dasha on September 2, 2018:
    View this post on Instagram ….and Dasha, Stavros and Barry A post shared by David Geffen (@davidgeffen) on Sep 2, 2018 at 7:54am PDT
    // Geffen on a lovely long holiday with Oprah Winfrey and others. On April 1st, 2016 with Oprah and Dasha:
    View this post on Instagram A post shared by David Geffen (@davidgeffen) on Apr 1, 2016 at 11:03am PDT
    // On April 8, 2016 with Oprah and Julia Roberts:
    View this post on Instagram A post shared by David Geffen (@davidgeffen) on Apr 8, 2016 at 9:01am PDT
    // On April 9, 2016 with Oprah, Paul McCartney, Dasha and the others:
    View this post on Instagram A post shared by David Geffen (@davidgeffen) on Apr 9, 2016 at 8:23am PDT
    // Geffen with Ivanka Trump, her husband and Dasha again on Sept.12, 2016:
    View this post on Instagram A post shared by David Geffen (@davidgeffen) on Sep 11, 2016 at 5:12pm PDT
    // And Geffen remembering his best friend Sandy Gallin (now deceased):
    View this post on Instagram Best friends A post shared by David Geffen (@davidgeffen) on Apr 22, 2017 at 12:11pm PDT
    View this post on Instagram Sandy Gallin – Farewell my close dear friend. I will never forget you. You will always live in my heart A post shared by David Geffen (@davidgeffen) on Apr 21, 2017 at 1:52pm PDT
    // And at a birthday party – with Oprah and others on September 24, 2017:
    View this post on Instagram Great birthday party for Liberty. Jimmy Iovine throws the best parties in LA A post shared by David Geffen (@davidgeffen) on Sep 24, 2017 at 11:17am PDT
    // Oh, here is Oprah again – a year later, on August 5, 2018:
    View this post on Instagram Oprah Julianna Margulies, KeithLieberthal, Steve snd daryl Roth Lloyd and Laura Blankfein Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson Truman Hanks, Bradley Cooper, Sean A post shared by David Geffen (@davidgeffen) on Aug 5, 2018 at 11:46am PDT
    // What a tight-knit and happy crowd, enjoying the company of each other, and so many friends to Geffen and all around the world too! Wonderful, wonderful pictures. LikeLike
  69. Asma permalink
    January 19, 2019 3:16 pm


    I am so sorry I have been MIA for so long. I have been so busy and couldn’t keep my attention but I am grateful for this post. I still need to read all of it. But I just can’t help but to say, if it isn’t obvious yet that this isn’t a smear campaign against this man, then I don’t know what is. I need to double check but I believe even there is a documentary on Harvey Weinstein at Sundance? Yet that is not getting any attention and we also know Weinstein’s history of sending his cronies such as A.J. Benza towards Michael as a scapegoat to distract from his own dirty deeds.

    By the way, have you, or anyone here, seen this article? I am sharing because Les Moonves it was discovered black balled Janet Jackson. Michael’s sister. Thank you again and I look forward to reading the rest of your post and catching up.



  70. January 18, 2019 3:16 pm

    And somebody created this new website with a lot of information on the MJ allegations and all the important sources to vindicate Michael: – susannerb

    Thank you, Susanne. This is the moment for all of us to come together. I have already allowed this new website to reprint our posts as long as they provide a link to this blog.

    Liked by 1 person

  71. January 18, 2019 3:12 pm

    “Makes me wonder if Frank DiLeo was referencing the Hollywood Mafia when he claimed the Mafia was out to murder MJ?” – Creative Rebelle

    Oh, I didn’t know about it. Could you give me a link to where Dileo said it? It seems that many people had much to say on the subject, only they were so afraid that they kept mum.
    And yes, I also wish that Michael hadn’t parted with Dileo and Branca – the three of them were made for each other.

    I’ve found information about Frank Dileo’s words on the ‘mafia’. They seemed to be in the journals and video footage Frank Dileo left behind and allegedly asked to turn into a book “in case something happened to him”. The news about the book coming was released in February 2015 (four years ago!), but since then nothing has been heard about it. It was supposed to be written by Dileo’s business partner Mark Lamica.

    Does anyone know what happened? I remember that Frank Dileo’s computer was cleared of all information (at least all emails) by the AEG experts prior to the beginning of their trial. So if the journals in handwriting really existed they must be very valuable material.

    Mafia planned to murder Michael Jackson, Goodfellas star Frank DiLeo reportedly claimed

    • Jenn Selby
    • Monday 9 February 2015 16:27

    The controversies surrounding Michael Jackson’s life following his sudden death in 2009 have been rich and various.
    But few are as outrageous as the claims currently being made in a book based on the journals and private videos of the King of Pop’s ex-manager, Frank DiLeo.

    DiLeo, who effortlessly took on the role of Tuddy Cicero in Martin Scorsese’s classic mob movie Goodfellas, was in charge of Jackson’s career at the height of his fame in the Eighties.

    He died in 2011 at 63 following the complications of heart surgery. According to the New York Post, DiLeo behind a number of personal accounts and footage, during which he talked about Jackson. The documents have since been compiled into the post-humus biography DiLeo: I Am Going To Set The Record Straight by his former business partner Mark Lamica.

    In it, Lamica writes that DiLeo shared his knowledge of a planned Mafia contract to kill Michael Jackson – and how he managed to stop it from happening.

    DiLeo also spoke extensively about Jackson’s changing appearance.
    Lamica said: “Michael told Frank in a phone call that he couldn’t bear to see his father’s [Joseph Jackson] face when he looked in the mirror.
    “Frank had told him he needed to stop changing his face, because he was becoming unrecognisable to his fans.”
    Lamica also claims the book will include details about his Neverland Ranch deal with Colony Capital and his record label, as well as “naming and shaming” those in the industry DiLeo felt had exploited him.

    The release date for the book is yet to be confirmed.
    A spokesperson for Michael Jackson’s estate is yet to comment on the claims.

    As to whether ‘mafia’ wanted to do away with Michael Jackson physically I don’t know. Actually his well-orchestrated character assassination was no better than murder. It is a slow murder by torture going on for decades and still carried on even after his death.

    Liked by 1 person

  72. January 18, 2019 8:29 am

    This is really a very convincing post, Helena, and I wonder what else is hidden behind the Hollywood curtains.
    Ironically the Sundance festival is now used by exactly the kind of people it probably doesn’t want to support as regards its self-conception. However, the Sundance people have to put up with the reproach that they don’t come up to their own standards.
    Meanwhile there is a lot of new activity going on in the fanbase and that’s great. Hannah Kozak’s post is wonderful.
    There is also this great message that was sent to Sundance by Micheline James:

    And somebody created this new website with a lot of information on the MJ allegations and all the important sources to vindicate Michael:


  73. January 18, 2019 6:34 am

    Wow! Thank you for this. This all makes sense tbh, considering that Harvey Weinstein also used Michael, it was a conspiracy for sure…. Makes me wonder if Frank DiLeo was referencing the Hollywood Mafia when he claimed the Mafia was out to murder MJ? I wish MJ would have never parted ways with Frank or John Branca, because we knew nothing about Michaels life in the 80s and it all went to hell in the 90s. Love reading your posts!

    Liked by 1 person

  74. January 17, 2019 1:52 pm

    “Are you able to send all this to Taj Jackson?” – yakaraman

    Yakaraman, I have no contact with Taj Jackson and will be grateful if you just give him a link to this post – if you think it will help.

    Liked by 2 people

  75. Laura Guerro permalink
    January 17, 2019 2:13 am

    I’ve heard of that film “Leaving Neverland,” and e-mailed Sundance about concerns over the truthfulness of it, and I provided links of truth.

    Liked by 1 person


  3. Vivian Lee, THE "LEAVING NEVERLAND" SCAM: The Conspiracy Against Michael Jackson, Part II - James Fetzer

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: