Skip to content

Episode 095 – MJCast Leaving Neverland Roundtable TRANSCRIPT, part 2

February 9, 2019

This is the second part of episode 095 on the MJCast regarding Dan Reed’s fake documentary and is the continuation of the previous post. The co-hosts of the show are Q and Jamon Bull, and their guests are Charles Thomson and Samar Habib (both speaking from London).

The participants share their stories and give some advice to younger MJ fans on how to cope with the current situation and what’s the best way to deal with the nastiness of it.

The text has been slightly shortened and some ideas of the participants are emphasized. This is a draft copy only, so if there any inaccuracies please don’t hesitate to correct me.

The original tape is here.

“THIS IS A COMPLETE ANTITHESIS OF A CREDIBLE ACCUSATION”

1:15:15 SAMAR: We have to deal with stupidity on a daily basis.

In the conversation I had on the radio that lady referred to the accusers as “incredibly credible”. With everything you know about the allegations, and the timings, and the 25-30 years of defending Michael Jackson, for them to turn around years after he has been killed for a massive civil suit payout and accuse him of things that he can’t defend himself against? It is the complete antithesis of a credible accusation.

Back in 1993 we’ve been through it all before, and the court found Michael Jackson not guilty fourteen times. He was investigated by the biggest, most powerful intelligence agencies in the world. Listening to your telephone calls, having your telephones recorded, the computers searched, video library searched, having your paintings ripped to shreds, having your safes gone through – he’d have to be Batman to get away with what was allegedly going on there.

And then to pull someone who he had apparently been “abusing,” viciously and aggressively, as your first witness against prosecution lawyers who have 10-20 years of experience of prosecuting cases, and putting yourself under that scrutiny and being one of the strongest witnesses for the defense?

It’s preposterous. Honestly, are they doing it deliberately to be as preposterous as possible?

“SHOCK AND AWE ARE THEIR AMMUNITION”

1:17:40 Q: I think there is definitely an element of shock and awe – that is the ammunition. It is shock and awe. They just lull everyone into the false security and believability, and then shock them all.

We’ve been to this in 1993 and then from 2003 to 2005. I think now it is a very different environment. Social media is a juggernaut now. And it’s got its positives and its definite negatives. So it is a different way for the community to cope with this. How did we cope then compared to how we are sort of coping now?

1:18:25 JAMON: Honestly I didn’t cope in 2003 to 2005. I wasn’t a fan in 1993 at all. I knew about Michael Jackson but I was still very young at that point. I became a fan in 2001. I experienced one proper Michael Jackson album launch with ‘Invincible’, and then two years later everything went downhill.

My hero at the time, Michael who I adored – I was seeing in handcuffs on the news, I was seeing hundreds of police cars at his house raiding Neverland, I saw his principal lawyer Mark Geragos leave his defense team, I honestly – and I have to put up my hand here and say, as a newer fan who wasn’t educated with the GQ article and stuff, I honestly did think: “Hang on, is my hero a pedophile here?” It took me until the trial started happening to see – Oh, my God!

At the time I felt like I was on trial along with Michael Jackson, because everybody I was talking to – my friends, my family, everyone talking to me – it was just non-stop “Why do you like a ped-le?”
He was on the front pages of newspapers everywhere. Like Samar earlier said – there was a limited number of TV channels, there was no Twitter, the media had such saturation because everybody was watching the same news outlets.

So for me personally, and I know this is different for everybody, I don’t follow other people on social media and only follow a select few people on my personal Twitter, so for me this time around even though I know it is horrible and the playground is a different, personally for me as a fan in my day-to-day life it doesn’t feel quite as intense. I haven’t had any family, I haven’t had any friends, anyone come to me and say anything about this documentary, whereas in those two years from 2003 to 2005 it was non-stop onslaught.

So what did I do? I had a couple of friends that I would talk to. I would talk with them on the phone about it, learning the evidence on forums. Forums were a big deal for me then and reaching out to other people. That’s how I coped I guess, making connections with Michael Jackson fans at the time.

1:20:55 SAMAR: Back in 1993 I was going through a different phase in my fandom and wasn’t as intensively a MJ fan. Oddly, you felt compelled to speak for the guy in his defense, because he’s given you as a person so much and you know so much about this particular topic, it wouldn’t be fair for you not to use that knowledge and information to help educate people. The journalist fraternity now is deliberately withholding massively relevant information for a skewed presentation of the facts.

Back in 1993 I was going to the university and the only time I would hear about things would be when people from the university would say to me about it, but it didn’t happen that much.

Much more was in 2003-2005 because of the Bashir documentary and the fallout of that, but leading up to the trial the timeline of the allegations was so ridiculous that it was so easily disproved, or easily argued against.

“TO AVOID PERJURING THEMSELVES THEY HAD TO ACCUSE HIM AFTER THE SCANDAL WAS ALL OVER THE WORLD”

The Martin Bashir documentary was in 2003 and then in order to not be found perjuring themselves the Arvizos had to claim that after the scandal was all over front pages and all over the world, only after that Michael Jackson abused Gavin Arvizo.

The timeline was so ridiculous that you had to be stupid to believe that. Apparently in this massive fallout while the whole of Michael’s world was crumbling around him, in order for them to avoid being perjuring themselves, they had to accuse him of abusing Gavin after it had been televised. And when you talked to people about that news and asked them, “Do you think that’s credible? Is that believable to you?”, no one would say that’s credible. They would always think, “That’s really ridiculous and it’s incredible that it actually went to trial.”

These [Robson and Safechuck’s] allegations which are 4 or 5 years old now, are completely uncorroborated, there is no evidence to back any of this information up, and all the journalists are just repeating verbatim what the accusers are saying. As I tweeted on Twitter the other day, “A lie is still a lie even if Oprah Winfrey repeats it. It doesn’t matter who repeats a lie, it will still be a lie and it doesn’t make it any more true.”

So for people to say, “Oh, they are so convincing or Dan Reed is really convincing.” But he would, wouldn’t he, because he made the documentary. If he wants to be convincing get Thomas Mesereau on the documentary, get the witnesses for the defense on the documentary, get Taj to talk about Wade and Jimmy Safechuck, get other people, get Brett Barnes on that. Do that if you are actually interested in the allegations. And Dan Reed said that he isn’t – he is only interested in the stories of these two families.

The MJ Estate lawyer Howard Weitzman addressed HBO on February 7, 2019: “Dan Reed admitted that he never attempted to contact the many other young men and women who spent time with Jackson as children, yet continue to defend him to this very day. HBO’s “documentary” is based solely on the word of two admitted perjurers.”

1:24:20 JAMON: That’s very true. Samar, let’s go back to 2003 to 2005. We have many Michael Jackson fans who are not necessary on social media, or they are newer fans or younger fans. How did you cope?

1:24:40 SAMAR: Up until then I was a fan of 20 years and I was really, really interested in Michael Jackson as a historical figure. I was very interested in him as a person, in him as a cultural icon, so I would read everything, I was a much more voracious reader than now. I used to read everything back then.

And there were websites – I think Smoking Gun was one of the big websites where all of the documents, all legal information was being posted, all leaked intentionally. There was a leak of the settlement, there was another leak of some testimony, Grand jury transcripts were leaked, and then Michael was allowed to give a 2-minute interview as part of his Geraldo interview. It was a 2-minute statement to the camera in response to that and to talk of his rights as a citizen of America to be presumed innocent.

As a fan and a musician I know way too much of libel laws. I know way too much about legalities and the law, about how witnesses are allowed to testify and what defense lawyers are allowed to ask. We had to learn on the fly with Michael Jackson. Keeping yourself informed of the actual facts is very useful, very important.

There was a ‘documentary’ that came upon TV when Michael was still alive – there was a couple of them by Jack Peretti. One was called “Michael Jackson’s boys” which was horrendous one-sided propaganda. And I remember watching it and I watched it with my wife and at the end of it she turned to me and said: “That’s really bad, isn’t it?”

And I looked at her and thought, where would she be if she knew who she was talking about. Victor Gutierrez is one of the guys interviewed in the car and Diane Dimond is also interviewed – all the shadiest characters of the Michael Jackson story are interviewed on there.

There is even a scene where Jack Peretti talked about this “long-lost home video film Michael had made” and it is Ghosts. But the way it is presented in the documentary, with really grainy footage that looks really old, like it is on VHS, and I am watching it and thinking – this is a film released and premiered at Cannes, and he presented it like “we stumbled upon this mysterious footage”, and it is so misleading and so unbelievable to watch.

My wife knows how I feel about all these things and how much I know about it, but she still turned to me and said: “That’s really bad, isn’t it?” and that was really scary. Because there are households who will not have any information about Michael Jackson, and they will watch this and they will believe every single thing. They think that Victor Gutierrez is a very “credible” witness who just happens to say all that in a dark car late at night in a Hollywood boulevard…

1:28:35 JAMON: (laughter) Well said. Now Charlie, I am going to take you back to 2003-2005. We have younger fans who are listening to this show and I want them to hear from you, what did you do? How did you get through at the time?

1:28:50 CHARLES: In November 2003 I was fifteen and was in secondary school. That was devastating because at school it was not cool when I was a kid to be a Michael Jackson fan. Because we already had had so much bullshit like the baby-dangling scandal and then the Bashir documentary. So everybody in the school knew if you were a Michael Jackson fan. That made you somewhat of an object of ridicule.

And then the ranch got raided. We as fans didn’t really know what was going on. At that point it was very hard to answer people. You just had people constantly taking the piss or asking you questions, coming to you as a Michael Jackson guy at school and asking you stuff. And I found it extremely depressing and also quite stressful, and I had like this permanent feeling of doom in my stomach which was constantly like I was going over a roller coaster, and it felt awful.

And so what I did was – I took a step back throughout most of 2004. I just did not engage with the fan community at all and thought, let’s just see what happens. And then I came back to the community in January 2005 when the court hearings started happening and I can’t remember exactly how the transcripts were making their way online but I can only imagine it was a collective of fans who were collecting donations and paying the court reporters. Somehow every day online you would get access to yesterday’s transcript.

I was on the forum at the time called KOP, King of Pop forum, and so I was going there every day and reading the transcripts. And it wasn’t long into the trial before [I said] – Wait a minute, it’s so fucking bullshit! So I started to feel better once the trial got under way. Of course verdict day was very very nerve-wrecking. So this is how I coped. I just took a break and then came back reading the evidence on a daily basis.

1:31:30 JAMON: And that’s interesting you say that. There are people that take a step back and there are people who need to remove themselves from the community for a while. It’s not necessarily that those people think Michael guilty – it’s because this can feel so overwhelming mentally to process all this negativity and hate, that sometimes you do need to remove, reset, research, remember those facts and then come back to it fresh. So I think that is actually a really good perspective as we are watching this online, on Twitter, we are seeing these prominent people in the community. If they are taking a little break and keep quiet, it doesn’t necessarily mean [anything]. So that’s really a good thought, Charlie, thank you.

Now Q, you were a fan even in 1993. You became a fan in the Dangerous era. I don’t know whether you were too young of a fan at that point to know of everything that was going on there, but can you talk to us about how you coped through the allegations?

1:32:35 Q: I remember when the 1993 allegations first broke my mum had read a small piece in the Star about what was starting to happen and she said: “Oh, there is something in the paper today and I just want you to know that just because it’s in the paper it doesn’t mean that it is true. And that you shouldn’t always believe what you read. You should research information when it’s more available.” I always remember that.

So that was 1993, I was in early high school. It was not fun, it was not great. But back then it was really just what was reported in the paper and I think the media back then in the 90s was a bit more balanced, there were the Hard Copies, there was the tabloid media, TV and magazines, but then there was the media that was respected, journalists were real journalists and did their job, and presented both sides of the stories, and facts and evidence. And it was with that in the 90s that I could go to school and say, “Yes, sure, that’s been said, but have you heard the phone-calls that were recorded” where money was demanded and this is clearly an extortion attempt that’d just gotten way out of hand?

Obviously, since then it’s been a lot easier to get access to information when this 2003-2005 thing started. Before the trial – when it was just the charges and the arrest and the media was not quite as balanced I made things like T-shirts in a top toxic font in my stencil that said Jackson Is Innocent and I would wear that in my lunch breaks at work when I was walking through the shopping mall to get lunch, I would wear that on the weekend, when I went out so that people could stop and ask me and I’d be able to talk to them about it.

I organized, not very successfully, but I did organize a march for fans in Perth where I lived in. It was the 25th of January, 2004. I got a police permit, I organized a march, I did get interviewed by one radio station thankfully because that let like two people know about it and come along. I had some banners, I had some fact sheets that we could hand out. A page with truth about Michael Jackson allegations. It got Myth – Fact, Myth – Fact at the top, and then I got information on the new accusers, on the investigators and a couple of paragraphs about Tom Sneddon. And that is how I fought back then.

Sure the march was like 60 people, it was literally just a handful of us. My little march was the basis of a political cartoon where there was one lone politician holding a sign [on a different issue] and making fun of me as a sole Michael Jackson fan during that Michael Jackson support march.

So back then that’s what I did. And I think I can see echoes of that now and think it is essential that fans look at this from a common sense perspective – they are presenting their film with no evidence and no facts because they don’t have any.

Sure it is making a horrendous splash, a tsunami of negativity. When this is released worldwide, that is when it’s going to be the full force of this. But we have facts, we have evidence, we have so much information. We have access to it now and that is what we need to present.

These people can be discredited. And that will be a very essential aspect of it. We can discredit them because they are not credible. We can present facts and evidence. I can share a link right now to decades of files that the FBI had on Michael Jackson through their investigation. We didn’t have it back then and we’ve got that now. And what is in those files? Everything shows they found NOTHING. And they searched everything. If there’s a criminal that can hide evidence that deeply from the FBI, what the hell? What kind of person is that?

1:38:50 SAMAR: Yes, we are finding now that there are very senior politicians in America who have fallen [due to] files of the FBI and secret services. So the notion that Michael Jackson as the most famous person in the world could somehow avoid any sort of evidence is [ludicrous]

It reminds me that the very first time his house was raided he was out of the country. It was so well timed and planned, they could have access to everything while he wasn’t there and they were able to flout the law and look into parts of his house where they were not allowed to look. And found nothing that the jury could convict him on. Nothing.

So when the “documentary” hits it is going to hurt and we’ve got to prepare ourselves for it. Facts are important.

1:39:45 JAMON: So how do we prepare ourselves for that?

SAMAR: You have to prepare your mindset that it is going to hurt us and is going to be damaging. Simple. You’ve got to accept that.

How Taj stays goodnatured I have no idea because I am really upset. He’s got like the wings in a Batman cartoon, like a shield of steel…. How can you remain so goodhumored and kind of calm and reserved when I am furious, and I know Charles is being furious, and I know other fans are?

But what he said is quite interesting. This will bring attention to the allegations and what that means is that when it comes to countering those allegations, when it comes to talking about facts and evidence, people will be in heightened interest. People will be more interested in listening. So we’ve got to count on that and hope for that, but we also have to accept that it is going to be damaging in the short term.

1:40:50 Q: We need to accept that. We can present facts and some people won’t listen and then you know what? MOVE ON. Because there are other people that will listen.

1:41:00 SAMAR: Yes, exactly. And also you know, we’ve seen it today on my Twitter when I challenged a journalist to defend her article online and she just mockingly subtweeted me, she didn’t respond to any of the questions I asked because they can’t defend their positions. And that’s going to be a problem for them.

“LEAVE IT ON HER DOORSTEP AND ANYONE WALKING PAST IS GOING TO SEE IT”

1:41:30 Q: In that scenario I’m trying not to engage with a lot of those people but when I have to I am going in because it is their public profile and any reply that a person replies on Twitter will be seen by anyone looking at those replies and comments.

So I’ve just gone in and I’ve just dropped the links – here you go, here are the FBI files, here are the court transcripts, whatever links I had that were pertinent to whatever I was saying I just dropped them in there and left. Because some of those replies are getting a big attraction, getting a lot of shares. And if that lady is not taking you seriously you can just leave it on her doorstep and anyone walking past is going to see it. So that’s one way.

1:42:25 SAMAR: Exactly. And also I should say one thing to Michael Jackson fans On the social media, who are genuine fans and there are plenty who have been tweeting me this week with really intelligent, articular arguments but with Peter Pan or King of Pop as their avatar – we need to present ourselves as intelligent human beings as opposed to sycophants and caricatures which is what they portray us.

It was difficult for Marina Hyde to respond to me because I am a professional. She can see my name, she knows who I am. I communicate with real human beings on Twitter, and I’ve worked on major Michael Jackson projects. It wasn’t easy for her to come back to me because I wasn’t the caricature she was trying to describe me as. So it is very important, I think, for Michael Jackson fans if they have the courage of their convictions to put their face and name to their views, because otherwise no one is going to take them seriously.

“DRESSED IN THEIR FINEST”

1:43:45 Q: That is such a good point. Thank you so much. Charles, back in the 1940s and 1950s when civil rights were starting, especially black civil rights and later on, maybe gay civil rights, protesting back then people dressed in their finest. They had signs, but they weren’t hysterical signs, they weren’t alarmist. They were fact-based signs pointing out what civil rights needed to be fixed and how they could be fixed. And people had to take them seriously. Women’s rights, when that was starting up – people were wearing their finest clothes, their professional attire, and they would protest in that in their professional way. Charles, that would benefit us now, wouldn’t it?

1:45:00 CHARLES: Oh, for sure. I mean to present ourselves as professionals, intelligent people whose entire lives do not revolve around Michael Jackson is quite important. I think that none of these motherfuckers will engage with me because when they look at my Twitter bio, it’s just a list of journalism awards.

I think with my Twitter bio they can’t argue with me, so Marina Hyde and all these people will not engage with me. I think it is important for fans to follow that model. You know, do not have a picture of Michael, particularly the ones like Michael on a roller-coaster with a kid or something and the name like “Neverlandgirl796”

Q: There is time and place for that, and this isn’t the time.

“MAKE A STRONG, FACTUAL ARGUMENT”

CHARLES: No, no. And also, a lot of fans make bad arguments. They make arguments like “Michael gave $500,000 to charity and you want to call him a child molester”. Well, Jimmy Saville gave money to charity. Giving money to charity does not mean that you are innocent. Michael’s work on charity is of no relevance.

Or “if you want to know who Michael was just listen to his songs” – it is just the waste of time. You need to make a strong, factual argument which is pertinent to the matter at hand.

What’s important as well is to keep in mind one more issue – you cannot prove a negative. We cannot prove that Michael did not molest Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck, because it is very difficult to prove any negative. I can prove the positive. So somebody says to me: “You’ve never been to the Grand Canyon”. And I say: “Yes, I have” and then I can produce a photograph of myself at the Grand Canyon. But if I am trying to prove that I’ve not been to the Grand Canyon, how do I do that? I could not show somebody a photo of myself not being at the Grand Canyon.

So there is no point in trying to prove what we can’t prove. We must not say that we can prove that these claims are false, because that will be bogus. So what we have to do is we have to shift the burden of proof back on the people that are making the claim.

“IF YOU MAKE A CLAIM YOU HAVE TO BRING EVIDENCE”

If you are making an extraordinary claim then you have to bring evidence. And when you watch this film every single time one of these guys makes an allegation, the viewers need to be asking themselves what evidence is being presented to me here which corroborates this story?

And if no evidence is being presented you can’t accept that, particularly when you know that Wade Robson said in one court case in 2005 that Michael did not abuse him and then he says in his own court case from 2013 that Michael did abuse him, so he’s told two different stories under oath.

“WHICHEVER VERSION OF THE STORY YOU BELIEVE HE IS STILL A PERJURER”

Even if you are minded to believe that Michael is guilty you have to acknowledge that he has told two contradictory stories under oath, and only one of the stories can be true. Which means he is a perjurer. It doesn’t matter which version of the story you believe, whichever version of the story you believe he is a perjurer.

“ARE YOU PREPARED TO STAKE YOUR BELIEF ON A WORD OF A LIAR?”

And then you have to ask somebody – Are you prepared to stake your belief on a word of somebody that you know to be a liar and a perjurer? If somebody’s answer to that question is yes, then they are a fucking idiot. So there is no point in even engaging with that person. You have to take a very rational, fact-based and logic-based approach to deal with these people.

“IT YOU TELL ME THEY ARE CREDIBLE,YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY ARE CREDIBLE”

And also be aware of what you can prove and what you can’t prove, and where the burden is for the other side. If you are going to tell me that these guys are credible you need to explain why they are credible. And saying that their stories are graphic (laughter)…. a graphic story is not necessarily a credible story. There is a long, long history of fake child abuse allegations which were very very detailed and graphic, which I could list if you want me to.

It happens all the time. People make detailed, fake allegations all the time. So saying it was graphic and detailed again is not a good argument, so you have to recognize the bad arguments and know what questions to ask.

1:51:10 Q: Thank you so much, Charles. That’s why I ask you these questions.

“THE HASHTAG HAS TO BE OURS”

SAMAR: I’m assuming there will be a hashtag when it goes on Channel 4 or HBO in America. We have to take over the hashtag with facts and evidence, that hashtag has to be ours. The truth has to be exposed any time they say anything about abuse.

If Wade is going to say “he wasn’t aware what abuse was”– well, that’s not what he was asked in court. You weren’t asked whether you were abused, you were asked if you were touched in a particular place.

You didn’t know where your leg was? You didn’t know where your backside was? Where your head was?
Thomas Mesearau was asking him, “Has Michael touched you here? Has he touched you there? Has anyone influenced you to answer in these particular ways?” And he said, “No, no one influenced me.”

And he said that under oath. All that has to be under the hashtag, so that everyone can read it. Ultimately the truth will come out and this is how it will come out.

1:52:35 Q: That hashtag statement is such a good point. I’ve been in discussion with some people about hashtags and they said, no, we can’t amplify the hashtag because it will give them more publicity and I’m like, that’s not the aim of using the hashtag. The use of hashtag is to put awareness out there on reality. You can piggyback on that and take it over. What we need to do is use their own words against them because that’s all I’ve got.

“IT’S THEIR WORD AGAINST THEIR WORD UNDER OATH”

1:53:05 SAMAR: And also, people say that it is their word against Michael’s word.

But it’s not their word against Michael’s word. It’s their word against their word under oath. It is their word for 1,5 billion dollars versus their word under oath for nothing, for no financial motive, no financial gain.

“HOW DO YOU PICK AND CHOOSE WHEN TO BELIEVE THEM?”

1:52:35 CHARLES: When you were on the BBC and that silly cow was saying “we have to believe victims” – it’s like, Wait a minute, how do you pick and choose when to believe them? Why do you believe them now but you don’t believe them in 2005?

It’s all very well to say “believe the victim”. But we do believe the “victims”, we just believe them fifteen years ago rather than today. When there was no motive.

“WHICH VERSION IS MORE CREDIBLE – FOR $1,5 BILLION or FOR NO MONEY?”

And to say that they looked “incredibly credible”? Are they more credible when there are looking for #1,5 billion dollars than when they were testifying for no money of their own volition? It just doesn’t make any sense.

“WHICH VERSION OF THEIR MULTIPLE CONTRADICTORY STORIES YOU BELIEVE IN?”

This “believe the victim” bullshit doesn’t even make any sense. You are picking and choosing which version of them you believe in. It’s just nuts.

If we’ve got to believe them they are telling multiple contradictory stories! Even within the context of their own lawsuit, like Wade’s timeline has changed so many times – so which version are you believing?

If I am to believe Wade Robson that means that I’m currently believing multiple contradictory versions of the same story. So how am I deciding which version I am to believe? This “we must believe them” is all nonsense.

The Evolution of Wade Robson’s Lies (sample)

 

“IT IS JUST ABOUT DEMANDING SCALPS”

CHARLES: The really damaging thing is the context in which this is happening compared to previous cases. In terms of 1993 and 2005 they did not happen within the context of #MeToo and #TimesUp. That is really very damaging because we do have right now a huge movement towards ignoring the burden of proof, ignoring the presumption of innocence, and simply assuming that any allegation against anyone is true.

In fact, anybody who says, “Where is the evidence?” immediately is like “You are victim blamer”, “You are a pedophile apologist”, “You are gaslighting a victim”, whatever.

So it is a really ugly era we are living through, where it is just about demanding scalps. And we’ve seen it with #MeToo – that guy, the British actor Ed Westwick. He lost multiple jobs and he was completely cleared and there’s been no apology. The #MeToo movement, I’m sure, still insists that he must have done it and we see it time and again. We saw it with the “YewTree” here in the UK, when people lost work and that guy that was completely cleared – even the judge said a disgusting thing after which he should be removed from his post. After the verdict came and he was cleared, the judge said from the bench: “You’ve been declared not guilty, but it doesn’t mean that you didn’t do it,” which is just outrageous.

So it is a terrible climate we are living through. People will be a lot more inclined to believe these allegations than they would have been in previous years. So there is a lot of job ahead of us.

I think another thing we need to do is just make sure that fans are prepared for how bad this is going to be, because I really think that this is going to be worse than 1993. It’s going to be worse than 2005. Emotionally this is going to be more like June 2009, and in fact I’ve got a text message from a fan and friend the other day who said: “I feel like Michael just died all over again.”

This is going to be absolutely devastating, so fans do need to do whatever they can to mentally prepare themselves because this is going to be really really tough. It’s going to be the hardest [thing] we’ve ever fought as a community. Fans should gear themselves up.

1:58:35 JAMON: Every one of us in our daily lives will have people around us talk to us and say:” Why do you support a ped-le?” We faced that. So I want to ask a couple of you now and I’ll start with Q.
for tips for fans listening out there. Someone came up to you and said: “Why don’t you trust Wade Robson? Have you seen the documentary that just came out?” What will you say to them in a succinct way?

1:59:05 Q: First I would say: Why would you think I would support someone that did that to a child? Such a heinous and disgusting crime to a defenseless child? First I would be offended that they would think that I’m the type of person that could condone such behavior.

I’ll put that back on them and I reckon at that point they’ll be a bit shocked, because they think that we are just blindly supporting him as fans and lovers of his music, his videos and his dancing. And I am saying now, if there was evidence (which there isn’t) of a crime committed like this, I wouldn’t be here. Because why would I support a person that would do something like that?

After that I would point out that this guy is unreliable, his story has changed every couple of months and the back story about Wade’s specifics is that after his career crumbled he had a breakdown, he lost the job directing a Step-up sequel, he didn’t get the Cirque du Soleil job, he then started the allegations and shopped a book around, no publishers picked up the book (the timeline in that book proposal was completely different). After 2012 and the second breakdown and the book deal didn’t happen then he filed a probate case in 2013 (that was dismissed in May 2015) and then Robson, Safechuck and a female filed a civil lawsuit parallel to the probate case. The female’s case was dismissed very early on and then Safechuck’s and Robson’s cases were dismissed in 2017. They were dismissed.

And then to bring in Safechuck. His stories are based on a book by Victor Gutierrez who lost a slander suit against Michael for millions in 1998.

Howard Weitzman’s letter to HBO detailing that Safechuck didn’t “realize” that he had been “abused” until he saw Robson on TV in May 2013

Also why would a person ‘committing’ these crimes then bring someone that he’s been ‘raping’ and ‘abusing’ for many many years, why would he then let that person be the lead witness in a trial against him for those exact crimes? How absurd would you have to be to do something like that?

He supported Michael under oath in that trial and like someone said, the questioning was not generic questioning – they were very very specific, clear questions that he answered. Very matter-of-factly, very clearly stated and just as the questions were asked he answered them all. That was all under oath.

2:02:30 JAMON: I want to ask someone of you, what if someone came up to you on the street and say, “Do you think Michael Jackson is a ped-le?” How would you respond to them in a succinct way?

2:02:45 SAMAR: Well, honestly I had this conversation this morning with Charlie and I said that that is really ugly. [..] We believe the kids that grew up with Michael for years, years and years. Taj, Randy, TJ, Macaulay Culkin, Corey Feldman – people who have intimate knowledge of him. And we have to believe that all of them lived different lives compared to the kids who are making the allegations now?

There was one interesting interview that was carried out after the 2005 child molestation trial where Michael was vindicated and it is with Frank Dileo. He was sitting outside the court case and he said, “You know, this clears Michael not only from the allegations of 2005 but from the allegations in 1993 with all the evidence presented to the jury and they still didn’t find it credible.

People will say that Jordie Chandler’s mom was paid off… No, June Chandler was able to testify in 2005 and the jury did not believe her. So he effectively was tried for that allegation and the jury didn’t find it against him. And what more can you do if you are tried and found innocent in your lifetime. You cannot be prosecuted and tried after your death – that’s a very very dangerous precedent.

It wasn’t a “reasonable doubt” case. Thomas Mesereau asked the jury to acquit Michael if the defense team proved him INNOCENT. And he did exactly that. Recently the several jurors were re-interviewed and agreed they would still acquit Jackson today (from Howard Weitzman’s letter to HBO)

2:05:35 JAMON: Yeah, and Charlie, how you do respond in a succinct way?

2:05:50 CHARLES: My response would be: I believe absolutely in the principle that unless you can prove beyond the reasonable doubt that somebody is guilty of a crime that is immoral and offensively wrong to accuse him of that crime or to suggest or say they are guilty of that crime.

I would say then that I’ve scrutinized all the evidence in the public domain regarding these allegations and there never has been a claim which met the burden of proof, which would require me to consider it as valid or believable. In fact, every claim which was brought against Michael Jackson has been extremely dubious, the doubt was not only reasonable but overwhelming.

You have a 1993 case where two Grand Juries refused to bring an indictment because the case was so weak and that 1993 case is the blueprint for every other case which came afterwards. So it all sprang from a case so weak that they couldn’t get an indictment from a Grand Jury [though] in America you will indict a ham sandwich. So the idea that there was any merit to the case given that it was rejected by two separate Grand Juries is just ludicrous.

“IT IS ALL FRUIT OF A POISONED TREE”

And every subsequent allegation is the love child of that allegation. There was never an allegation made before that. So it is all fruit of a poisoned tree, that all stems from a feeble allegation that a prosecutor couldn’t get a Grand Jury to hand a charge down on. And then you take every subsequent allegation and scrutinize the evidence and again the evidential threshold is never met for a conviction or even close.

And the new allegations are among the stupidest they’ve ever made – with their constantly changing timeline, the contradictory timeline that doesn’t make any sense.

There’s nothing there which is compelling, nothing there which is credible. And there is nothing there which would come even close to meeting the burden of proof. So some people might be comfortable with assuming that someone is guilty without proof beyond the reasonable doubt. But I am not.

There is NOTHING credible there. Dan Reed: They were kept apart so they couldn’t exchange stories. Sundace was the first place that they’d met. Wade Robson’s deposition: When was the last time you spoke to James Safechuck? Answer: I believe the last time was in early 2014.

 

2:09:10 JAMON: Would you bother in a brief conversation like this, in a lunch room, next to a water cooler, would you get into the detail of the evidence? Would you talk about “Evan Chandler was recorded saying bla-bla-bla?” What do you think?

2:09:20 CHARLES: Oh, no, it will depend on what the question was. If the question was, “Is he a ped-le?” or “Do you think he is guilty?” then I would just say No, because there is no evidence that meets the standard. Therefore it’s wrong to assume that he did it.

If they wanted to talk specifics of course I could do that the whole day and the next day, but that will probably be suicidal for them.

2:10:00 JAMON Thank you, guys, for your answers. I think that’s going to be useful for fans listening out there when we get into conversations in the next month or two and how we handle those conversations.

One last topic before we wrap up the show is around some tips on how to be alive when this is going on. Because this is going to be hard, there is no doubt about that. When this hits TV, streaming services – yes, it is going to be bad. So what do we do? What can we do not to make ourselves fall into the trap of never-ending cycle of negativity and being depressed and that sort of thing?

“SURROUND YOURSELF WITH PEOPLE WHO THINK DEEPLY AND CRITICALLY”

JAMON: I’ve got a couple of tips. One of them for me is like choosing who you talk to and who you do actually interact with in your life and on Twitter. There is one type of fan and there is another type of fan. And one thing I’ve done in my own appreciation of Michael Jackson is make the conscious effort to surround myself with people who think really deeply and critically about Michael Jackson and look at the facts and the evidence and don’t just watch “Michael in gold pants” non-stop all day on their TV. But also choosing people that have a balanced life as my friends, and also have one myself.

“HAVE A BROAD LIFE THAT ISN’T ALL ABOUT MJ”

JAMON: So [not only] listening to Michael Jackson and watching Michael Jackson, and loving Michael Jackson, but reading other books, watching lots of different movies, engaging in lots of other activities, focusing on my family, focusing on my work and having a broad life that isn’t all about Michael Jackson.

That’s different to what I did when I was a kid in school dealing with the allegations – all my world was Michael Jackson at that point. It is broadening myself and surrounding myself with different kind of people that has allowed me to go through times of allegations and things like that in a more balanced way. What about you guys?

2:12:30 SAMAR: That was very good. The family is very important. Having real social interactions with real people is very healthy. It’s very healthy to detach yourself from social media every now and again. I haven’t been on Facebook for two years and I am only on Twitter now. I’m involved in other stuff, I go to the gym, I go to a boxing gym, I do yoga, I go to a Sufi circle where we meditate and I’m very deeply into spiritual holistic practices and it detaches you from the world and your troubles and stresses. It is just some time to detach yourself from wordliness. There are people who do it by climbing mountains, there are people who do it by sliding for 24 miles a day, removing themselves from the stresses. It just helps them to recharge the batteries.

The Jackson family are an incredible model of how to not let the world get you down. Like I said, Taj is the most goodnatured of all of us here, he is the calmest guy in the room. They keep themselves active and spiritually nourished. And they are a very good model as to how to not let the stresses get you down. Janet Jackson – she performed last night, she performed Scream with her brother’s video behind her. And where I’m pulling my hair she is able to dance. Miraculously, to be honest.

And also being aware of your responsibilities. I said to Taj prior to the session that we are the fans who lived during Michael Jackson’s life and we are not going to be here forever, so we have a responsibility as people who were there and saw all of it unfolding in front of us to spread what we know.

So, for example, when Marina Hyde posts an ignorant, ill-informed article to millions of readers on the Guardian, it’s important for us, the people who know, to correct her and do it politely and do it in good faith and hopefully people will listen.

2:17:00 JAMON: How do you, Charlie, recommend to people to balance wanting to fight for Michael, but also not to be dragged into negativity and being depressed?

2:17:10 CHARLES: I was so lost last Saturday, I had plans to spend all day working on a important project and instead I spent about 15 hours on Twitter, so I am positively not the best person to be advising (laughter). Hence I was so mentally drained by the end of that day that I had to come off Twitter for the next 48 hours, because it was just exhausting.

Basically I am not reading What anyone sends me, so in terms of tweets, if people are tweeting me I’ll read it, but I’ll skim a lot of fucking stuff coming. On top of that I’m getting emails from people I’ve never heard of, like every day and I just can’t engage with all that, because then I won’t have anything done and they will consume my whole life. So I am putting messages out there, but I’m ignoring what’s going back for the most part because it’s like a full-time job and I just can’t do that.

In terms of how to escape I am not quite as active as Sam. I do have a great circle of friends. I see my friends often but the number one thing I am doing at the moment is focusing on putting the messages out that I think will be beneficial but not get involved in tit for tat back and forth.

That day when I lost 15 hours I was involved in an endless back-and-forth with this complete idiot. He used to be famous in England, called Tom Jolly [name requires clarification] and then another idiot called David McDeal [name requires clarification], who also used to be famous in England.

I am avoiding it now, am not involving myself in tit for tat. If I do message any of these journalists which I do quite often to embarrass them, they will not come back to me because they know they can’t win.

2:20:15 SAMAR: I find it quite difficult to talk to people in the mainstream media, but you are an actual journalist and you are going up against the ignorant well-known and ugly well-respected people writing for big publications. And you really put yourself on the line, so I have a lot of respect for what you do in terms of challenging your colleagues, your fellow journalists and being brave enough to do the risk. Because there is a risk and people should understand that there is a risk to do this.

2:21:25 CHARLES: Oh yes, there is a massive risk. It can impede my career, but when I have to ask myself whether I would want to work with the kind of people who are involved in what’s going on now, the answer is NO. So why should I come and work for you because you are *****? Fuck them.

2:22:00 JAMON: Thanks for that, wonderful advice (laughter).

And Q, you are running the MJCast social media and you are getting hit with hundreds of messages around this crap every day. So hat off to you for navigating all that for all day, but what are your tips on how you balance it, wanting to fight for MJ, to defend MJ and also not getting dragged into this constant negativity and depression around it?

“THEY ARE THE FLAT EARTHERS”

2:22:30 Q: Some days I think that I am doing a good job at that, and other days I think I am not doing a great job of balancing it at all, because it is exhausting and it is this crashing feeling on my shoulders that I haven’t felt for years since the last time we’ve been doing it. I think in a way when I am actively campaigning against this is helping me. That is like one of my outlets and I think the way you’ll have to do it has to be a constructive way that will have an effect. So for me it is trying to get the message out there that these people can be discredited because they are the fake moonlanders, they are the flat earthers, they are the crazy ones in this because they don’t have truth, facts and evidence on their side. They just got claims and very very unreliable claims. So my avenue is just to get the evidence out there and show they are the flat earthers and the fake moonlanders in this.

So outside of the social media which does take hours every day I just have to say – I’m done for the day online and I am going to take some time for myself and will do my own social media which is days behind because I’m never on there at the moment.

Focusing on work. Luckily I have the job that I love and this is the stuff I have to keep in the forefront of my mind constantly – like safety stuff, emergency procedures, medical knowledge and stuff like that. So keeping focused on work is a good distraction. You can distract yourself with work, especially if you enjoy it.

And the time out there – yes, that’s where I am struggling at the moment, trying to pull myself outside of that and do stuff for myself. The point is to doing things in real life, especially with friends in real life. Talking to my friend Paul for two hours was really very helpful. Or like meeting my Perth MJ friends in the coming week – this is going to be a good support, seeing each other in real life and seeing where we are going and maybe make sure that we have the right focus and the right ammunition for this, and doing it actually in real life as well as online. But some days I am struggling to find the balance still because it is an awful, awful feeling.

But I think this episode is going to help in many ways. Firstly, we need to get the word out about Taj’s GoFundMe. We need to support it if we can, and if we can’t – find people who can support it by sharing the news. Secondly, focusing on what we have on our side which is the facts and the evidence, because we heard from Marcos who saw the film – they don’t have that at all. they’ve just have the shock and the awe campaign.

And thirdly, listeners of this show, hearing from us who are fans and those who have seen the film and Taj of course, and hearing about how we have dealt with it in the past and how we are going to do it now is also going to be a huge benefit to people.

And with that I want to say thank you, Charlie, who is sick now but I hope will get better soon and I hope will join us.

CHARLES: That’ s no problem.

Q: Samar, it was great to talk to you again and to hear your insight, perspective and knowledge and thank you for all you are doing and thank you for your time late, late tonight.

SAMAR: Bless you, honestly, after the BBC thing today it was nice to be coming to friends. Thank you very much.

Q: And thank you Jamon. Thank you for your time and helping to put this together.

We’ve given you some advice and the road map. I do think it will help a lot of people in a number of ways. As a fan and friend, thank you all for contributing to this and I wish everyone strength and positivity. Stay on focus with the facts and the evidence. We can turn the tide.

UPDATE Feb.11, 2019

On the spur of the moment I decided to share with you my methods of surving when you feel that you are surrounded by lies all around you. My experience in having to cope with lies (in a different matter) has taught me several valuable lessons.

1) As soon as I see a TV channel airing an obvious lie at least once and never retracting it even when it is a proven lie, I believe nothing of what they say and stop watching this TV channel altogether. The same goes for newspapers.

2) If all channels and all newspapers lie, so much the better – you stop watching TV or reading the press and derive information only from the web, from the sources that have proven themselves to be trustworthy (this will take some time as you need to sort out who is who).

3) This way you don’t waste your time on their trash, don’t get too depressed and also know that you are not missing anything at all. At this point a certain calm is already setting in your head.

4) You don’t engage with people online who force on you their agenda – it is useless and even harmful as it only gives them clicks. A huge part of them are trolls and the other part are useful idiots who are totally ignorant on the subject. Of course you can tell them to have a look at some links, but in the circumstances when your comments are deleted by the moderators of those websites, this opportunity is also closed to you.

5) If, as a result of such moderation, you see only negative comments it doesn’t mean that every reader thinks that way – the only thing it means is that they are creating the impression of ‘unity’ over a certain subject. And this is another reason why you shouldn’t go there and participate. Or even read them in the first place.

6) However it doesn’t mean that you never talk to anyone. You do, but only if these people are really interested and want to listen. And are critically minded. Otherwise the whole dispute will bring you nothing but frustration.

7) Be patient to wait for the scum press or TV to reveal their true worth. Little by little people will grow tired of their propaganda and it is then that they will start looking for other sources of information.

8) So there should be other sources of information. Therefore, when it comes to Michael Jackson, we need to go on doing research, revealing the truth and act almost like nothing is happening.

Just do what you need to do and let things take care of themselves.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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: