Skip to content

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW before watching ‘Leaving Neverland’

February 19, 2019

When you hear reviews of the “Leaving Neverland” film all they tell you is that the two guys are “incredibly credible”, the film is “powerful”, and their only reply to your questions about its objectivity is “watch the film first.” This makes you realize that this movie relies solely on people’s emotions meant to outweigh the voice of reason and inconvenient questions like “Where is the evidence?” and “Why should we believe their current and not previous opposite version?”

Indeed, when emotions are involved it doesn’t really matter that it is a one-sided story and the film is no real journalism. It doesn’t matter that the filmmaker Dan Reed didn’t attempt to hear the other side or do even minimal research, and that it is the twelveth version of their story that you currently hear. When you see someone’s tears and emotions what other evidence do you need? The struggles of those guys look so real, that it will not even occur to viewers to doubt them.

No one will recall that Michael Jackson was also friends with an AIDS victim Ryan White for whom Michael bought a car and with whom he purposefully took a jacuzzi in order to boost the boy’s self-esteem and reassure him that at least Michael Jackson didn’t consider him a pariah.

Ryan White and Michael Jackson

No one will recall his other friend, a heavily scarred boy Dave Dave burnt be kerosene by his own father and whose face was so painful a sight that only Michael was capable of kissing and hugging the boy.

Michael Jackson and Dave Dave, a burn victim

The problem is that when you watch a four-hour fantasy saga, say The Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings, you forget everything else. The powerful story takes you away into its imaginary world, after which its scenes and characters imprint in your memory so hard that they look almost real. Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson will be forever remembered as Harry Potter and Hermione though some may forget their real names and some will think they never had any.

The movies hypnotic ability to grip your mind greatly assisted Robson and Safechuck in playing their role of “victims” which was also enhanced by the film non-conventional presentation at the Sundance festival. I hear there was a violin playing when the two characters came on stage… A violin, guys, which accompanied their story from a so-called documentary though even the name of this genre suggests that it should be based solely on document and fact.

However it is exactly fact which this documentary lacks. What it presents is the tales of two guys who changed their stories into their opposites and who are now shedding tears worth a hundred million each (the sums wanted by them from the MJ Estate) as well as complex emotions of their relatives who initially believed their first version and now no longer know what to believe.

In 2011 Wade Robson was still imploring Cirque du Soleil to give him the job of directing the Michael Jackson tribute show, saying: ”I am passionate to do this show. I want to make it amazing for me, for you, for Cirque and of course, for Michael

Robson's email to Cirque du Soleil, 2011

Robson’s email to Cirque du Soleil imploring to let him direct the Michael Jackson tribute show. “I am passionate to do this show. I want to make it amazing for me, for you, the Cirque and of course, for Michael”

However as soon as the job went to another director his story made a U-turn and in 2012 Robson was already offering to publishers a book portraying MJ as a monster. When no one accepted the book (they say he demanded too big a fee) he filed a lawsuit for hundreds of millions in 2013 and even since that moment his story has been amended at least three more times.

The emails sent to his mother tell us of a long and winding road his tale has taken. It began at a point when he didn’t remember a thing and asked his mother dozens of questions why, how and when and ended by him remembering every minute of it in its most disgusting detail.

He claimed that his memory “evolved”, but even if we believe this pseudo science phenomenon it still didn’t prevent him from including into his story the old media lies to which even his mother replied: “Wow, none of it is true”.

And we are not even going into the absurdity of him been “raped but not realizing that it was sexual abuse”. Back in 2005 at the age of 23 he was asked simple questions whether he was ever touched, and he laughed off the whole idea of it – so telling us now that he “didn’t realize” and “thought it was consensual love” and had to “live in fear” because of his secret is no use.

As a quick recap here are just a few quotes from his then testimony showing how easy and relaxed this intimidated “victim” was:

Q. Mr. Robson, did Michael Jackson ever touch you in a sexual way?

A. Never, no. 

~

Q. And at no time has any sexual contact ever occurred between you and Mr. Jackson, right?

A. Never. 

Q. Has anything inappropriate ever happened in any shower with you and Mr. Jackson?

A. No. Never been in a shower with him. 

~

Q. You’ve been following these reports that somehow Mr. Jackson was seen inappropriately touching you?

A. Yes.

Q. What do you think of them?

A. I think it’s ridiculous. 

~

A.  I’m telling you that nothing ever happened.

Q.  Mr. Robson, when you were asleep, you wouldn’t have known what had happened, particularly at age seven, would you have?

A.  I would think something like that would wake me up.

~

Q. When you were a young child, did Michael Jackson ever show you any sexually explicit material?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever see Michael Jackson show sexually explicit material to any child?

A. No. 

And these are my favorites – they show Robson’s easy state of mind during his testimony and even look like jokes on his part:

Q. Go ahead and turn the page, if you would.

A. I never thought I’d have a room of people watching me do this. 

~

Q. Mr. Robson, when did you first learn that Michael Jackson possessed material of the nature that’s before you right now?

A. Right now I did.

Q. Assuming this comes from Michael Jackson’s residence.

A. Assuming it does, this is the first I know.

Q. All right. And you had never, ever known that Mr. Jackson collected sexually explicit material?

A. No.

And fourteen years later Robson makes a sad face and woefully recollects that he was shown “porn”.

In other words a meticulous study will overturn practically every element of Robson’s current story and there can’t be any doubt whatsoever that one day his wall of lies will fall with a big bang with no stone left to it.

But Safechuck’s tale impresses me as something different. To tell you the truth previously I didn’t give it enough attention and now that I reread his lawsuit and supplemental declaration (the first was made when Safechuck joined Robson’s probate case in 2014, but that one is unavailable to me), I realize that his lies can do more damage than Robson’s tale, for the sole reason that they have what Robson’s fabrication lacks – inspiration and drama, some elements of which betray Safechuck’s lifelong attachment or even love for Michael Jackson.

The thing is that behind all the mud he is now dragging Michael through you can clearly see that Safechuck’s had a sort of a fixation on Michael Jackson. His desire was to always stay by Michael’s side and the fact that one day he was supposed to live a separate life of his own became his biggest drama, if not tragedy.

This led him to drugs and constant psychiatric therapy, to doubts in his sexuality and fears that he was gay, and when a son was born to him even to worries that he would have pedophilia urges, which started a new wave of psychiatric treatment, and so it went on and on, again and again.

Safechuck’s Supplemental Declaration of March 18, 2015 indeed reads like a psychiatric diagnosis:

I was born in 1978. I spent all of my childhood years growing up with the Decedent as my constant companion, idol and mentor. The Decedent was everything to me and my life. I have finally come to know and appreciate now, after a little over a year of intensive therapy and psychiatric treatment, that this relationship was a predatory and wholly improper one, and one whereby the Decedent used my trust and love of him as a means to victimize and sexually molest me.

During the period between 2003 and 2005 when the criminal investigation and trial investigation were constantly in the news, I increased my use of drugs to numb the terror and pain I was experiencing. I had been using drugs to numb myself before, but with the heightened media exposure I increased my use. This self-medicating process continued until approximately 2006, and after I stopped using drugs, the symptoms of what I know now to be Post Traumatic Stress Disorter [PTSD] returned in full force and I lapsed into a severe depression for several years.

After the verdict in the criminal trial in June of 2005 up to the time of the Decedent’s death four years later on June 25, 2009, I continued to feel the effects of the Decedent’s intimidation. He didn’t need to call me or do anything – he had already done those things for years. I knew I had to be the faithful boy and never say or do anything that would reveal what had happened between us. During those years, I tried to create a life for myself, and I stopped using drugs in 2006.

I got married and had a son. I continued to live in denial and secrecy. After my son was born in late 2010, my fear of exposure became worse as I realized that now other people were a part of my life and I was dragging them into it. I began to see how innocent children really are, and to worry that would have pedophilic urges. I was even unwilling to continue with a family tradition and give my son the name “James.” My wife and I had been married since 2007, but I had never told her about the sexual abuse.  During her pregnancy, I sought help from Dr. ….  a general practitioner, who prescribed Xanax to me to help with the anxiety I was experiencing. I did not disclose the abuse or Decedent’s psychological manipulation of me with Dr….

It was only I began a regular course of therapy in late 2013, including seeing Dr….. that I was able to acknowledge and face what happened to me. Even after the Decedent died in 2009, I was still afraid of what would happen to me if the truth of what he had done over came out. The fear never goes away, I still have it now. The molestation affects everything in my life – what I do and how I feel. I have started a healing process, but I take one day at a time. The Decedent is still everywhere – on the radio, in concerts and shows, in the news, in the media. There is no escaping him or his presence. It has never been a situation where he went away or went out of my life.  (Safechuck’s Declaration, March 2015)

We see that Safechuck has an impressive history of psychiatric treatment, of taking drugs prior to 2005 and increasing their use during Michael Jackson’s trial, practially non-stop anxiety and panic attacks, worrying about having pedophilia urges and seeking treatment over and over again.

All these symptoms can very well arise from some traumatic childhood experience, only it does not necessarily mean that it should be sexual abuse – loss of someone who you loved dearly or separation from him may produce an equally damaging effect, of course only in case you are an extremely impressionable person and the magnet you are attached to is special and unique.

This reminds me of the words of June Chandler said at the 2005 trial.

According to Tom Sneddon (and his 1108 motion to include “prior bad acts”) June Chandler “accused” Michael of being a magnet, to which Michael replied that the excessiveness would die down with time:

Excerpt from the prosecution #1108 motion

When cross-examined by the defense June Chandler already couldn’t remember calling him a magnet but admitted that everyone indeed wanted to be around Michael Jackson 24 hours a day:

Q. Okay.  Do you remember telling Michael  Jackson, “You’re like a magnet?”

A. I don’t recall.

Q. Do you remember telling Michael Jackson, “You’re like Peter Pan.  Everybody wants to be around you and spend 24 hours”?

A. Yes.

Like many other Michael Jackson’s fans Safechuck obviously also wanted to stay by his side 24 hours a day and for years too, and it is very unfortunate that his excessiveness was not so easy to die down.

When you see Safechuck’s problem you also begin to understand what Anthony Pellicano meant when he was interviewed by some crook of a journalist who twisted his words and made him look like an accuser of Jackson, though he never was, and who dropped a somewhat enigmatic remark about Jackson:

Later in the interview, Pellicano reveals that when he agreed to work for Jackson during the star’s 1993 child-molestation case, he warned Jackson that he’d better not be guilty. ‘I said, ‘You don’t have to worry about cops or lawyers. If I find out anything, I will f–k you over.’’ The detective took the assignment, but says, … ‘He did something far worse to young boys than molest them.’ But he refuses to say anything more about it. 

Michael Jackson did something far worse to young boys than molest them?

So molestation was absolutely not an issue, especially since Pellicano always asserted Michael’s innocence:

“In no way, shape or form does my resignation indicate that Michael Jackson is guilty,” Pellicano said. “Michael Jackson is not guilty, and all the things I said in the past I reaffirm.”

“I have maintained Michael Jackson’s innocence from the very start, and I still maintain that he is innocent,” Pellicano said. “Obviously, there has been an exchange of money to settle this case. It all boils down to money.”

The same was repeated by Pellicano many times over, so even if the media tells you otherwise you may be sure that Pellicano found Michael completely innocent of what he was accused.  But at the same time he considered him responsible for something “far worse” than molestation. What could that be?

Pellicano was on Michael Jackson’s team in early 90s, right at the time when Safechuck was around, and he could be a direct witness to what was happening to the boy, so this strange far-worse-than-molestation idea could easily refer to Safechuck.

Same as everyone else around Michael Jackson, Safechuck was drawn to Michael like a magnet, but his difference was that his friendship with Michael turned into a sort of an obsession and at the first signs of Michael’s attempts to take the boy’s life back on its usual course the impressionable boy started losing his mind out of his grief and frustration.

So whether Pellicano meant it or not, Safechuck is the example of this far-worse-than-molestation phenomenon. Judging by his declaration he couldn’t imagine his life without Michael Jackson, had a constant urge to see him, could not understand his emotional attachment and suspected that he was gay, and was later afraid that something of the kind would happen between him and his own son. Even today he is overwhelmed with emotion when he hears Michael’s music and needs constant therapy to cope with it.

Well, sometimes sh** happens, but it doesn’t mean that Michael is responsible for it.

Another bad thing about Safechuck’s fixation on Michael Jackson is that it could easily lead to his fantasies about the man. Especially when Safechuck was on drugs and by his own admission “increased the use of them” for several years. And also when he constantly read about all those things that Michael allegedly did with other boys which the jealous and intoxicated Safechuck could even half believe. Why them and not him? Was he any worse?

Safechuck’s poor mental health is actually not an invention of mine. It is a documented fact and is the real reason why even Tom Sneddon and the police were hesitant about involving Safechuck in a trial.

We know that the police considered Safechuck’s testimony unreliable from Victor Gutierrez whose pedophilia opus has uncharacteristically scarce information about Safechuck. The only thing Gutierrez says is that at the time he wrote the book in 1995/96 the 17-year old Safechuck was “a little screwed up in the head” as was clear from the police and court files:Gutierrez about Safechuck

“Currently, according to the police and court files, Jimmy Safechuck ‘is a little screwed up in the head’ because the singer had given him an incredible amount of attention only to leave him when he had grown up.”

By the way it is partially correct that Michael limited the circle of his child friends after the 1993 Chandler scandal. From then on he tried not to entertain friendship with anyone else except his closest friends who grew up by his side – the Cascios, Macaulay Culkin, Tito’s three sons, his other nephews and nieces and probably Wade Robson who also seemed to be a friend. So Safechuck was not much different from Jonathan Spence, Brett Barnes (who went to Australia), Dave Dave, Ryan White (who died in 1990) and many other, less closer friends.

But on the other hand Michael Jackson actually never “left” any of them –  including Safechuck, as his own complaint shows it. Michael gave Safechuck an occasional job in the film industry when he was 17 and older, called to find how his musical band was doing and offered his help with the music, and even paid for Safechuck’s film-making hobby.

I worked with the Decedent and saw and spoke to him all the time. I knew that we had a very special relationship. That never changed even when I got older. The last working experience I had with the Decedent was in 1995 when he and /or DOES 2 and 3 employed me as an intern/shadow director for Decedent’s “Earthsong” video. I was also a wardrobe double for the Decedent, and I was actually in the video – my hand appears in the video punching the ground”   (Declaration, March 2015).

Oh my God, his hand appears in the video…

Okay, by giving Safechuck those little jobs Michael wanted to show him the process of making films from the inside. Besides that on-set experience Michael also paid for the several films Safechuck made in high school and arranged for his weekly sessions with film makers who taught him to direct movies. Some of these people came to Safechuck’s house on weekends, during his free time, however now the grateful Safechuck presents it as if Michael was diverting him from scholastics.

53. “Once he reached puberty, and the sexual abuse stopped, Plaintiff would speak to Decedent less frequently. Decedent remained active in his life, however, and paid for the Plaintiff to direct several movies in high school. The Decedent turned Plaintiff’s focus away from scholastics and towards becoming a director. Decedent hired a professor from NYU to teach Plaintiff on the weekends how to direct films. Decedent told Plaintiff that “one day, we’re going to make movies together”.

…Decedent arranged and paid for John Lugar to spearhead Plaintiff’s filmmaking and planning; hired Gretchen Sommerfeld to teach directing to Plaintiff and also hired Craig Thorton to teach script writing to Plaintiff. Decedent arranged for Ms. Sommerfeld and Mr. Thorton to go to Plaintiff’s house on weekends to teach him about the filmmaking process. (Complaint, July 2015).

With every new line Michael’s alleged monstrosity grows thicker and now we are told that it was due to Michael Jackson that Safechuck never received university education:

7. In the years after 1995, my relationship with the Decedent and our constant contact began to taper off. In 1997, when I was 19, I enrolled in Moorpark Community College because I thought a community college would be easier for me to try to get good enough grades so I could try get into USC. I was never able to do that, and was never able to get the university education I had always wanted, because of the Decedent’s overpowering influence over me and my parents. (Declaration, March 2015)

Wade Robson speaks to Matt Lauer on Today show, May 16, 2013

The major part of Safechuck’s complaint is about all the years he lived in fear and anxiety until he saw Wade Robson on television on May 16, 2013, and surprise-surprise, it was then that he also realized that he had been “abused”.

Safechuck says that it wasn’t an “ahah” moment, but he “began to sense something”, his anxiety heightened and three days later he was already with a new psychiatrist.

26. During the years 2009-2013, I spent all of my energy trying to keep things together, I had trouble sleeping, experienced panic attacks, and had constant anxiety. It was not until I saw Wade on television talking about the Decendent’s molestation of him, that I began to sense something. It is hard to explain, but I had a feeling that I needed help, and the cause of my fear, panic and anxiety might have been because of what the Decendent did to me.

27. I first met with a psychiatrist, Dr.Merrill… on May 20, 2013. Dr. Merrill …is actually a psychiatrist who specializes in treating women suffering from post-partum depression. I was afraid to see anyone for help who might be viewed as a psychiatrist who treated victims of abuse. I was still living in fear of exposure and what would happen to me and my life, and now the lives of my wife and son, if the secret came out. At last, though, with Dr. Merrill… I was finally able to discuss the Decendent’s abuse during my treatment. I was diagnozed with […] (Declaration, March 2015)

Dr. Lindsay Merrill is a psychiatrist in Los Angeles, California. She received her medical degree from David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and has been in practice for 6-10 years. http://playavistamentalhealth.com/bio/meet-dr-merrill/

Dr. Lindsay Merrill obtained her degree from David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA.  Her specific interest is “in working with women suffering from issues related to the menstrual cycle, pregnancy, postpartum, infertility and menopause.”

According to MJ’s haters it took her 13,5 hours in four sessions to determine that Safechuck’s life-long anxiety was due to his abuse as a child.

         ~

As a way to prepare you for what you are going to see in the film (if you ever watch it) let me explain the core of both guys’ complaint.

They claim that they “always knew” of those alleged sexual practices, but they didn’t consider them abuse because they thought it was “love” and “their” idea, and that it was “normal” and “consensual”. They thought it was their guilt, so were ashamed and kept silent about it.

As to Safechuck he always attributed his anxiety to just being a “part of who he was”, but only recently he realized it was due to “the abuse”. In both cases the therapists who heard their patients’ revised stories explained to them that it couldn’t be consensual, which freed their mind from psychological imprisonment and this is why they are relieved to talk now.

“Plaintiff never thought the feelings of panic and anxiety he had been suffering were the result of the sexual abuse by the Decedent. Rather, he thought they were just a part of who he was.”(Safechuck’s complaint, July 2015)

Throughout the film you are going to hear it again and again, enveloped in some “scientific talk”, in the same way it is repeated in almost each point of Safechuck’s complaint:

4. I have also finally come to know and appreciate that what the Decedent did to me and made me do with him was not “love,” was not my idea – as he told me over and over again to believe that it was – and was not something that was “OK.” From 1988 when the sexual abuse began and through the time it ended in 1992, the Decendent repeatedly told me to be confident and deny everything if anyone asked me about the abuse. I didn’t know any better and believed him. I never knew that what he did to me was sexual abuse. I continued into adulthood not understanding that what he did and what we did together was wrong.

9. I now realize, which I did not know then and did not begin to understand until my therapy began in 2013, that at the core of my being was the constant fear I lived in of having the truth come out and being exposed, and what would happen to me if that ever happened. I never had a “normal” childhood or life. The Decedent took that from me. His threats and intimidation were very real and I have lived my entire life in constant vigilance, and in fear of being exposed and the aftermath if that happened – what the Decedent told me over and over again would happen – my life would be over. (Declaration)

73. Often victims of such childhood sexual abuse take their secret to the grave. Plaintiff has lived most of his life in unspeakable shame, guilt and denial as a result of Decedent’s wrongdoing. The long-term psychological consequences of Decedent’s threats, sexual traum and mental manipulation imprisoned Plaintiff’s mind and prevented him from filing a timely claim just as effectively as if he had been physically imprisoned by Decedent.” (Complaint)

Yes, genuine victims of childhood sexual abuse often take their secret to the grave – but only in the circumstances when they know that no one will believe them and is not willing to listen. Or when they are confused about their feelings and there is no one to explain to them that what they have gone through was not “consensual” love.

But it is not true for the circumstances when the media and prosecution were rubbing into their heads that a mere friendship between a boy and Michael Jackson was already an abnormality, not to mention anything else.

In contrast to those who really have to suffer in silence Safechuck and Robson found themselves in exactly the opposite situation and didn’t even have to prove that they were “victims”, because no matter whether they kept silence or not, everybody thought of them as victims anyway. So the exposure of “abuse” is exactly what they didn’t have to fear – in their situation it was taken by everyone around almost as a given.

Of course they did have their fears and anxiety to suppress, but it was the fear of going against the trend, of having to muster courage to defy other people’s expectations and say “no, he didn’t” when the whole world was telling them “yes, he did”.

No, there is a decided difference between them and genuine victims. And it is a big tragedy that by telling their lies now these two guys are discrediting real victims of sexual abuse and are effectively working for silencing their voices. After their melodramatic performance in that movie people will simply not be able to tell liars like Robson and Safechuck from genuine victims and this will greatly diminish their chances of ever getting justice for themselves.

~

In the context of the ridiculous “consensual rape” claims Robson’s lies are more obvious and easier to discredit. Even if he thought that it was “love” he still testified under oath as a grown-up man and said that he was never touched, so even if you believe his current version you will also have to agree that he is a perjurer. And then decide whether you are ready to believe the word of a liar or not.

But Safechuck’s lies are not that obvious. At the 2005 trial he didn’t testify. He testified in 1993 when he was 15 and was deposed by Chandler’s attorney Larry Feldman and withstood a harsh cross-examination from lawyers on both sides. Safechuck was adamant that nothing happened, and this even despite the fact that by his own admission his friendship with Michael was “tapering off” at the time.

And though now he claims that he was coached his testimony under oath still remains an argument in favor of him telling the truth then.

But on the other hand Safechuck’s medical records show that he indeed lived his whole life in anxiety and fear, and now he explains it by the secret he had to keep from the world.

Well, a secret he did have, only it wasn’t abuse, but his unusual and somewhat unhealthy fixation on Michael Jackson and his frustration at the first signs of Michael trying to distance himself from the boy. Safechuck was indeed in (platonic) love with Michael, and the fact that it was not shared by the other side, at least to the degree the boy expected it, was a huge stumbling block for carrying on with his own life.

This attachment had nothing to do with pedophilia. Safechuck was simply an impressionable boy who was lucky to become a bosom friend of the biggest celebrity in the world, with whom everyone wanted to be friends, and in whose orbit he wanted to stay forever. But since that was impossible, it created a nightmare of a problem for Michael – but a no less problem for the boy.

Safechuck grew jealous of every other Michael Jackson’s child friend and sobbed so much at hearing that Michael spent his time with Brett Barnes (who was working with MJ at the Jam video shoot where Brett danced) that they had to put him on a plane and fly him back home.

Even despite Safechuck’s current sinister interpretation of it you can see how extremely jealous he was and how big a problem it created.

Then, on the second leg of that trip to Chicago, when the Decedent was doing the “Jam” video shoot, other boys were there, including Brett Barnes and also Wade Robson, who Plaintiff met for the first time. Plaintiff was sent home early from the trip, but Brett was allowed to stay. Brett slept with the Decedent in the Decedent’s hotel room and Plaintiff was upset about it and cried. Decedent saw Plaintiff crying, and within one-two days afterwards, Plaintiff was told by Bill Bray, Decedent’s longtime head of security/body guard, that he was going to be sent home, and the next day Plaintiff was on an airplane returning to California several days earlier than his scheduled departure. (Complaint)

As Safechuck was growing up he continued to besiege Michael, but even when Michael gave him some little jobs on the set where his videos were made or paid for his lessons in film directing, it was never enough.

When Michael didn’t call Safechuck was mad, and when he did make calls Safechuck was mad again because “when Decedent asked how his musical band was doing” he  regarded Michael’s offer to help him with music as a “way to induce him to testify for him”.

Could Safechuck’s obsession with Michael Jackson take place without any Michael’s involvement in it and certainly not a fraction of abuse on his part?

Absolutely.

Numerous female Michael Jackson’s fans also suffer from their undying love for their idol. To understand the intensity of that feeling and the fantasies these girls are capable of it is enough to read their fan fiction where they write so elaborate accounts of their intimacy with Jackson that you don’t know what to think of it – all of it sounds so true to life that makes you wonder…

Or remember the other type of fan fiction, written by a certain German author (don’t remember her name) who narrated of her numerous philosophical conversations with Michael Jackson when they used to sit together under a tree while he lived in exile outside the US. That novelette sounded so much like the real Michael that it was a true shock to find that she never met him and all of it is just her fantasy and fantasy alone.

Or take the case of Michael Jacobshagen who met Michael Jackson on one occasion only and then bombarded everyone with stories about his many years of alleged frienship with him. Dieter Wiesner who was Michael’s manager at the time knew that it wasn’t the case, but he also saw Jacobshagen believe his own fantasies and said that an expert is needed to figure out how that strange phenomenon is possible (incidentally, recently Jacobshagen also made a U-turn, and now claims he was “abused for many years too”).

Or look at Daniel Kapon, another so-called “victim” of Michael Jackson. At the age of 18 this young man was a complete nervous wreck and a bundle of emotions. Looking like a scared little bird, he submitted to the judge a graphic account of various abuse at Neverland and other places. However all of it turned out to be the fruit of his imagination only – his psycho mother contacted her son around the age of 18 and indocrinated him with those tales, while his father who raised the child since age 3 said that the boy had never been to Neverland and had certainly never met Michael Jackson.

Even Tom Sneddon said that the story was “pure voodoo” and called Kapon “that poor, poor kid”. However the “poor kid” was insistent and paranoid, and after “being in therapy” he recalled “more details of the molestations” (a familiar situation) and filed a lawsuit which dragged for years and was thrown out only when the plaintiff didn’t attend the court hearing and the case died out on its own.

Now what are we supposed to do with all these obsessed guys around Jackson, who flocked to him in unusual numbers together with thousands of other people?

And what can we do when these guys sense that there are hundreds of millions awaiting them if they spill their fantasies on the media and the judge? Especially when they are sure they will receive every possible publicity and will enjoy the limelight in contrast to real victims? Films will be made about them, festivals will seek their interviews, violins will play to accompany their stories…

It seems that the only way to handle them is 1) to review their medical records and make some of the details known to the general public and 2) examine their cases for errors which will be made one way or another, even despite extremely thorough work they do before making their claims.

In this respect James Safechuck’s complaint is almost perfect in its design and ‘quality’. Its major part is about his thoughts, emotions and ‘what Michael said to him’ none of which can be fact-checked in principle. And the rest of it is almost free from the obvious inconsistencies that abide, for example, in Robson’s story.

Let us not forget that despite being a ‘little screwed in the head’ Safechuck has a talent for mathematics and is now said to be working as a computer programmer.  And that his complaint is also their latest and upgraded work of fiction about Michael Jackson – the lawsuit was filed in 2015 (the probate case was a year earlier but its text is unavailable, and could be a simple copy paste of Robson’s), so Safechuck had all the time in the world to prepare and clean the story of possible factual errors, study the “sources” and incorporate everything he found to make his complaint as elaborate as it was only possible.

However despite all the effort, the lawyers for the Estate did spot some errors in Safechuck’s smooth narration. Howard Weitzman’s letter to the HBO was already published in the previous post, so let me recall just two episodes from it. Both illustrate not only Safechuck’s grave miscalculations, but also the hard work that went into his complaint in an effort to make it credible.

~

Before citing those episodes let me first introduce you to the timeline of the events, based on Safechuck’s complaint and some dates of Michael’s tours added to it (for details see this post). Please note that the complaint makes all of it sound much more sinister than this neutral list presents it.

  • Safechuck was born in 1978. At age 7 he started working on TV and two years later, when he was 9 he took part in a Pepsi commercial with Michael Jackson. This was sometime in early 1987.
  • For a couple of months Michael did not have any communication with the family, and then the 9-year old boy sent him a letter.
  • On March 10, 1987 Michael gave him a polite reply. He asked him to “keep writing” and said that one day they would probably work together again.
  • In September 1987 Michael went on a “Bad” tour to Japan [his companion was the 24-year old Jimmy Osmond]. Safechuck continued writing letters to Michael and when Michael came home during a break in late October he invited the family to dinner at Hayvenhurst. On November 13 he resumed his tour in Australia.
  • On Thanksgiving Day (November 26, 1987) the family called Michael in Australia, probably to thank him for the wonderful dinner at Hayvenhurst, and invited him to their home.

After the first leg of the tour in Japan and Australia Michael had a two months break before the tour resumed in the US.

  • In early December 1987 Michael visited the Safechucks in Simi Valley.
  • At Christmas time in 1987 the family came to Hayvenhurst and had dinner there. MJ took Jimmy on a drive along the city streets to hand out $100 banknotes to the homeless.
  • In January 1988 the family visited Michael’s recording studio at Hayvenhurst. His brothers were recording there at the time.
  • In the first half of February 1988 Pepsi invited both Michael and Safechuck to Hawaii to their official convention where their joint 1987 commercial was shown. Safechuck says that he got to know Michael much better during those three days and recorded an interview with Michael. He and his mother stayed in a separate hotel room in Hawaii.
  • In the second half of February 1988 the family attended Michael’s rehearsals in Florida. Safechuck claims that he stayed in MJ’s house there and the parents didn’t object to it.

On February 23, 1988 Michael left for the American leg of his tour. On March 3, 4 and 5 he performed in New York.

  • On March 11, 1988 the family was invited to see the Phantom of Opera in New York. Safechuck wanted to stay in Michael’s room, but his mother “didn’t allow it”. The next day, March 12 Michael was already performing in St.Louis.
  • May 6, 1988 was Michael’s last concert in the US. During the two weeks break before the European leg of the tour Michael moved to Neverland. Safechuck says he was the first guest at Neverland to “stay overnight”.

On May 23 Michael went on the European leg of his tour.

  • On June 28, 1988 Safechuck and his family joined Michael in Paris and this is when he claims the alleged “abuse” began.
  • From June 28 to December, 1988 Safechuck says he spent six months with MJ on a tour, but it contradicts his other statement that he returned to the US to study at school “for several months” right at the same time.
  • In December 1988 (during his school holiday?) Safechuck accompanied MJ in Japan.

The Japanese leg lasted December 9-26. In January 1989 Michael returned to the US where the tour ended.

  • Safechuck claims that after the tour, in February 1989 Michael flew him to New York where he performed at Grammy’s and where the alleged abuse “continued”.

The end of the Bad tour is actually the point where the Estate lawyers prove that Safechuck’s story is made up. This is what they say:

 “…Safechuck claimed in his sworn declaration that he was first abused on the Paris leg of the Bad Tour, which he correctly identifies as taking place in late June 1988 (as a simple Wikipedia search would reveal). He later says that after the Bad tour ended, Michael flew him out to New York “in February 1989” where Michael was performing at the Grammy’s. Safechuck states in his declaration that he was abused on this New York trip for the Grammy’s.

However, the Grammy’s were not in New York in 1989; they were in Los Angeles that year (and in 1990). And Michael did not perform at the Grammy’s in 1989.  However, Michael did perform at the Grammy’s in New York in February 1988, i.e., before Safechuck claims he was first abused  in June 1988. Yet he somehow claims that he was abused on a New York trip to the Grammy’s that occurred before he claims he was first abused. Safechuck’s “error” here is obviously reflective of an effort to create a story of abuse out of whole cloth. Or in other words, Safechuck is just making it up as he goes along.”

Here is the very short of it:

  • In 1989 the Grammy’s were not in New York, but in Los Angeles; and in 1989 Michael Jackson didn’t perform at the Grammy’s at all.
  • Michael Jackson did perform at the Grammy’s in New York, but it was a year earlier, in February 1988.
  • The alleged molestation could not “continue” in New York because according to another paragraph in Safechuck’s story in February 1988 it had not even yet started.

So in an effort to make a smooth-running story Safechuck overdid himself and by giving it the final touch about “him being flown to Grammy’s in New York after the tour ended” he ruined the whole laborous construction of it.

To be more precise, The 30th Annual Grammy Awards were held on March 2, 1988, at Radio City Music Hall, New York City.  On March 3, 4 and 5th Michael performed at the Madison Square Garden , also in New York. He invited Dominic, Connie, Frank & Eddie Cascio to the concerts and he spent time with them at the Helmseley Palace.

And here is another example of Safechuck’s lies as stated by Howard Weitzman:

In the “documentary” and in his declaration for the litigation, Safechuck spins a tale about how he refused to testify for Jackson in 2005, despite threats from Jackson and his legal team. Setting aside the absurdity of Jackson and his sophisticated legal team trying to convince an unwilling and unstable witness to testify on such a sensitive issue, Safechuck’s story is demonstrably false.

In particular, Safechuck declares that Michael and his legal team called him “towards the end of the criminal trial” trying to pressure him to testify. But this statement cannot be true. Early on in the trial, the Judge precluded the prosecution from allowing evidence regarding alleged molestation of Safechuck and others because the “evidence” of such molestation was unreliable. The exceptions were that the Judge did allow testimony from certain disgruntled workers that they had heard that Michael had molested Wade Robson, Macaulay Culkin and Brett Barnes. That is why those three specifically testified, and all of them denied the molestation (including Robson of course), and were subject to cross-examination by prosecutors but did not waver. And that is why Jackson and his attorneys would not have ever tried to pressure an unwilling and unstable Safechuck to testify, particularly “towards the end of the criminal trial” as Safechuck so falsely claims in the documentary and under oath.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5733176/Letter-to-R-Plepler-Re-Michael-Jackson.pdf

Let me also add that in his claim Safechuck describes Michael as very angry and even threatening, which “created a new level of fear and intimidation” for the poor 27-year old Safechuck:

“I felt that his offer to assist with my music was a way to induce me to testify for him. I told him that I wouldn’t testify because I didn’t want to be in the public eye and just wanted a normal life. Decedent became very angry and began to overtly threaten me, saying that he had the best lawyers in the world and that they would get me for perjury on my testimony from the 1993 Jordan Chandler case. I had never experienced the anger of the Decedent before this. When I told him I couldn’t testify, the Decedent said that he was going to call my parents and ask them to testify. I tried to calm Decedent down by telling him that I wasn’t going to reveal anything about our relationship, I just didn’t want to be a part of a trial in front of the whole world. Because this was the first time I had experienced such anger on Decedent’s part, it created a whole new level of fear and intimidation.” (Declaration)

Even if you haven’t read the reply from the Estate you can still compare the above fabrication with Michael’s real behavior in a similar situation, described by Frank Cascio in his book “My Friend Michael”.

The thing is that Frank Cascio was to testify at the 2005 trial to refute Tom Sneddon’s crazy conspiracy charges, but ultimately his testimony was not required. However someone told Michael that Frank refused to testify and though it offended Michael very much he never called Frank, and this is exactly what Frank couldn’t forgive him – why did Michael rely on the word of others and never talk to him directly?

“The truth is that I was eager to testify. I of all people knew exactly what had happened during the Arvizos’ visits to the ranch, and I wanted to see justice served. I was never called by the prosecution; after all, I would have been a hostile witness. Originally, the plan had been for me to be one of the last people who would be called to the stand for the defense, near the end of the testimony. But as the date for me to appear approached, Joe Tacopina called me and told me that he and Tom Mesereau no longer thought that having me testify made sense for the case.

The problem was that Michael hadn’t heard it that way. He had been told that I refused to testify.  I was furious that someone was lying about me to Michael again, but even worse than the lie was the fact that Michael believed it. … how could he believe something that was so totally antithetical to my character? He had raised me, for heaven’s sake. He knew everything about me….”

Years after the trial when Michael returned to the US, Frank demanded Michael’s answer why he hadn’t called him himself:

I looked at Michael … and simply broke down crying. “How could you let this happen?” I demanded. “You know me better than anyone else. You know where my heart is. How could you let these people come between us? Why did you believe them? 

Michael was calm. “Well, I was told you didn’t want to testify. You weren’t going to testify in my time of need. That hurt me, after all I’ve done for you,” he replied.

“Who told you that?” I asked angrily. “It’s not true.

“I don’t remember who told me. That’s what I was told.”

“By whom?” I insisted.

“I don’t remember. It was said.” As he spoke, Michael was lying down on the bed, feet up, chilling out while he let me vent.

I was pacing, like I do, back and forth in front of the bed. “That wasn’t the case. […] Why didn’t you just call and ask me for yourself instead of letting your imagination run away with you?”

At this point I was feeling like my impassioned words were finally beginning to sink in. Michael got teary, stood up, and gave me a hug.

“I’m sorry,” he said. “You know I love you like a son. I’m sorry that I made you feel this way. Let’s just move on from this.” (p.444)

What I mean by this example is that even when Michael did need a friend’s testimony he still shied away from handling the matter personally, so it was highly unlikely that he would call Safechuck several times during the trial, and even threaten him with perjury in case he didn’t support him. In fact, perjury could be invoked as in 1993 Safechuck testified to Michael’s innocence – however it was absolutely not Michael’s style to “threaten” Safechuck with it.

And given that Safechuck’s testimony in 2005 was not even required his fabrication about Michael Jackson sounds all the more crazy.

Or look at Safechuck’s lies about Michael Jackson dissuading him from going to college. Anyone who knows Michael’s views on education will find it totally ridiculous:

Decedent told Plaintiff’s parents that he did not need to go to college, and convinced them to remove Plaintiff from his Advanced Placement (“AP”) courses. At the time, Plaintiff was very knowledgeable and skilled in mathematics. Nevertheless, he was taken out of his AP classes, and instead re-focused on directing by the Decedent. Because Plaintiff’s own parents had not attended college, they were ill-equipped to guide their son in his scholastic endeavors, and were persuaded by the Decedent to steer the Plaintiff away from school and into directing.

Doesn’t Safechuck remember that it was his own parents who took him into the film industry when he was only 7 and surely wanted for him a career in the movies? So why blame Michael Jackson for it now?

It is true that film-making was always Michael’s passion and he even introduced his son Prince to it, but it never interfered with Prince’s education, even though he was schooled at home.

Decedent told Plaintiff to de-prioritize school, focus on movie-making, and not to worry because the Decedent could get Plaintiff into college if he still wanted to go. (Complaint)

And Margaret Macdonaldo tells us something different. Margaret, Jermaine’s former wife, wrote an unflattering book about the Jacksons, but noted that the only male Jackson she trusted completely was Michael. She portrayed Uncle Michael as the kindest heart who always helped even when he wasn’t asked to and who paid for his nephews’ education when he got wind of Tito’s financial problems:

“It was bad enough when Tito … decided to stop funding his sons’ tuition to Buckley School, where fees run upward of $10,000 a year. Tito’s sons are extremely bright and were getting straight A’s. DeeDee was frantic that her sons were going to have to leave school. Then Uncle Michael got wind of what was happening, and paid for all of them to go through Buckley and is now funding their college education.

Margaret Macdonaldo’s own sons Jeremy and Jourdynn travelled with Michael Jackson and when they returned from their trip their schoolwork was perfectly done – and again it was Uncle Michael who took care of it.

“The only Jackson who inquires about Jeremy and Jourdynn’s welfare is Michael, the busiest Jackson of them all. He has a new album, a new wife, and his own ready-made family but has expressed a desire to help my sons. He didn’t do it out of a sense of responsibility or legal commitment; he did it out of love. The King of Pop has the kindest heart of all

“Michael arranged a train trip to Minneapolis via a private Amtrak coach car. With Tito’s three sons on their way back to California, Jeremy and Jourdynn were alone with Michael. I knew they would be safe and well taken care of with him.

The most incredible detail of the trip wasn’t revealed until it was over. When Jeremy and Jourdynn came back home, armed with some new toys, I asked to see their schoolwork. As promised, it was completed and perfect. When I asked who helped them with their papers, they replied in unison: “Uncle Michael!”

The same was with the Cascios’ brothers. Frank Cascio says that Michael encouraged them to study and taught them to pursue knowledge:

He taught me to pursue knowledge. He encouraged me to study. He told me to be humble and to respect my parents, especially my mother. He warned me away from partying and using drugs and cigarettes, saying, “Have a drink, enjoy yourself, but if you can’t walk out of a place on your own two feet, you’re a bum.” He inspired me to be the best that I could be.

Back at the hotel, Eddie and I had to do the schoolwork that we’d been sent. We were supposed to complete the assignments and return them to the school. The teachers were under the impression that we had been provided with a tutor, and we did, in fact, have one … but we kept his identity under wraps. We were pretty sure that the school wouldn’t buy the idea of Michael Jackson as a traveling tutor. The truth was, he was genuinely committed to the job. Sure, we didn’t exactly keep regular school hours—lessons happened in the middle of the night sometimes— but Michael was the one who regularly sat down with me and my brother and went through our assignments with us. When we had to read books, he would read chapters of them aloud to us, then have us recap what we had heard, asking: “So who were the main characters? What did they want? What does it mean?” In the same way that he opened our minds with the movies he had us watch, he also encouraged us to think about our homework differently than we were used to and to take it seriously (p.84).

In addition to the assignments our school gave us, Michael insisted that we keep journals of our trip. “Document this trip,” he’d keep telling us, “because one day you’re going to love to look back on it.” In every country he had us take pictures of what we saw, do some research about the customs, and put what we’d seen and experienced in our books. We explored the different cultures. We visited orphanages and schools. Eddie and I started to have a greater awareness of our place in the big, wide world. (p.85)

Isn’t it a decidedly different story from Safechuck’s and told by two different people at that? And what if many more other witnesses had a chance to speak in Dan Reed’s film to challenge those two liars?

Since Frank Cascio also mentioned the movies, it would be interesting to see what films they watched with Michael and what music they listened to:

Back at the hotel, Eddie and I hung out with Michael in his room, distracting him, giving him support, and watching old movies on laser disc. As we watched the Bruce Lee movie Enter the Dragon, Michael got up and began mimicking Bruce Lee’s karate movements. He talked to us about every detail of the film—commenting on technical details about specific shots and explaining exactly what it was he worshipped about Bruce Lee.  As he was doing now with Bruce Lee, Michael had a unique gift for incorporating the tricks of his heroes into his dancing. The hat, the glove, the walk—he got all that from Charlie Chaplin. There’s one move that he used when he performed “Billie Jean,” where he slid his neck forward and sideways, then bent over and did a strange walk—he got that from watching the movements of the Tyrannosaurus rex in the movie Jurassic Park. (p.67)

“Michael had an incredibly silly side to him and we were always playing jokes on each other, which is why I am giving him rabbit ears in this photo.”  Photo from Frank Cascio’s book

We sat rapt, listening for hours as Michael played DJ, saying, “You have to listen to this song. Now you have to hear this group”. He introduced me to all types of music—country, folk, classical, funk, rock. He even turned me on to Barbra Streisand. I fell in love with her song “People.” Michael liked to go to sleep to classical music, especially the works of Claude Debussy. (p.79)

And Safechuck tells us that he spent his free time with MJ watching “porn”:

When Decedent was alone with Plaintiff at The Hideout, Decedent served pink wine to him to drink, which was sweet, and together they would watch porn films. Some of the porn films were heterosexual in nature as were the pornographic books that Decedent showed to Plaintiff. Plaintiff was told by Decedent that these books were “foreign” books.  Decedent also showed Plaintiff movies in which children were masturbating, and told him that they were “not really porn.” The movies that Decedent referred to as “porn” involved adult sexual activities, whereas the films where children engaged in sexual activities were “not porn”. (Complaint)

The claim about porn is a big fat lie, but it is exceptionally interesting in very many other ways.

Look at the timeline first. Safechuck’s complaint is the latest in its chronology, but as a “victim” he is supposed to be the earliest one. Porn and wine were alleged only by Arvizo and though Safechuck was friends with MJ when Arvizo had not yet even been born, his tale mysteriously incorporates everything the Arvizos claimed at the 2005 trial – wine, porn and books.

Mind you that Jordan Chandler, who also belongs to the 90s, never alleged anything like that. At the time Michael was known to drink only water and was “very prissy and proper and prim, and the very essence of the proverbial Victorian old maid” as Macauley Culkin’s father called him, so alleging wine and porn about him at that time would have been too inconvincing and not even an option.

But now it is an option, because in the year 2019 no one really remembers the proper and prim guy Michael really was thirty years ago.

However any sensible person will agree that this strange totality of Safechuck’s complaint, which spans all periods and incorporates every lie ever told about Jackson, is evidence enough that before making his story Safechuck studied all the “sources” inside out and included into his early story things that could be claimed about MJ only decades later.

“Porn” is also a lie because in the 90s there was no porn in Michael’s home and certainly not a single piece where “children were engaged in sexual activities” as Safechuck describes it.

Even Michael’s haters have to admit that “police found hundreds of videocassettes in Jackson’s film library in 1993 (and in 2003), but they were unable to recover any movies — even legal ones — showing children engaged in sex acts.”

However they find an explanation for this disappointing fact:

“Jackson’s devoted chauffeur Gary Hearne had ‘confiscated’ a suspect briefcase and suitcase from the singer’s Hideout apartment under the orders of Jackson and his private investigator Anthony Pellicano”. Bill Dworin said of the 1993 Neverland raid: “We knew they had time to prepare. And our feeling was — it’s a strong possibility that something was removed.” Diane Dimond wrote in her book Be Careful Who You Love that sources informed her the items inside the briefcase and suitcase confiscated by Gary Hearne were “pornographic magazines and videos”.

All you can say on the above is: “Wow, none of it is true.”

No, they didn’t have time to prepare. Michael’s maid Adrian McManus testified in 2005 that when the police raided Neverland in 1993 no one had a clue.

Q. Was there a search that was conducted at Neverland by Los Angeles Police Department?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you present at the time that happened?

A. I — yes, but I — yes, but I had called in sick that day and I had to go back to the ranch.

Q. By coincidence, or you knew there was going to be a search?

A. No, I didn’t know. I did not know. I just was sick and I called in sick.

Q. And had anybody heard of anything in advance of that search?

A. No. 

  Q. There had been no talk about that at all?

  A. No.

(from McManus’s testimony, April 7, 2005)

And this is how Victor Gutierrez (and Taraborrelli) described the same:

Victor Gutierrez

Adrian McManus, Jackson’s personal maid who, as mentioned, was the only person who had access to his bedroom, remembered the scramble the day before the raid. 

“…I took sheets stained with dried semen and excrement most definitely from Jackson and Brett Barnes [the Australian boy]. They also hid suitcases with photos, videos and documents, video cameras, photo equipment and tripods. The guards took furniture and Michael’s spring mattress, which most definitely carried evidence of sexual activity.”

Security guards also told of hiding evidence.

“I was in charge of taking more private things like the bottle of Vaseline, pants and traces of excrement, not stains, but excrement that he put in a bag so that Adrian could wash it at another location,” said Ralph Chacon accusingly. “I also took bottles of alcohol from Michael’s bedroom, alcohol that was drunk by Brett and other boys that would come to visit.”

How can a simple “No, no one heard in advance of that search” from Adrian McManus compare with the above elaborate scene produced by Gutierrez’s sick imagination? There is simply no comparison. It is a complete lie from beginning to end, but it is so powerful, you know.

The Century City condo was raided the next day, August 22, 1993. At the time Anthony Pellicano was on the Dangerous tour with Michael in Europe and learned about the raid post-factumAnd though he did ask the driver to bring a portfolio with documents from the condo, it was only after the police search.

The instant the phone call arrived, Anthony Pellicano knew there was trouble–possibly big trouble. The caller told him there had been a raid. Police had confiscated photos and videotapes from the homes of the private investigator’s top client, pop superstar Michael Jackson.

For Pellicano, who was accompanying the singer on the Asian leg of a world concert tour, the bombshell was sufficiently jarring to prompt his own phone call moments later to Los Angeles, where it was not yet dawn.

And Hayvenhurst was stormed by the police on November 8, 1993 without any warning either. Margaret Macdonaldo writes about her shock at discovering the invasion army of 16 policemen at their house when the whole family was away for a funeral.

Every day seemed to bring new drama, none more unexpected than the surprise incident that occurred on November 8, 1993, while the family was in Phoenix, Arizona, for the funeral of Joseph’s lather, Bud. Without warning, the gates were opened and sixteen undercover police officers stormed the Hayvenhurst house, armed with a search warrant.

The men proceeded to tear through his belongings, which Katherine had carefully preserved exactly as Michael had left them. The search was in full swing when I returned from picking up the kids at school to discover the invasion army. They went through my closets and even Jeremy and Jourdynn’s toys. The police went about their business and carted away four dozen boxes of family possessions. Michael heard about the search while he was in Mexico. (p.172)

So they didn’t have time to remove anything prior to the police raids.

But despite that the police found nothing, except the two art books with photos of half-naked boys on the beach that were strategically put by someone into a locked filed cabinet in Michael’s closet. I will be forever intrigued how come Michael Jackson’s former maid Blanca Francia, who by the time of the raid hadn’t worked at Neverland for two years, appeared with a key of her own to open that cabinet.

Knowing that all Michael Jackson’s homes were clean, Victor Gutierrez, the author of that pedophilia book about MJ claimed that Michael Jackson rented those “controversial” movies and this is why they were not found there.

Victor Gutierrez has been to that video rental, spoke with an anonymous employee there and the way he describes the renting process is hilarious:

“…where had he seen them? The themes were without a doubt too controversial (an adult’s love for a minor) to have seen them in commercial theaters or have rented them from your average video store. The answer is “Video West,” a video store in West Hollywood, where much of the local population and the vast majority of clients were homosexuals. The store has a great variety of videos with sections on homosexual pornography, other gay themes and cult films, among them various foreign films dealing with the subject of pedophilia. Films such as The Flavor of Com’, You Are Not Alone (also the name of a song from “HIStory” which Jackson dedicated to Jordie) and A Special Friendship’ were personally rented by Jackson in this store.

“Michael would arrive five minutes before we closed [midnight] to choose his films,” declared a store employee. “The Larrabee recording studios, where Michael records some of his songs, are in front of our business. He told us ‘since I’m already here I’m going to rent these films.’ The movies that Michael rented could only be rented in this store. They always dealt with loving and sexual relations between an adult and a boy.” Some of the other films which Jackson rented were ones in which young boys appeared nude or half-nude in more than a few scenes. Most of these were European films such as ‘Rohby’ and ‘ Pelle the Conqueror.’ There were also liberal historic and foreign themes about minors who prostituted themselves, some who were abused and ran from their homes wearing only underwear, and others who ran around naked and masturbating, in such films as: ‘Vito and the Others’, ‘The Decameron’, ‘Ada’, ‘Lakki’, ‘The Orphans’, and ’Freedom is Paradise’.

“Although Michael never rented movies in his own name,” an employee of the store said, “he was registered under the name of one of his assistants. On occasions, his assistant would come to rent films for him. We all knew her.” In some of these films, the theme of sexual relations between an adult and a child was seen as normal, showing how the minors blindly fall in love with their mate. These films showed graphic scenes of love and sex.”

Anyone who thinks that Michael Jackson could regularly visit some shady video store and rent films “dealing with the subject of pedophilia” without the paparazzi, Tom Sneddon and FBI never knowing about it, is a moron – plain and simple.

And it would be equally idiotic not to realize that Gutierrez’s vast knowledge of the subject speaks to his own sexual preferences and relishing this kind of films. By giving us a detailed list of their titles the only thing Gutierrez revealed is that he is an avid watcher of them himself.

But there is one more thing we discover by comparing those texts. This is a fact that Safechuck also read Gutierrez’s book and when describing those “foreign” movies with boys “engaged in sexual activities” Safechuck drew his inspiration from no other but Gutierrez.

Is there anything else we forgot about Safechuck’s claims?

Oh, he spoke about some chimes that rang in the hallway to Michael’s bedroom and were a signal to stop “the sexual activities”:

“Decedent eventually installed chimes in the hallway to his bedroom so that he could hear and be warned when people approached.“

This allegation comes from Bill Dworin, a former investigator at the LA District Attorney office, who claimed that during the 1993 raid they discovered a warning system that set off a musical tone when someone approached the door of Michael’s bedroom. However even Robert Wegner, Michael’s former security guard who wrote a silly 90-page book about MJ, says that at that time there was no such alarm.

Wegner, who was at Neverland on the day of the 1993 search, said he recalls no such alarm. In fact, he said, Jackson sometimes expressed almost childlike concerns about his safety, at one point calling security because he heard noises on the roof.

“I said, ’Michael, it’s just raccoons. We have raccoons out here,”’ he said. “He still wanted somebody to sit there all night.” 

Safechuck also describes two closets at Neverland where he was allegedly abused.

Decedent had a secret closet in his bedroom at Neverland which required a secret passcode to open. Decedent kept jewelry inside the closet, and would often abuse Plaintiff there.”

The “secret closet” is a very old lie which doesn’t have a leg to stand on, but if anyone thinks that it is possible to engage in the above activities inside a safe – well, let them if they so much want it.

Some viewers of the film were greatly impressed by a certain box of rings Safechuck allegedly received from Michael in reward for the alleged “activities”.

However it is equally easy to assume that those rings were presented to Safechuck’s mother – as Christmas gifts, for example. I cannot imagine Michael Jackson coming to Safechuck’s home or entertaining them as guests in his house at Christmas time without presenting them with some gifts. After all he used to give $100 banknotes even to homeless people…

This crazy list of lurid allegations can go on forever, but those who wanted to know the truth already know it.

It is enough to hear at least one lie from guys like Robson and Safechuck to see what they are up to. If somebody chooses to believe their current version despite all the facts to the contrary and listen to more and more of their lies  – well, let them. It is their choice.

After all, “If somebody deceives you once – shame on him. If somebody deceives you twice – shame on you.” ©

122 Comments leave one →
  1. February 19, 2019 6:37 pm

    Absolutely brilliant. What an astonishing piece, and you obviously put a metric ton of hard work, blood, sweat, tears and most of all, love, into this work. I can only speak for myself, but I want to thank you sincerely for giving this gift to those of us who love and believe in Michael, and who know he is innocent. I care about justice, honesty and Michael’s legacy. You are a tremendous part of that, especially with this powerful contribution to the discourse. I hope everyone will take the time to read this, and I hope it can be useful to the Jackson family and others (friends, fans) who are valiantly fighting to expose these liars and frauds for the con artist hucksters they are. So thank you, from the bottom of my heart. Your work is truly mindblowing and so extremely important. I know that somewhere in the ether, in some lovely, free place full of beautiful tall “giving trees” to climb and fragrant flowers always in bloom and water forts, popcorn machines and every amusement ride you can imagine, Michael is smiling down on those who love and support him and who have remained true. Your star is sparkling bright. Sorry if that sounds kind of out there, but I love to imagine him in a place like that, and I believe he lives on, and feels the love of those who have so much of it for him. Thanks again. Best wishes to you. ❤

    Liked by 1 person

  2. William King permalink
    February 19, 2019 8:49 pm

    Where exactly do you find Safechuck’s and Robson’s declarations?

    Like

  3. William King permalink
    February 19, 2019 9:21 pm

    I don’t know if you’re already aware of this but this is an excellent piece on how Safechuck borrowed a lot of his allegations from Victor Gutierrez, such as the parts about being given a medallion and being married to Michael. There’s more too I didn’t know about before. Check it out: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1085620426536112129.html?fbclid=IwAR0RwMlhzfhIXDUACFMqs5tb8aHH1cHLHyT8_eLDBfgIgvjB7wiQ8u8VDPc

    Like

  4. February 20, 2019 12:45 pm

    “Where exactly do you find Safechuck’s and Robson’s declarations?” – William King

    I’ve taken them from this list on DailyMichael blog: http://dailymichael.com/lawsuits/robson-v-estate/277-robson-v-estate-case-court-documents

    The links to Safechuck’s complaint and declaration are also included into the text.

    Robson’s declaration is here: https://themichaeljacksonallegationsblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/2013-04-30-robson-declaration.pdf

    P.S. I’ve also read of Safechuck’s probate claim which was filed sometime in May 2014, but couldn’t find the text of it on the web. The declaration cited in the post is dated March 2015 and is called “supplemental”, so there must have been another, earlier declaration by Safechuck, but it seems that it is not available either.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. February 20, 2019 2:06 pm

    “I don’t know if you’re already aware of this but this is an excellent piece on how Safechuck borrowed a lot of his allegations from Victor Gutierrez” – William King

    Yes, I’ve seen it already and have even put the direct link to Hammer’s thread on the side bar of this blog as a must read.
    In my opinion Safechuck was careful not to quote Gutierrez directly – he and others behind this “project” mostly drew inspiration from Gutierrez’s ideas.

    And we need to draw a really fine line here.

    Gutierrez’s idea was to portray Jordan Chandler, who is the main character of his book, as a boy madly in love with MJ in a sexual way. This had nothing to do with reality – when the Chandlers who initially helped Gutierrez with the photos, etc. realized his intentions they were disgusted. Ray Chandler even called Gutierrez a “sleazebag”.

    According to Gutierrez Jordan and ALL boys around Michael were like sex obsessed perverts (he calls it “love”):

    “Jordie was a voluntary participant”
    Gutierrez's lies

    “Jordie initiated sex”
    Gutierrez's lies 1

    “All children wanted to have sex with him”
    Gutierrez's lies 2

    “The nights of sex”
    Gutierrez's lies 3

    “I have never gone sexually so far with a boy as with you”
    Gutierrez's lies 4

    “If someone asks you deny it”
    Gutierrez's lies 5

    “He hates women!”
    Gutierrez's lies 6

    Sorry for having to post it, but ALL these ideas are now there in Safechuck/Robson’s claims. I would have never posted these quotes if it weren’t for that film. And do it now only because the viewers will see it in the film anyway.

    Let me repeat that though the Chandlers told their own lies about Jackson they still never portrayed Jordan as a “voluntary participant”. And Safechuck and Robson are making this next crucial step. Not only do they tell a big lie about Jackson, but they also collaborate with those who are promoting pedophilia agenda.

    Safechuck was the most ideal candidate for morphing into a “boy love partner” as he was already “a little screwed up in the head” over Michael Jackson. Only there was no sexual element to it, and though Safechuck was mad and disgruntled, he never claimed or even thought anything like that (he says so in his complaint) until the year 2013 when “he saw Robson on TV” and according to his complaint “sensed something”.

    From that point on it was a mere technicality to present his anxiety, drugs and all the rest of it as the after-effects of “child abuse” which he “didn’t realize until recently”.

    Like

  6. February 20, 2019 4:51 pm

    It took me a long time to find Anthony Pellicano’s interview with Jordan until I finally recalled reading it (surprisingly) in Maureen Orth’s first article “Nightmare in Neverland” (1994). At the time Jordan went under the name of “Jamie”.

    You will see that Pellicano’s description of Jordan and his behavior has nothing in common with Gutierrez’s morbid stories:

    “He also decided to go right over to Jackson’s condo and question Jamie.
    “I went in there with an attitude that I was not going to prove that Michael was innocent. I was going to prove that Michael was guilty. Because if such a thing could occur—and it never would in a million years—I have to protect my client.”
    According to Pellicano, Jamie told him a lot in 45 minutes.
    “He’s a very bright, articulate, intelligent, manipulative boy.”
    Pellicano, who has fathered nine children by two wives, says he asked Jamie many sexually specific questions.
    “And I’m looking dead into his eyes. And I’m watching in his eyes for any sign of fear or anticipation—anything. And I see none,” Pellicano says.
    “And I keep asking him, ‘Did Michael ever touch you?’ ‘No.’
    ‘Did you ever see Michael nude?’ ‘No.’ He laughed about it. He giggled a lot, like it was a funny thing. Michael would never be nude… .
    ‘Did you and Michael ever masturbate?’ ‘No.’
    ‘Did Michael ever masturbate in front of you?’ ‘No.’
    ‘Did you guys ever talk about masturbation?’ ‘No.’
    “‘So you never saw Michael’s body?’ ‘One time, he lifted up his shirt and he showed me those blotches.'”

    Then Pellicano asked Jackson to come downstairs.
    “And I sit Michael next to him and go through exactly the same thing,” he says.
    Pellicano claims they both maintained that nothing happened, and Jamie began to disparage his father. “He’s talking to me about his father never wanting to let him be a boy and never wanting to let him do the things he wants to do.
    ‘He wants me to stay in the house and write these screenplays.’ … And he said to me several times during this conversation, ‘He just wants money.’
    I said, ‘What are you talking about?'”
    Then, Pellicano claims, Jamie told him the story, confirmed by Michael, that when Michael was over at his father’s house his father told Michael he really didn’t have the room for him to stay there. “Why don’t you build me an addition?” Then he went and checked with the zoning board, and he couldn’t put the addition on, “so he asked Michael just to build him a whole new house.” Larry Feldman, Jamie’s attorney, calls this story “ludicrous and factually incorrect. I checked with the zoning board, and there are no such restrictions.”
    Pellicano says he also learned that the dentist wanted to close down his practice and get involved in screenplays with Michael.

    According to Pellicano, there was no cause for alarm in Jackson’s having a friend like Jamie. “If Michael has no sexual preference one way or another, male or female, to my knowledge, and the parents of the children are allowing this, you have to look at it in the context—especially at the ranch. They go out and they play and they go on the rides and they have water fights and do all this stuff. And then they kind of like crash. Now, Michael is always fully dressed.”
    Even at Jamie’s house?
    “When [Jamie] went to bed, he had pajamas on, and sweats, and Michael had sweats and pajamas on. Michael goes to bed with his hat on. I’m serious.
    Adds Pellicano, “It would make you nuts if you didn’t know Michael. It would make you crazy. Not only that—I thought to myself—if a mother or a father doesn’t want this to happen, it’s not going to happen.”

    Bert Fields says that he suspected the whole thing was a setup from the beginning. Furthermore, he doesn’t think anyone will come forward to corroborate Jamie’s story. “We’ve talked to every child we know of who knows Michael—and had to go back many, many years—and nobody says anything like this ever happened.”
    https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1994/01/orth199401

    Sometimes it is useful to reread the old articles, even if they are written by Maureen Orth.

    Like

  7. February 20, 2019 5:43 pm

    “I know that somewhere in the ether, in some lovely, free place full of beautiful tall “giving trees” to climb and fragrant flowers always in bloom and water forts, popcorn machines and every amusement ride you can imagine, Michael is smiling down on those who love and support him and who have remained true. I believe he lives on, and feels the love of those who have so much of it for him. Thanks again. Best wishes to you.” -Kristens

    Kristens, please don’t be cross that I didn’t answer at once. You just left me speechless. Thank you very much. It is amazing how Michael sparked off in all of us something “they” will never understand.

    Like

  8. February 21, 2019 2:40 am

    A short clarification. You may probably wonder why I didn’t mention Safechuck’s probate case when he joined Robson’s in 2014 in his claims to the Estate. This is because those documents are unavailable to me and cannot be analyzed. In fact they could be a copy paste of Robson’s.

    So the focus is made on Safechuck’s supplemental declaration of March 18, 2015 accompanying his lawsuit of July 2015 – both texts are available online and give us the idea of his claims and what we can expect in that Leaving Neverland “documentary”.

    In any case the dates show that Safechuck’s claims were made at least a year after Robson’s, in 2014, so he did have lots of time to prepare and avoid Robson’s mistakes.

    Incidentally the year 2014 is also the time when Robson “last spoke to Safechuck” as he accidentally mentioned in the deposition though now Dan Reed claims that “they never met as adults”.

    Robson met Safechuck in 2014

    Like

  9. Des permalink
    February 21, 2019 4:15 am

    My dear Helena,once again I come to your blog for comfort . It has been really hard the last few days here,three major channels they going to have something about Michael this Sunday,and one of them around 7/8 march they going to play the documentary . I don’t understand how It’s possible that sixth minutes Australia and Sunday night will go so low and interview these people like Adrian McManus and Diane Dimond the killer doctor Michael Jacobshagen. I have been watching sixth minutes for many years and respected the show but no more,they having a competition for the ratings after all they only have to mention his name and their will attract viewers. I was at a friends house today ,she was cooking in the kitchen and the TV was playing on the background,she heard Michael’s name and straight away she paid attention, and then she asked me what are their going to show this Sunday and when I told her she turned around and said to me,even dead they not going to leave him alone as long as they making money out of him they not going to stop, and many other people that I know feel the same. I loved Kirstens comment it’s beautiful, and how I wish that my grandchildren experience a world the way Michael wanted it for children,instead in a few years there going to expose themselves in documentaries like leaving Neverland with two perjures and layers glamourising pedophilia. The only victim here is Michael Jackson and the truth is he never played the victim no matter how much he suffered.I have this feeling that Michaels Estate working on something,I hope am right because from everything I see around the world it has been ones again this unbelievable fight from the fans for the truth not just for Michael but for all of us,the fight from the most educated to the ordinary people from young to old,all these people have decency they have consciousness they have humanity,you can not like Michael Jackson and be a bad person.Once again thank you for everything you do.

    Like

  10. February 21, 2019 4:57 am

    “this unbelievable fight from the fans for the truth not just for Michael but for all of us,the fight from the most educated to the ordinary people from young to old,all these people have decency they have consciousness they have humanity,you can not like Michael Jackson and be a bad person.” – Des

    Des, you are so right about it. I fully agree.

    “as long as they making money out of him they not going to stop”

    I think that those who support and produce lies about Michael fall into two categories – those who do it for money and those who use Michael to promote their pedophilia agenda. With the latter ones “everything is going according to plan”, as Evan Chandler once said. He probably didn’t know the big master plan behind all of it but Gutierrez made it clear to us.

    Their idea is to first label Michael as a ped-le and then use his music, humanity, charisma and all the good Michael was to convince people that “even lovely people like Michael can be prone to it”, that “you can see that it is not their choice – ped-les are simply made that way” and therefore “should be accepted”.

    In other words they are going to ride on Michael’s image and people’s love for him and his music like on a Trojan horse to occupy and alter people’s minds.

    The first stage in this process will be a statement that “you can still love his music even though you know who he really was”.

    Hopefully Michael Jackson’s fans will NOT fall into this trap. Because for a normal person it is impossible to enjoy Michael’s music thinking that he was one of them. When I myself was not sure of Michael’s innocence I couldn’t, really couldn’t listen to his records. At all.

    And now that I know that he was completely innocent I will NEVER agree to that crooked version fed to us as a poisoned sweet. I mean things like “you can love his music despite his “faults”. Because in the first place it is not a fault, but a henious crime. And secondly because he didn’t have these “faults.”

    Please NEVER accept this poisonous fruit from anyone at all.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. February 21, 2019 7:38 am

    Helena, excellent post. And it reflects what I also thought during the recent weeks: That a lot of the people (especially parents and their kids) who came into Michael’s inner circle simply became crazy and lost their minds because they obviously couldn’t cope with the hype the relationship with a superstar like Michael entails. SO crazy that they may live in a parallel universe and believe their own lies themselves.

    This is a great article which summarizes very well what the whole issue is about, and which needs to be spread:
    https://thevioletreality.com/leavingneverland-isnt-a-documentary-it-s-a-work-of-fiction-a6ba55e1a01b

    Very interesting is also the information in it about the foundation Robson has set up.

    THIS IS TRUE JOURNALISM!

    Like

  12. Anna permalink
    February 21, 2019 2:33 pm

    Thank you for this article!! I was wondering (because people will ask me when I share this), do you have a list of your sources?

    And I have one other question about this:
    “Decedent had a secret closet in his bedroom at Neverland which required a secret passcode to open. Decedent kept jewelry inside the closet, and would often abuse Plaintiff there.”

    You write that “The “secret closet” is a very old lie which doesn’t have a leg to stand on, but if anyone thinks that it is possible to engage in the above activities inside a safe – well, let them if they so much want it.”

    I know that the ‘secret closet’ is a very old lie, but I don’t really understand your explanation. He didn’t say it was a ‘safe’ right? He says it was a closet?

    No hard feelings, just trying to understand!

    Like

  13. February 21, 2019 5:23 pm

    “I was wondering (because people will ask me when I share this), do you have a list of your sources?” – Anna

    Previously I used to post full links under every quote but there were so many of them that they distracted attention from the post itself, so now I make direct links to souces right in the text. For example, if you click on Safechuck’s declaration it will take you to his declaration on Radaronline. Over there it is in pdf format, so I had to retype it. The text should be identical (you can check it up) unless I misunderstood some words, because the quality of their copy is very poor.

    Now I see that other bloggers tend to make lists of their sources under each post, so I will probably employ the same system.

    “I don’t really understand your explanation. He didn’t say it was a ‘safe’ right? He says it was a closet?”

    I called it a safe because it is very small, and when some journalist made a video of it he had to bend to enter it. This place is a kind of a walk-in safe where the previous owner, the one who built the house, kept his valuables. Michael used it for the same purpose. I will try to find a picture of it to illustrate what I mean.

    Here it is: Michael Jackson's secret closet
    By the way, when Michael was away and Joey Robson needed a car to drive to her workplace Michael told her where to get the key to it and she took from that safe whatever she needed for the purchase. This is how “secret” the closet was.

    In this video Kelly Parker shows this “secret” closet to a Brasilian journalist. See it at 4:20 mark, and please remember that now it is empty and when Michael lived there it also had some furniture inside – a safe, shelves, etc.

    More about Neverland in this post: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2016/12/06/neverland-helps-to-tell-the-innocent-truth-about-michael-jackson/

    Like

  14. February 22, 2019 7:08 am

    A new litigation has been started – this time against HBO by the MJ Estate:
    https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/mj-arbitration-doc-1.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3BamDbod_gd0xWW82YIMDRkIlrMNBG2vz127DDNzmUmYHVYO8-_Lqq668

    The most important thing in this petition seems to me that the Estate requires a public arbitration which clearly shows that they have nothing to conceal and want the claims to be litigated in public. This is what we always wanted because it is the only way to uncover the nature of these lies to the public.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Gigi M permalink
    February 22, 2019 12:38 pm

    I’m so pleased to see the estate fighting back hard and so eloquently against this mess. I use to frequent this blog before back in the day. Been drawn back cause Im sick and tired of these people lying for financial again. And for a lot of the public blindly believing these perjurers. There is something very dark going on within Robson both of his own making, his own mental health issues and his hereditary makeup from his dad. Pray that this does go to public arbitraion cause Victor G with his sick twisted mind will be rightfully exposed as well. Man the dark underbelly of Hollywood is so sick. It’s amazing how Michael, despite the pain and heartbreak, made it through as long as he did. I believe God always had, and still does, His hand on Michael because with every twisted lie there is always a truth that can expose the lie every time.

    Like

  16. February 22, 2019 5:36 pm

    A new litigation has been started – this time against HBO by the MJ Estate:
    https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/mj-arbitration-doc-1.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3BamDbod_gd0xWW82YIMDRkIlrMNBG2vz127DDNzmUmYHVYO8-_Lqq668

    Susanne, thank you for the news. By now I’ve read the document and see the Estate’s resolve to handle this situation seriously. Have never seen them that angry.
    You are right, the fact that they insist on making it public indeed shows that they have nothing to conceal – however we never doubted it.

    And the Estate is making many excellent points, some of which we never paid attention to – for example, the fact that in 2005 Thomas Mesereau insisted on the case against Jackson being tried not on the terms of “reasonable doubt” as usual, but on a much higher standard of determining (or not determining) his complete innocence:

    “Thomas Mesereau affirmatively assumed the burden of proving Jackson innocent in the case.”

    And it was on the basis of that standard that the jury found Michael not guilty.

    Among many other things the Estate also reveals the background of the “documentarian” Dan Reed who turns out to be someone literally obsessed with covering sex crimes:

    Dan Reed is a self-described “documentarian” who has a history of making documentaries about salacious sexual topics, such as like Babies: Britain’s Super Sperm Donors and Celebrity Sexploitation. Reed became especially well known for producing a film glorifying a vigilante “pedophile hunter” who once entrapped a man online who had been suffering from severe depression due to the breakup of his marriage, financial strains, and the separation from his son. After the subject of Reed’s film orchestrated the man’s arrest, the suspect committed suicide.

    The Guardian review of the “pedophile hunter” whose name is Stinson says that ” Stinson’s attempts to shed light on this issue have taken him to a very dark place, and for an uncomfortable hour, we were obliged to share it with him.”

    The viewers say:

    “…the leveling of entrapment is questionable. catching somebody in the act of stealing a car is one thing, inviting somebody along to steal a car with you after much convincing and then locking them up for it is severe entrapment”

    It seems that the word “entrapment” suits Dan Reed very well. He likes entrapping viewers by taking them into some dark place and keeping them utterly uncomfortable there for hours, thus attaining questionable goals by questionable means.

    In the Pedophile Hunter film most of the perpetrators were real, but when he takes you to a dark place to meet proven liars there who tell their lies for 4 hours, it is some kind of a new fantasy horror genre.

    Like

  17. February 22, 2019 6:20 pm

    “There is something very dark going on within Robson both of his own making, his own mental health issues and his hereditary makeup from his dad. Pray that this does go to public arbitraion cause Victor G with his sick twisted mind will be rightfully exposed as well. Man the dark underbelly of Hollywood is so sick.” – Gigi M

    Gigi, as regards Gutierrrez I am hopeful too because his name began appearing in the official papers at last. Previously he was both everywhere and nowhere, as if invisible to everyone. I bet the general public even has no idea who this character is. So horrible as it is, the cloud still has a silver lining to it.

    As to the dark underbelly of Hollywood, it amazed me to hear the co-founder of Sundance festival, a certain Sterling van Wagenen who fondled a boy himself (and admitted to it to the police, only was never prosecuted) say in a very matter-of-fact way that sex abuse is “commonplace” in the film industry and “particularly in Hollywood”. And he was talking about child sex abuse. Here is a post about him: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2019/02/10/sundance-festival-co-founder-admits-to-child-molestation-in-early-90s/

    So everyone knows about sex abuse in Hollywood, but instead of eradicating it they trash the innocent Jackson instead? They almost make no secret of it and even kind of flaunt it. The open hypocrisy of it makes my head spin.

    Like

  18. sanemjfan permalink
    February 27, 2019 1:16 am

    Surprise, surprise! Oprah is hosting a special viewing of the documentary, with an audience full of adult male childhood abuse survivors! And afterwards, she’ll interview Wade and Jimmy (along with a psychologist, who will surely make excuses for all of their lies), and air it on her OWN network next week!

    Like

  19. susannerb permalink*
    February 27, 2019 3:53 pm

    I want to provide here the link to an excellent article written by Raven Woods, which is a must-read for everybody who needs to be educated: https://medium.com/@lrixwoods/the-new-lynching-of-michael-jackson-dan-reeds-leaving-neverland-may-in-fact-leave-blood-on-2a9e2193f818?fbclid=IwAR09C9s1wZzlgwSSjTxel2pqvrp00YWsYGGRWzMJWh1eJmPxAANWxR7ntMY
    So please spread!

    Liked by 1 person

  20. William King permalink
    February 28, 2019 2:14 pm

    Brandi Jackson (Jackie’s Daughter) speaks about her Uncle and her 10 year relationship with Wade Robson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFrypTZiusE

    One of the things she says is that her relationship with Wade was age appropriate and that he was basically in love with her at the time (they started dating around 1991-1992). This is interesting since Wade basically claims he was romantically in love with Michael between 7-14. He also claims Michael subjected him to certain sexual acts and that he understood these acts to be expressions of love and not abuse (how love was supposed to be expressed in a relationship). Now, if that were true, how come none of the effects of abuse ever carried over to his early relationships with girls like Brandi? Why didn’t he ever try to reenact the same types of sexual acts he said he thought were expressions of love with his early girlfriend(s)? Not once did Wade ever suggest anything like anal or oral sex, or any of the kinds of sexual acts he said he was exposed to by Michael. Also of note is Safechuck claims Michael would try to alienate his victims from girls and women; that he didn’t want them to date or deal with the opposite sex. Michael was the one who set Wade up with his niece after he found out Wade like her.

    Like

  21. February 28, 2019 2:19 pm

    Susanne, thank you very much for the link to Raven Woods’s article. I’ve just taken the liberty to post a short excerpt from it in this blog.
    For the full article I recommend the readers to read the original: https://tinyurl.com/y3uu3ha4

    Like

  22. February 28, 2019 4:02 pm

    “Surprise, surprise! Oprah is hosting a special viewing of the documentary, with an audience full of adult male childhood abuse survivors! And afterwards, she’ll interview Wade and Jimmy (along with a psychologist, who will surely make excuses for all of their lies)” – sanemjfan

    Oh, absolutely no surprises here. A good propaganda campaign should not be sloppy – everything should look genuine enough. The psychologists specially selected for the program will try to bring “big science” into their stories in order to explain the inexplicable.

    Actually this is not the first time the so-called pundits will pull wool over people’s eyes. Just as an example, please watch this video on so-called “recovered memories” and see the vehemence with which a certain therapist is defending her methods though as a result of it she is ruining people’s lives.
    The therapist speaks at approx. 8:30 of this tape (the whole tape is worth watching too)

    IMPORTANT NOTE: The therapy to recover one’s memory, guided memory therapy and the like are essentially the same as the “insight-oriented” therapy practised on Robson. I am not justifying what he is doing, but the “insight-oriented” therapy could easily make it much easier for him to lie, because it would produce the effect of him half-believing what he is saying.

    Watch the 2nd part of the video to see how a person who never thought she had been abused after her therapy was one hundred per cent sure that she had been:

    Like

  23. February 28, 2019 4:29 pm

    “Brandi Jackson (Jackie’s Daughter) speaks about her Uncle and her 10 year relationship with Wade Robson” – William King

    Brandi is a very good, serious girl, but the general atmosphere in the studio is totally embarrassing. Why are they laughing so much? Is it a laughing matter to have Michael Jackson vilified in the worst manner possible? I understand that the hosts need to be “entertaining”, but isn’t at least this matter worth a serious discussion?
    Sorry, but I couldn’t listen to the end of it.
    Could someone make a transcript of only Brandi’s words? Or at least the main points she is making?

    Like

  24. pwal permalink
    March 1, 2019 6:20 am

    Check out the Mean Machine You Tube channel. Very good videos, including this one that focuses on Brandi:

    Liked by 1 person

  25. March 2, 2019 4:52 pm

    An interesting piece about the word “rubba” from Brad Sundberg. Michael used this word in the studio and it meant “more bass”:

    Liked by 1 person

  26. March 3, 2019 2:36 pm

    Guys, here is a phenomenal video and analysis of Dan Reeds/Robson/Safechuck’s pro-pedophilia project made in by michaeljacksonallegations blog in collaboration with Mary (Jacksonpassion). It is highly informative and very professional. Please spread:

    I’ve now placed a link to it on the right-hand sidebar of this blog in a “Must See” section. Scroll down to see it.

    These days Michael’s supporters make so many great videos that I can hardly catch up 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

  27. William King permalink
    March 3, 2019 3:32 pm

    I’ve been seeing some fans on social media suggesting challenging Wade Robson to a lie detector test. I’m not sure that’s a good strategy considering the resources he and Safechuck obviously have. It’s entirely possible they’ll seek an expert to teach them how to pass before taking one. Here’s a good video on how they could possibly do just that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3fHkCFxgQQ

    We have to be patient and realize this is going to a long process. There are no shortcuts to proving Michael’s innocence. The people behind this have way too much invested.

    Like

  28. susannerb permalink*
    March 3, 2019 4:13 pm

    Great video, Helena. This underlines exactly what I had written in my comment recently. I am grateful this video was made as it highlights the questions I had asked about this film being a pedophile propaganda piece. This is something that has to be prioritized when evaluating Leaving Neverland.

    Like

  29. March 3, 2019 5:17 pm

    “I am grateful this video was made as it highlights the questions I had asked about this film being a pedophile propaganda piece. This is something that has to be prioritized when evaluating Leaving Neverland.” – Susannerb

    Yes, it should be prioritized. And one more great point the authors of the video make is that the journalists who worked with Gutierrez never revealed to the public his background and his own zeal to promote pedophilia.

    In fact if the media had done their work properly and had made it clear that a certain NAMBLA member is so keen on bringing Michael Jackson down, the public would have realized long ago that things simply don’t add up. Pedophiles never work against their own kind. And if they work against Jackson it means that there is foul play involved here.

    This video requires a transcript.

    Like

  30. March 3, 2019 5:48 pm

    “I’ve been seeing some fans on social media suggesting challenging Wade Robson to a lie detector test. I’m not sure that’s a good strategy considering the resources he and Safechuck obviously have. Here’s a good video on how they could possibly do just that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3fHkCFxgQQ ” – William King

    William, I agree. After so many years of preparing themselves it is absolutely no problem for them to work themselves into an emotional state when they are asked about “molestation” and dull their emotions when they are asked if it is a lie. The video you’ve sent explains it perfectly well – on all relevant questions you simply need to imagine yourself lying on the beach, the waves rolling and thinking calm and relaxing thoughts. And on a control (neutral) questions you recall something horrible that happened to you that frightened you out of your wits. The reactions to both kinds of questions will become even and the test is passed.

    Actually even before watching the video I thought the same. All it takes to pass this test is professional instruction and training, training and training.

    Liked by 2 people

  31. March 3, 2019 6:20 pm

    MichaelJacksonallegations blog has also published a post about “Leaving Neverland”.

    I haven’t read it yet, but it looks like a very comprehensive study. Here it is: https://themichaeljacksonallegations.com/2019/02/25/a-critical-analysis-of-leaving-neverland/

    Liked by 2 people

  32. William King permalink
    March 4, 2019 5:56 am

    @Vidicatemj The transcript is basically embedded within the overall text of the blog post you linked to. An excellent post, btw. I have to say it’s arguably the best single post/article (on the new allegations) I’ve seen put together so far. The research they put into it is truly praiseworthy. Amazing work!

    Like

  33. March 4, 2019 11:04 pm

    I hesitate leaving this comment because I’m aware of some disturbing words you’ve written about me. But in spite of that I feel I must clarify something that was said at the 2005 trial that isn’t the truth.

    Like many other Michael fans, I was very disturbed by the allocations made against Michael. But truth is truth, and I can’t sit back and not correct a falsehood that was given by Michael’s maid regarding The Hideout in Westwood. I was in that condominium on a number of evenings from February, 1990 to May 1990. I was working on a screenplay for Disney/Amblin and it was my job to run my ideas past Michael so we could cobble together a film based on “Peter Pan.” In one of your previous blogposts you reference testimony that a maid for Michael made regarding the layout of The Hideout, and if there was furniture, especially a bed, in the condominium. Here is the testimony you quoted in your blogpost:

    “At the 2005 trial Blanca Francia testified that there were no beds in Michael’s condo in Wilshire boulevard – they were simply never there and in none of the rooms:

    23 Like —

    24 kind of an apartment, suite. Called it “The

    25 Hideout.”

    26 Q. Where was that; do you know?

    27 A. I know it’s on Wilshire. 4981

    2 Q. Okay. Was there a bed at that residence?

    3 A. No.

    4 Q. Never?

    5 A. Never.

    6 Q. The whole time that you were cleaning there?

    7 A. Yeah.

    Again and again the incredulous prosecutor and counsel for the defense asked her about a bed in the Wilshire condo and again and again she would repeat the same thing – the hideout apartment in the condominium on Wilshire boulevard didn’t have a single bed in it:

    22 Q. Okay. Let me ask you about the hideout. At

    23 the hideout, you had mentioned that there wasn’t a

    24 bed. What did Mr. Jackson sleep in?

    25 A. He sleeps in a sleeping bag.

    26 Q. All right. The whole time that he was at

    27 the hideout?

    28 A. Yeah. There was no bed. 5015

    1 Q. I’m sorry?

    2 A. There was no bed there.

    16 Q. Okay. Now, you testified that in the

    17 apartment owned by Mr. Jackson that you referred to

    18 as “The Hideout,” there was no furniture, right?

    19 A. Uh-huh.

    20 Q. Was there any bed in there at all?

    21 A. No.

    25 Q. Okay. Now, what did he — I asked you what

    26 he slept on, and you said a sleeping bag. Describe

    27 the sleeping bag for us. What kind of a sleeping

    28 bag was it? 5016

    1 A. A regular sleeping bag that you sleep on.

    2 Q. Sleeping bag for one person? For two

    3 people? How big?

    4 A. A regular one.

    5 Q. Just a regular sleeping bag?

    6 A. Yeah.

    7 Q. Was that sleeping bag always open, or was it

    8 rolled up?

    9 A. It was open.

    10 Q. Always?

    11 A. Well, when I made it, I would try to make it

    12 like a bed, you know.

    13 Q. Were there any blankets on the sleeping bag

    14 or under the sleeping bag?

    15 A. Yeah, there were blankets.

    16 Q. Which? On the sleeping bag or —

    17 A. On the sleeping bag, yes.

    18 Q. Was the sleeping bag simply on the floor?

    19 A. Yeah.

    20 Q. Was there carpet on the floor?

    21 A. Yes.

    Surprise-surprise, but Blanca Francia makes it absolutely clear that Michael Jackson’s condo in Wilshire boulevard did not have any beds at all. The furniture in Michael’s hideout was extremely scarce – a table, a chair, a TV set and sleeping bags on the floor. She actually says there was no furniture there.

    Why so? Most probably because Michael used the flat for practicing dance there, and preferred to leave the whole space of it unoccupied with as little furniture as was only possible.”

    I don’t know when this maid worked for Michael – perhaps it was after May, 1990, and the furniture was removed. But I have to tell you that when I visited Michael from February 21st to May 24th there was furniture in that condominium, and there was a bed – Michael’s bed in his bedroom. My first visit was February 21, 1990 – it was the night of the Grammys. I remember that specifically because as we finished up our meeting Michael asked me if I wanted to watch the Grammys with him. I must admit that I was a huge fan of Michael’s, in fact, I think I was a little bit smitten with him. I couldn’t imagine him asking me to watch the Grammys with him, but he did. I told him that my little daughter had an ear infection (in fact, she did) and I needed to get back home, but I told him I would watch the opening number with him. He was very happy to have someone there and watching with him – and that really melted my heart, plus I felt sad thinking that Michael didn’t have someone special with him on that evening with whom he could watch the Grammys. When 8 o’clock rolled around I looked around for a television and asked him and he said, “Oh, it’s in my bedroom.” And he led the way down a hallway to his bedroom where there was a four-poster bed and he sat on the bed and I sat on the only chair in the room – a room that was cluttered with books all over the floor – looking as though he had just moved in.

    I wrote about this in my book – a book I wrote because I loved working with Michael and I was very upset by the trial, about the accusations against Michael, and yes, about my own inner fears and doubts that I had towards the end of our working relationship. The journey that I took during that period is one that perhaps some of Michael’s fans have also taken, if not over the years, then now because of the documentary. Michael was bigger than life in my eyes, he was enchanting, magical, brilliant, noble, and a part of me still thinks of him in that way. But the more time I spent with him I started to see the human being who struck me as lonely at times and very, very complicated, a man with his own set of demons, and someone who could do anything he wanted, surrounded by people willing to say yes to him while looking the other way. Frankly, I think Hollywood destroyed Michael Jackson. And today I feel just as sad about that as I did in 2005, when I felt sickened by the circus of that trial. I didn’t want to know anything about it, I didn’t read anything about it, I just wanted it to go away. So I never read that maid’s testimony until reading it tonight in your blogpost, and that’s why I’m speaking up now and here on your blog.

    Like

  34. March 5, 2019 10:19 am

    “Oh, it’s in my bedroom.” And he led the way down a hallway to his bedroom where there was a four-poster bed and he sat on the bed and I sat on the only chair in the room – a room that was cluttered with books all over the floor – looking as though he had just moved in.” – Darlene Craviotto

    Darlene, I appreciate you coming here to ask a question. I didn’t quote Francia Blanca’s when talking about your book but spoke about it in a much earlier post about Wade Robson’s first visit to the US and his claim that when they were in LA for three days in February 1990 (Feb.12-14) he slept in Michael’s bed and the “abuse went on there”: https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/the-missing-bed-in-wade-robsons-stories/

    My point was that there were no beds there at all and the three Robsons slept on the floor (as Joy testified to it at the 2005 trial). And now you say that you saw Michael sitting on a bed in his bedroom cluttered with books all over the floor and this was February 21st 1990.

    Well, both of us are right. Only you were in a high-rise 27-floor building at #10580 Wilshire bld where according to different people’s accounts Michael had either a two-storey or a three-storey condo. The condo had a private elevator to it and was built only in 1990, so your impression was right – Michael had just moved in there. And Wade Robson visited that condo too, but only in May 1990 and on occasions only (how I know it will have to be explained in a separate, more detailed post).

    But in the period of February 12-14, 1990 that I was talking about, all three Robsons – Wade, his mother and sister – were in another Michael Jackson’s condo, called Westford #10750 also in Wilshire blvd and it indeed had no beds as Michael’s maid Blanca Francia testified to it. By the way Francia left her job approximately in June 1990.

    How do I know that in February 1990 the Robson family was in #10750 “Westford” and not in #10580?

    One of the reasons is the hotel across the street from #10750 where the Robsons were supposed to stay, but didn’t as they spent the nights in Michael’s flat. Westford does have a hotel just across a narrow side street, while #10580 does not have any hotels in close vicinity.

    Another reason is that Wade’s mother and sister had to sleep on the floor. Knowing Michael’s gentlemanly ways, if there had been any bed there, he would have given it to the woman, especially since she was older than him. He would have never allowed the woman and girl to sleep on the floor while he (and Wade) would occupy the only bed there.

    So all four of them had to sleep on the floor in individual sleeping bags, just as Blanca Francia testified to it in 2005.

    Margaret Macdonlado says in her book about the Jackson family that Michael moved into his “Westford” condo in mid-1989, so it was new for MJ too – he moved there just a half a year before the high-rise #10580 condominium was built:

    “At the same time [mid-1989] Michael bought a condo on the fourteenth floor of the Westford on Wilshire Boulevard because he was required to be in town on business and wanted a place to stay. His new condominium was a large, modern three-bedroom place that his nephews nicknamed “The Hideout.” It was nice but nothing fancy. It was the favorite place of DeeDee and Tito’s children, Taj, Terrel, and T.J., to play.”

    The condo in Westford was an open-plan flat with practically no doors inside it. Sample of it here:

    10750 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90024
    • YEAR BUILT1980
    • FLOORS18

    And this is a much fancier condominium #10580 you’ve been to:

    10580 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90024
    • YEAR BUILT 1990
    • FLOOR S27
    The Wilshire is one of the finest condominium buildings in Los Angeles. It stands 27 stories, has 97 units and the finest service in the city. The exterior is unmistakable and almost each unit has been totally remodeled. Every unit features floor to ceiling windows, private elevator access (only three other existing buildings offer this feature), as well as every conceivable amenity. https://www.highrises.com/los-angeles/the-wilshire-condos/

    The second one went under the name of the “Century City” Hideout and it was raided by the police in 1993. Michael Jackson and none of his people knew about the raid (Pellicano was on a tour with Michael and learned about it post-factum, by phone). As to #10750 there is no indication that the police thought it necessary to search – apparently it was indeed practically empty.

    To learn the exact location of both condos and what happened where I had to spend days studying the map and looking at all buildings that had at least 24 floors and built not later than 1990. #10580 was the one that really fit (out of the two I found), so this is how I know that you were there and not at #10750.

    P.S. The second condominium that fit your description is a Century Tower slightly off Wilshire blvd. When studying all high-rise buildings in LA I was choosing between only two buildings that suited all the parameters -the new 27-floor condominium #10580 built in 1990 and a much older building in Century City, built in 1964 and 28 floors to it where celebrities like Diana Ross had their residences (the so-called Century Towers). The latter was initially my first choice as its official address is Century City and not Wilshire. And in your book you also say that the condo was “off” Wilshire blvd.

    On the outside the Century Tower looks very much like #10750 which you think you have visited. Here is the picture and address:
    the Century towers
    the Century towers address

    So I don’t insist on #10580 being the right one – it could easily be one of the Century Towers too. But it was definitely NOT the Westford condominium #10750 you are talking about now.

    If I have time I will write a detailed post about it, so thank you for the question.

    Like

  35. Darlene Craviotto permalink
    March 5, 2019 12:32 pm

    I met Michael in the first building you posted above – 10750 and his place was on the 18th floor. It was always referred to as “The Hideout.” When Norma called me to tell me the time we would be meeting, she would say Michael would meet me at “The Hideout.” This was the location of our first meeting in February, 1990, and where I last met with Michael, Buzz Kohan, and a young boy, who was Wade. I read to them my treatment for the “Peter Pan” film, I remember the boy because he was visiting from Australia.

    Like

  36. March 5, 2019 2:18 pm

    “I met Michael in the first building you posted above – 10750 and his place was on the 18th floor. It was always referred to as “The Hideout.” – Darelen Craviotto

    No, you did not meet Michael on the 18th floor of that condominium. You wrote in your book that the private elevator took you directly to floor 24 of that building and that it was the penthouse – the flat at the very top. For me this penthouse point was the most difficult of all, because I looked for all 24-storey buildings that would fit the description, but couldn’t find any. But when I learned that Michael’s condo was either 2 or 3 storeys high the 27th floors of #10580 fit in.

    Darlene Craviotto about MJ's condo

    Darlene Craviotto about MJ's condo

    As to “Westford” #10750 condominium it did not have a private elavator and certainly no floor 24 as it is a 18-storey building. It was an old construction built in 1980 and had much less privacy than #10580.

    The only true thing you’ve just said is that it was also called “The Hideout”. There were actually two Hideouts.

    Unfortunately the fact that you are changing history now does not speak well of you. And I’m very, very sorry to see it.

    Like

  37. Darlene Craviotto permalink
    March 5, 2019 3:56 pm

    I am not trying to change history, To be perfectly honest, I don’t remember the exact floor number, but yes, it was the penthouse. I took the elevator that was in the lobby – whether it was a private one or not, I also don’t remember. But I definitely remember the building, and I never went to the fancy looking building with the fountain in front of it – the one which is the last photo you posted. I went to that first building above it, I remember thinking how ordinary it looked – a tall building and modern, yes, but certainly not ornate. And I thought of all the people who drove by it each day without ever thinking that Michael had a place there.

    Like

  38. March 5, 2019 4:11 pm

    Darlene, if that really is you and not just someone claiming the name as an avatar, I simply have to say this out loud to you. Your book is service to a great lie and smear against Michael, though it is filled with considerable truth. And the fact of the matter is that “Project M” was not a serious event. It wasn’t Jeffrey Katzenberg at those meetings, like you state. It was David Geffen, setting all this up and stringing Michael along when Disney didn’t have the rights to Hook and that project was already well underway. You were brought in as an accessory to ensure Michael was snared and to drive a wedge between him and Steven Spielberg, so that Michael would think he was betrayed. “Project M” was a sham, and you had a part in it, all to Geffen’s design.

    Like

  39. Darlene Craviotto permalink
    March 5, 2019 4:17 pm

    I never met with David Geffen. I don’t know Geffen and He most certainly wasn’t at the lunch meeting at Amblin. Jeffrey was there – I had a film deal with Disney.

    Like

  40. March 5, 2019 4:33 pm

    Disney did not have the rights to do Hook at this time. TriStar, already owned by Sony, did, and the al-Fayed family had also bought the rights to JM Barrie’s work in perpetuity. James V. Hart already had the basic script for Hook, and it was in rewrites. Spielberg was already in preproduction for this film. How can Disney have been involved with something it didn’t have the rights to? Do you have documented proof that this meeting took place, and was at Amblin? Do you have proof that Katzenberg and Spielberg were there, talking about a Disney/Amblin film with Michael as the star?

    Like

  41. March 5, 2019 4:47 pm

    And keep in mind, David Geffen is not someone to get his hands dirty directly. He uses proxies to do the work for him. Michael considered Geffen one of his best friends for the longest time, and he always kept on saying that movie projects were around the corner for him. You watch the HBO documentary about Spielberg? Everything you describe in your book does not fit his personality or the way that he operates. He is not someone to shiv a friend and leave them out in the cold, especially in terms of not having the heart to say it directly. Geffen bullies and bulldozes his way through everything, and there’s a big reason he and Spielberg fell out regarding DreamWorks.

    So, with that in mind, do you have proof of this meeting? Do you have calendars, photos or video of any such meetings? Audiotapes of any kind? Or, failing that, why don’t you just contact Spielberg or Katzenberg directly and get them to vouch for you?

    Like

  42. Darlene Craviotto permalink
    March 5, 2019 4:58 pm

    Yes, you are 100% right: Disney did not have the rights to Hook. The lunch meeting I had at Amblin on the Universal Studios lot was to discuss a Peter Pan film with Michael starring in it. That’s what I was told by Disney and naive screenwriter that I was, I believed that everyone was serious about making a film musical of Peter Pan with Michael Jackson playing Peter. That’s why I was so excited to write it – that would have been a huge project, plus I was getting a chance to sit in the same room with Michael and work with him on it. What I didn’t know at the time was that Sony had Hook in the works- no one told me about that. And I could never understand why the Disney executive was pushing so hard for me to get through these meetings with Michael and turn in the treatment. Looking back now, I understand that Disney was trying to offer another script to Steven about Peter Pan so he wouldn’t take on Hook. But you don’t hurry Michael Jackson, and Michael wanted meetings with me to make sure we delivered a script that had heart to it. Michael had concerns about Steven – if I didn’t say that in my book I say it now. He made me turn off our tape recorder while he talked about Steven, but he felt that some of Steven’s later films didn’t have the same kind of heart that was in E.T. Michael loved E.T. and the heart that was in that film is what he wanted to make sure would be in our film on Peter. I had no knowledge of Hook at the time, no one told me our project was in competition with Hook. Screenwriters are at the bottom of the food chain, and executives simply wouldn’t tell a writer something like that. Only after Disney insisted I turn in my treatment (which was against Michael’s wishes) and they said to me, “We’re paying you, not Michael” and I had to turn it in, then they admitted to me (after turning down the treatment) “Steven has another project called Hook and he wants to do that one.” I was devastated. I imagine Michael was devastated. I have no idea because he never reached out to me again. I wrote him a long letter and told him how badly I felt for him, and that I hoped that he would never give up on playing Peter. That he WAS Peter and one day there would be a film so he could play the role. I always regretted the way that project ended, and that I never got to say goodbye to Michael. I felt very close to him while working with him. It was very sad to me to have it end the way it did.

    Like

  43. March 5, 2019 5:07 pm

    “I don’t remember the exact floor number, but yes, it was the penthouse. I took the elevator that was in the lobby – whether it was a private one or not, I also don’t remember. ” – Darlene Craviotto

    Well, I hope that a quote from your own book refreshed your memory and you recollect now that it was floor 24.
    As to the private elevator it is easy to know it by your own text – you say that when you reached floor 24 and stepped into the lobby there was no security, no bodyguards and the door was unlocked. If it had been a usual elevator this would have been impossible.

    “I definitely remember the building, and I never went to the fancy looking building with the fountain in front of it I remember thinking how ordinary it looked – a tall building and modern, yes, but certainly not ornate.”

    This photo shows it the way it looks now, so the fountain could be added later. As to how ordinary it looked – for example, in this photo the same #10580 doesn’t look that fancy. This is the back side of the same building, and the one to the right of it looks to me much nicer:

    Like

  44. March 5, 2019 5:08 pm

    Again, do you have documented proof? Calendars, photos, video, audio? If you talked to Spielberg and Katzenberg right now, they would back you up completely and say that this happened?

    Like

  45. March 5, 2019 5:16 pm

    “Do you have documented proof that this meeting took place, and was at Amblin?” – luv4hutch

    Just a short note to add to it – the funny thing about that meeting “at Amblin” is that David Geffen’s office was in the very same building and at the time he was supposed to be working on finding Michael a suitable movie.

    I wrote about it in this post:https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2018/06/25/michael-jackson-and-david-geffen-the-operator/

    On June 21, 1990 Michael Jackson wrote a letter to David Geffen thanking him for the flowers sent to him while he was in hospital for a few days. This letter was later sold at Julien’s Auctions complete with the envelope.

    Michael's letter to Geffen June 21, 1990

    Curious to know the whereabouts of Geffen’s office I looked up the address of the letter, and was amazed to find that it was located on the premises of the Universal Studios lot which is a seat of Steven Spielberg’s Amblin production company and the place Darlene Craviotto went to for the initial meeting with Hollywood executives about the Peter Pan movie.

    Universal studios Hollywood address
    Geffen's office address in 1990

    According to Craviotto that first and only meeting with Hollywood executives was attended by her as a scriptwriter, Michael Jackson, Disney head Jeffrey Katzenberg, another Disney executive, and director Steven Spielberg. No mention was made of David Geffen.

    But how could Geffen not attend that meeting if it was held on the same premises, next to his office, and he was actually the one responsible for all movie projects for Michael Jackson? Finding the right movie for MJ was the task he took upon himself in the 1980s and this was the way how he won Michael Jackson’s admiration, trust and undivided attention – the news we’ve learned about Geffen only thirty five years later. Some people surely know how to keep their secrets.

    Of course I cannot guarantee that Geffen was there, but the probability of him attending that meeting is indeed very high.

    Like

  46. Darlene Craviotto permalink
    March 5, 2019 5:23 pm

    This was back in 1990 – before iPhones. No one took photos or video of what they were doing in their life back then. I have audio recordings of some of my meetings with Michael – I asked him if it was ok to record our meetings (something I always did on the projects I worked on) and he said yes, “This is going to be history – film history!” I still have those tapes and that’s what I based most of my book on – the transcripts of those meetings. I also have a clipping from the L.A. Times, dated March 1, 1990 in Hollywood Freeway – a column by Frank Swertlow, entitled, “Unsolved Mystery: Disney Release,” that talks about “Project M.” You can either look that article up, or I would be happy to scan that article and post it here, if someone can explain how to do that. I was very nervous about that article coming out because I was named in it as the screenwriter, and Disney had told me the project was top secret. “If you talk about it we’ll deny it.” I was so scared that I’d be replaced, and I called the executive on the project to tell him I hoped the studio wasn’t angry about the obvious leak. “That article in the paper? Michael probably leaked it.”

    Like

  47. March 5, 2019 5:28 pm

    Naturally, there would be an article out there. It’s part of the scam, especially if Geffen is involved. He and his people leaked it to give it credibility. And the article itself doesn’t prove anything other this window dressing bait Michael was going on. And even if there were no smartphones, a lot of films have behind-the-scenes footage, especially Disney at that time. There would be some kind of record somewhere outside of this article and your book.

    Like

  48. Darlene Craviotto permalink
    March 5, 2019 5:52 pm

    If you don’t want to see it, fine, I won’t scan it.

    Like

  49. March 5, 2019 6:01 pm

    “I also have a clipping from the L.A. Times, dated March 1, 1990 in Hollywood Freeway – a column by Frank Swertlow, entitled, “Unsolved Mystery: Disney Release,” that talks about “Project M.” You can either look that article up, or I would be happy to scan that article and post it here” -Darlene Craviotto

    Here is the LA Times archive for March 1, 1990: http://articles.latimes.com/1990/mar/01

    I went through it twice but couldn’t find anything like it there. Is the date of March 1, 1990 correct?

    Like

  50. March 5, 2019 6:09 pm

    Oh, just to let you know, Darlene, I’m actually in the middle of composing a letter directly to Spielberg about the matter. I also sent an email message through the Amblin website to inform them of the letter. If you wish to talk to him yourself, feel free to use the following address:

    100 Universal City Plaza
    Bldg. 5121
    Universal City, CA 91608

    Like

  51. Darlene Craviotto permalink
    March 5, 2019 6:11 pm

    Yes, the date is correct, the resource I gave you was wrong. It was in “L.A. Life” in the Daily News, the “Have you heard? Hollywood Freeway” column by Frank Swertlow. I can scan it and send it to you – but it would be a jpeg and I’m not sure how to upload it for your site.

    Like

  52. March 5, 2019 6:23 pm

    “I can scan it and send it to you – but it would be a jpeg and I’m not sure how to upload it for your site” – Darlene Craviotto

    If the scan or picture is somewhere on the web you could simply give a link to it. When I want to upload some photo on the web I usually use tinypic. Don’t know of any other ways.

    But in any case the fact of the article is no proof of anything. If Michael leaked it, as you said, it only means that he was taking the project seriously, and we knew it already. It was Disney who didn’t take it seriously and this is why they kept it a secret. They didn’t have the rights to screening Peter Pan and under no circumstances could make that film. All they wanted to do was to “keep Michael happy”.

    And they probably also sent you on a fact-finding mission to learn more about “boys” around Michael. Judging by your book you didn’t see or hear anything suspicious during the entire time you spent with Michael and it was only that boy from New Zealand (actually Wade Robson from Australia) who was present during the final hearing of your script that you made so much fuss about the very next day.

    Like

  53. March 5, 2019 6:31 pm

    You were a pawn in a bigger game, Darlene. Especially if you went to a friend and said “hey, there’s something about Michael and this boy that didn’t feel right.” That started the chain reaction that led to the Chandler allegations, the Bashir documentary, the Arvizo trial, Michael’s weariness and abandoning Neverland, the events that led to his death, and the litigation of the Robson and Safechuck allegations, leading to this hatchet job “documentary” that the media is accepting without a second thought. Your comments started all of this, Darlene. You are culpable, to some degree, in Michael’s walk through hell for the rest of his life, and the slanders and deceit against him.

    Like

  54. March 5, 2019 6:44 pm

    luv4hutch: Let me try to explain something to you about Hollywood: Do you honestly think that Steven Spielberg is going to remember a lunch meeting he had 29 years ago? Do you have any idea how busy he was back in 1990, and how many people he met, how many he worked with? I attended one meeting with him – one. And in the pecking order of Hollywood, I was simply the hired help. I was one screenwriter who had one lunch meeting with him. I seriously doubt he would remember me. This project was an attempt by Disney to make something happen with Steven for a co-production. They wanted to be in business with him and they threw this together, I’m assuming. Who knows the real reason for the lunch meeting; I certainly didn’t. I believed what the executive in charge told me – This was going to be a huge project: Michael, Steven, and Disney. “And we want you to write it.” I had some credits, but I certainly wasn’t an A-List screenwriter. My credits were in television, and my last television film had won an Emmy for Outstanding Movie, so I guess I was “hot” for two seconds. I had just written a screenplay for Disney and worked with Amblin executives in the creation of that script. They seemed to love it; they told me they loved it. It was called “Man In the Box” and was based on a novel by that same name. It took place during the Vietnam War, and in my script I changed it to the Korean War. It was about a fighter pilot shot down in North Korea and about the little North Korean boy who helped him escape from the bamboo box he was being kept in as a prisoner of war. It was a love story between this little boy who risked his life to save the life of this American stranger. Based on that script, I was approached by Disney to work on this top secret project, “Project M.” But that was 29 years ago, and I seriously doubt Steven (if he even personally answered your letter) would admit to being a part of it.

    Like

  55. March 5, 2019 7:01 pm

    luv4hutch My book wasn’t published until 2011, two years after Michael passed away. All of those events you’ve mentioned took place before my book came out. I never said anything about Michael to anyone that “started the chain reaction” that led to those events. I don’t hang around, nor have I ever hung around anybody important enough to make those events happen. I was simply someone trying to make living in Hollywood as a writer. Many other people in Michael’s life had much more front-line information about Michael and his life, on a daily basis. I worked with him for a small moment in time that was magical, and that’s what I wrote about. I wrote what I saw because I thought it would be interesting to Michael Jackson fans. I felt that through writing about it I could give people a chance to feel like they were in the room with Michael. That’s one of the reasons I wrote the book. But unfortunately, only one scene stands out for you, and I’m sorry you missed out on the magic that was Michael. It’s there in the book.

    Like

  56. March 5, 2019 7:05 pm

    Yes, on that we can agree: I never saw Michael with any other boys except for Wade, when I read the Peter pan treatment at The Hideout.

    Like

  57. March 5, 2019 7:11 pm

    I’m not going to take the time to try to find the link – if you want to read it I will send you a jpeg. Let me know your email address and I will attach it to an email to you. You can then post it here, if you want.

    Like

  58. March 5, 2019 7:26 pm

    “I never saw Michael with any other boys except for Wade, when I read the Peter pan treatment at The Hideout.” – Darlene Craviotto

    And considering that you discussed with Michael the sensitive subject of Peter Pan and his boys you never heard anything from him either that could raise your suspicions – otherwise your reaction would have been the same as in your last chapters of the book.

    Incidentally, the last chapters strike me as a very big exaggeration and even something alien to the book. All you saw was that the boy listened to the script and fell asleep and Michael took him to another room and left him there. Yes, it was late, but didn’t you know that this was the usual Michael’s schedule? And portraying Buz Kohan also present there as some sinister Buddy… No, all of it feels like some false teeth that didn’t fit in, but were a must to insert.

    Like

  59. March 5, 2019 7:30 pm

    “If Michael leaked it, as you said, it only means that he was taking the project seriously, and we knew it already. It was Disney who didn’t take it seriously and this is why they kept it a secret.”

    Yes, I totally agree with what you wrote here. Michael took the project very seriously, as did I. Obviously, we were the only ones, however. That’s why I felt so sad for Michael when the project was pulled because of the Hook film. I was a nobody and so it made sense that I wouldn’t know what was happening behind the scenes. But for Disney and Steven not to tell Michael that there was another script in the works called “Hook,” was to mislead him into thinking Peter Pan could happen. At that lunch meeting with Steven, he turned to Michael and said, “Are you ready to fly, Mike?” That sounded like the film had a good chance of happening, why else would Spielberg say something like that to Michael? I hope in my heart that when we had that lunch meeting Steven didn’t know about the Hook script at that time. But I don’t have access to that information – I don’t know when he read it or what the timeline was in those early stages when Steven came on board for Hook.

    Like

  60. March 5, 2019 7:34 pm

    “Let me know your email address and I will attach it to an email to you.” – Darlene Craviotto

    You can send it to me via “contact me” form.

    “I thought it would be interesting to Michael Jackson fans. Unfortunately, only one scene stands out for you, and I’m sorry you missed out on the magic that was Michael. It’s there in the book.”

    The magic was not missed, but the one (innocent) scene in your biased interpretation showed that unfortunately the book has an agenda.

    Like

  61. March 5, 2019 7:39 pm

    I never portrayed Buzz as sinister. What I expressed was that I felt hijacked by the presence of Buzz (who was he and why was he there? No one told me any of this) and the boy at a meeting that was supposed to be for just Michael and me. No one told me I would be reading in front of two strangers. It was unnerving for me – it was tough enough just getting myself to those meetings. I was very phobic back then, that’s why my agent arranged in my contract for a car and a driver to take me to those meetings. I am very specific in my description of that meeting – I never saw anything happen between Michael and the boy. But yes, it was unsettling to have a meeting around 9:30 pm – and to be met my an older gentleman and a young boy in a fedora hat like Michael’s.

    Like

  62. March 5, 2019 7:50 pm

    “No one told me I would be reading in front of two strangers. It was unnerving for me” – Darlene Craviotto

    This is the way I understood it – as a kind of your personal problem. But you turned it into a story about the boy and “what was he doing there?” Didn’t it occur to you that the audience of that film was to be children mostly, so the opinion of a child friend of Michael’s was important to him? You yourself tested that story on your children, so why do you think Michael should have behaved differently?

    And if it was only the problem of your personal discomfort why did you rush to your Hollywood contact first thing in the morning and spill out your heaviest suspicions to him? This way you did set Hollywood buzzing, and this is what luv4hutch meant by your role in Michael’s tragic life.

    P.S. I have to go now as it is 4 am here.

    Like

  63. March 5, 2019 8:03 pm

    I’m not asking Spielberg to verify a lunch meeting. I’m asking him to verify that there was a Disney Peter Pan film in the works that Hook supplanted. That’s what I’m seeking him to verify. And not just him, but Katzenberg as well.

    Also, “Man In the Box?” The only thing with that title that I can find is the famous single by Alice in Chains. I can’t see any book with that title. Something very different than what you’re suggesting:

    Like

  64. March 5, 2019 8:09 pm

    The only “agenda” I had or I ever have when I write is to tell a good story. Those audio tapes of Michael are something I wanted to share with people because they captured the passion and excitement of two people trying to create together. That’s what I wrote about in those scenes between Michael and me. That was my motivation in writing the book. I struggled with whether I should include the meeting with Buzz and the boy, but that’s what happened. I can’t change that, or cover it up. It happened. The point is I never saw Michael do anything to the boy, and I say that clearly in the book. Why then, do you choose to tell me I have “an agenda” or luv4hutch says that I started the “chain reaction?” I most certainly did not. I wrote something in 2011 about 1990 that in many ways foreshadowed the fall of a great man, a musical icon, and a humanitarian. Whether you believe Michael did or didn’t do what this current documentary is alleging, that scene I lived through serves as a foreshadowing of all the tragedy that befell Michael.

    Like

  65. March 5, 2019 8:15 pm

    This is the novel I adapted for Amblin/Disney co-venture:

    Like

  66. March 5, 2019 8:26 pm

    “And if it was only the problem of your personal discomfort why did you rush to your Hollywood contact first thing in the morning and spill out your heaviest suspicions to him? This way you did set Hollywood buzzing, and this is what luv4hutch meant by your role in Michael’s tragic life.”

    I didn’t set “Hollywood buzzing” – are you joking?! I called to share my reactions to having an old guy who looked like Santa Claus and a young kid at my 9:30 pm meeting with Michael. How is that setting “Hollywood buzzing?!” You obviously know nothing about Hollywood – rumors circulate all the time about celebrities, Michael included. I wanted to know what my agent had heard, if anything. I did not “set Hollywood buzzing.” No one has to do that because Hollywood was already buzzing with rumors about Michael.

    Like

  67. March 5, 2019 8:46 pm

    The rumors about Michael were things like the hyberbaric chamber, the Elephant Man bones, about his skin, and so forth. NOT that he sexually molested young children. Those rumors didn’t exist at all in 1990, and your comments saying “something doesn’t feel right about Michael and this boy” planted an initial seed.

    Liked by 1 person

  68. Darlene Craviotto permalink
    March 5, 2019 8:55 pm

    Were you around in 1990? More specifically, were you around in Hollywood in 1990? I seriously doubt that you were. There were definitely rumors. Why do you think I went to my agent and asked him if he had heard anything.

    Like

  69. March 5, 2019 8:59 pm

    “Were you there?” is not a good enough response to question someone and their thoughts. And there was no inkling whatsoever of Michael having these kind of relationships with young boys until 1993, when LaToya was coerced into that book and Evan Chandler made his allegations. If Hollywood started buzzing with rumors prior to that, it was AFTER you talked to your agent, not before, and because of David Geffen’s shell game.

    Like

  70. William King permalink
    March 5, 2019 9:11 pm

    @helena What I notice people not mentioning about Safechuck (besides you) is the fact that Safechuck’s own brother tweeted back in 2013 I believe that he and his brother were never abused, yet safechuck’s mother claims she celebrated Michael’s death in 2009 and Safechuck claims he told her about abuse while still not even realizing it was abuse. That tweet is powerful evidence against, not only Safechuck’s claims, but possibly also his mother’s claims. If there is also evidence of Safechuck’s mother denying abuse around that time as well, then it’s even more damaging to her claims in the documentary and proves she lying about “knowing” all along in 2005/2009.

    Like

  71. Darlene Craviotto permalink
    March 5, 2019 9:16 pm

    There were rumors before 1990, whether you want to believe that or not. I’m not going to debate this with you – if you have specific questions, I will answer them. I never made any of the accusations that are now being made about Michael. Direct your anger towards his accusers, if you want. They’re in the spotlight, not me.

    Like

  72. William King permalink
    March 5, 2019 9:55 pm

    @helena Correction: Tony Safechuck was James’ cousin who accompanied him with Jackson.

    Like

  73. March 6, 2019 4:33 am

    “Why then, do you choose to tell me I have “an agenda”” – Darlene Craviotto

    You have proved that you have an agenda yourself – by squeezing out maximum dirt from an innocent scene and suddenly crashing it on the unprepared reader, though when you began working on the book you already knew what you were going to write. However 90% of your book is all niceties about Jackson and then you make a sudden U-turn which is all the more horrible as it takes the reader completely unawares.
    Your book is the exact equivalent of “Leaving Neverland” with its 40 minutes of niceties about Michael and then horrors beginning with a bang. Exactly the same pattern which betrays the same guiding hand behind both.

    “There were rumors before 1990, whether you want to believe that or not. “

    I personally absolutely believe that rumors were spread before 1990 and we even know by whom, so the fake Project M was organized for exactly the same reason – to send you on a fact-finding mission (and also to keep Michael happy). Whether you were a voluntary player or a pawn in other people’s game doesn’t matter – the idea was to use the story of Peter Pan for probing Michael’s thoughts about “boys”. However your own account of MJ’s innocence in the first 90% of the book shows that you got nothing from Michael in this respect. I repeat NOTHING.

    The presence of Wade Robson at the final reading in May 1990 (who had just come to the US for a commercial with LA Gear) was your only “find” after associating with Michael for several months from February 21st to May 24th 1990, and this is why the next morning you rushed with the news back to Hollywood. This is what they wanted and expected of it from the very start, but you had nothing to produce to them prior to that. Otherwise you would have talked to them long before.

    Again, you may have been unaware of the big idea behind that fake project and who masterminded it, but the fact that Disney had no rights to the film betrays the undeniable fact that they never expected it to be made and that there was a different agenda to it.

    And what is also exceptionally interesting about it – in the context of present Robson’s claims – is that until 2011 that fake Project M was completely secret and you never wrote about it as you yourself say you were fearful if someone knew. However someone allowed you to reveal the secret which came in very handy in the light of Robson’s complaint following soon after that. Your book was released in November 2011. In 2012 Robson was already shopping his own book about Michael, and in 2013 he made a complaint. A perfect timeline.

    “I’m not going to debate this with you”

    There is no need to debate. When you came to this blog you started with a lie about the condo where you allegedly saw Michael and Wade and it was only after I showed you the exact quote from your book that you went into a debate. However we still remember that the first thing you did here was telling us a LIE.

    Like

  74. March 6, 2019 4:50 am

    “Tony Safechuck was James’ cousin who accompanied him with Jackson.” – William King

    William, thank you for reminding me about Tony Safechuck’s tweet. He sent it out in October 2013, after Robson made his allegations but before Safechuck entered the game, so Tony didn’t yet know that he was supposed to keep mum.

    “my cuz/I were 2 of the kids that used 2 hang out with him! Great person, it’s all bullshit, no settlement happened. October 16, 2013”

    For those who don’t know how to read it here is the full version:

    “My cousin and I were 2 of the kids that used to hang out with him! Great person, it’s all bullshit, no settlement happened.”

    And there can’t be any doubt that Safechuck’s mother is in the game too. I’ve seen the first 45 minutes of the film and she turned all the timeline upside down. Or Dan Reed did it when editing the film.

    Like

  75. March 6, 2019 6:45 pm

    Reblogged this on TEE ALI BLOGS TOO.

    Like

  76. March 8, 2019 11:51 am

    The effects of this pernicious “documentary” are rippling out. Well-meaning and decent people like Ellen DeGeneres are swallowing the hoax whole and tweeting support for Robson and Safechuck. Rolling Stone published an article putting Michael in the same breath as R. Kelly, in talking about “monsters and groomers in plain sight”. Al Jean of The Simpsons has announced that the episode Michael guest-starred in will now be pulled from reruns, streaming and on demand “out of concern for Mr. Jackson’s alleged victims.” Radio DJs are pulling Michael’s songs from playlists, and moves to do the same from streaming are occurring. There is also a push to remove Michael’s videos from YouTube.

    On another note, the Twitter account connected to the film An Open Secret are joining in the vilification of Michael, saying “he fits exactly what our film exposed.” And some of Michael’s defenders are attacking the film, saying “didn’t Vince Finaldi also represent that Michael Egan character, who admitted that he lied? And didn’t Finaldi admit that he filed false charges?”

    Like

  77. March 8, 2019 5:19 pm

    “The effects of this pernicious “documentary” are rippling out. Well-meaning and decent people like Ellen DeGeneres are swallowing the hoax whole” – lub4hutch

    You know, from my own experience in dealing with this kind of a craze I would advise everyone to try and not pay attention (I know that it is hard) and just do what you think right.

    In this process very many people whom you considered decent and wise will turn into complete monsters you never expected to see. And vice virsa, those who you never expected to be on the side of the truth will suddenly show themselves from their best side.

    It is a very strange process of division between truth and lies which you will observe with your own eyes.

    I am not asking you to stay strong, because I know that it is virtually impossible at times like these. But since we know the truth and they don’t, no amount of attack on their side will make us change our opinion about Michael. Let us do what needs to be done and let the Almighty decide what happens next.

    Probably the most important thing at the moment is support Michael’s children and stand by their side.

    Liked by 1 person

  78. March 8, 2019 5:32 pm

    Well, Ellen’s not a monster, just merely misinformed. She’s just basically a sheep in the herd, like many people are. The vast majority of these people are just following the crowd, let’s be honest.

    Also, apparently, I finally figured things out about my friend in the industry and his statement about first-hand knowledge of Michael being a pervert. He was part of a team writing scripts for musicals, and says Michael and his organization hired him to make a jukebox musical in the mid-2000s. Per him, “I worked with this man and his people, so I could see for myself. We sent messages telling him to stop being with children. And people from his family came forward, mainly to talk to a person I know who’s a forensic psychologist. And the psychologist told me in no uncertain terms that he was a criminal sex offender.” So, he just gave away what the real truth was: he came in with preconceived notions, and they reinforced when he heard from “a friend of a friend of a friend who talked to his family” and so on.

    Like

  79. March 8, 2019 5:54 pm

    “Well, Ellen’s not a monster, just merely misinformed. She’s just basically a sheep in the herd, like many people are. The vast majority of these people are just following the crowd, let’s be honest.” -luv4hutch

    I’m also prone to be lenient and understanding, but some cases do not allow for it. Ellen may not be a monster, but it is monstrous to blame a person for a horrendous crime without doing the necessary research. Today I’ve read Albert Einstein saying: “Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance”, so if Ellen joins the crowd she is the worst kind of ignoramus, and this is the very least of it.

    And this in its turn poses another question – if you know her to be ignorant and blaming people without any research how can you trust her in everything else she says?

    Journalists are obliged to do research and the weight of their word is much higher than that of ordinary people – however their responsibility is much higher too.

    Like

  80. March 8, 2019 6:01 pm

    Ellen never claimed to be an expert, or even wanted to be an icon or an activist. She came out and wanted it to be not a big deal, because it shouldn’t be. And the same woman who tearfully spoke from the heart on the steps of the Capitol at a public vigil for Matthew Shepard clearly is one of the good ones, just being led astray, because influencers like Oprah are going big on it all, with far more devious intent.

    Anyways, what are your thoughts about how some of Michael’s defenders, because of the Twitter account for An Open Secret saying “yes, he has been proven to be a pervert,” now going on them, attacking the film as having no credibility? What do you say about Vince Finaldi, who represented Michael Egan, saying publicly that “we filed a willfully false claim?”

    Like

  81. March 8, 2019 6:14 pm

    “the Twitter account connected to the film An Open Secret are joining in the vilification of Michael, saying “he fits exactly what our film exposed.” And some of Michael’s defenders are attacking the film. what are your thoughts” – luv4hutch

    I don’t change my views depending on the trend. The cause of the people who made “An Open Secret” film should be supported by all means, because protection of children’s innocence is indeed the most important thing on the planet. If Michael had been with us he would have told you the same.
    If someone associated with the Open Secret account is vilifying Michael, firstly, I wouldn’t be so ready to believe that it is the makers of the film who say it – the vilifiers may be plain trolls.

    And if it is the authors of the film who say that, I will simply tell them that they make a mistake and will explain why. However I doubt that they are so quick in passing their judgment on Michael Jackson. True researchers never change their ways – first they do research and only then they make conclusions. And they are always open to criticism because they value the truth.

    Like

  82. March 8, 2019 6:22 pm

    So you still feel that Egan’s complaint was truthful, and that when Finaldi said “we filed a willfully false claim,” that was something merely being done because he was effectively coerced into doing (if not actually, but figuratively because of the accused men’s lawyers and the judge), much like how Michael was essentially coerced into settling in 1993?

    Like

  83. March 8, 2019 6:34 pm

    “What do you say about Vince Finaldi, who represented Michael Egan, saying publicly that “we filed a willfully false claim?” – luv4hutch

    As regards Michael Egan I firmly stand by what I said before – Michael Egan is a child abuse victim as was proven in court. Some damages were awarded to him but were never paid. His second case against four other people – Ancier, Newman, Goddard and Singer was handled by Jeff Herman who was sued by two of the defendants for ‘malicious prosecution’ and had to pay them a million dollars in addition to making an apology as part of their settlement agreement.

    So the apology you cited came from Jeff Herman and not Finaldi, and this was done to minimize the fine he had to pay for defending his client. This fact alone sounds to me like a travesty of justice, because I cannot imagine a situation when the attorney has to pay the other side just for representing his client.

    As to Vince Finaldi, he never even represented Michael Egan or if he did, it was for five minutes only. In this post https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2017/02/15/hollywood-and-michael-egan-wade-robson-and-michael-jackson-the-guilty-and-the-innocent/ I wrote about it:

    “Another striking difference between Egan and our ‘master of deception’ is that Robson is repeatedly allowed to tell one thing and then another and then contradict himself once again and no one still cares, while Egan was severely scolded for just one inaccurate answer which actually shows that he is no good at lying.

    He said that he made his pleading without legal help though the pleading was written on a paper with a law firm logo on it. As a result he received a scolding tirade from an angry judge all of which was immediately spilled to the media of course.

    This historic dialogue stunned me by its harshness, especially considering that the complainant is indeed a sexual abuse survivor and even in the worst of cases required a more gentle approach. Here is a reminder of the way it was:

    Judge Scolds Hollywood Sex Accuser for Lying in Court
    9:15 AM PDT 10/21/2014 by Jonathan Handel

    According to a transcript of the hearing obtained by The Hollywood Reporter, when the judge asked Egan what help the firm was providing, Egan answered, “Nothing in this case.” That didn’t sit well with Seabright, who responded sharply, “Well, that’s not true. I mean, facially that’s not true.” He pointed out that the documents had been emailed from the firm, and added, “Don’t say ‘nothing,’ Mr. Egan, okay? … You understand this is a court of law.… You understand if you lie to me you’d get in trouble.”

    Egan acknowledged the judge’s statements and apologized, but the exchange continued.

    “So be truthful,” said the judge. “I am,” responded Egan.

    “Well, no,” interjected Seabright. “You weren’t. Because you said ‘nothing,’ they’re doing nothing. That’s not true.”

    Egan then replied that he didn’t know how to file pleadings, so the law firm had helped him with that. This seems to have further angered the judge, who interrupted Egan and said, “You don’t know how to get a stamp and put it on an envelope and write your return address on it and then mail it? You don’t know how to do that?”

    Egan conceded that he did, but said, “I’m just at a loss, I’m not an attorney.” Seabright responded, “I’m not buying this.… I’m a smart guy, I get it, and don’t underestimate me.”

    Egan finally acknowledged that he’d had substantive help as well, saying that a law clerk had researched and drafted the language in the documents. The law clerk, identified as Trejur Bordenave, was described by the firm’s Vince Finaldi as a law student who no longer works there. A LinkedIn page for Bordenave lists him as a 2014 law graduate who is still at the firm.

    The judge allowed Egan’s responsive document — his answer to the suit — to stand, denying Ancier’s motion that it be struck, but said that going forward, Finaldi’s firm would have to either fully represent Egan in the case or not at all and could not engage in any more ghostwriting of pleadings. Finaldi responded, “We will be providing [Egan] no more assistance, because I just can’t incur that kind of liability for the firm.”

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/judge-scolds-hollywood-sex-accuser-742505

    The above piece shows that Finaldi knows which side his bread is buttered on, and withdraws from a case at the first sign of danger for himself. However in litigating against the MJ Estate he is completely sure that there is nothing to be afraid of even if he involves himself in the worst kind of malicious prosecution, and the big question here is WHY he is not afraid?

    Like

  84. William King permalink
    March 10, 2019 1:52 pm

    @helena I never knew Chandler mentioned going to Euro Disney, Paris. That’s interesting. I think that may be where Safechuck got the idea to set his honeymoon story there. He didn’t just choose Paris arbitrarily. Wow! Thanks for the link to the vanity fair article.

    Like

  85. March 10, 2019 2:11 pm

    So, Helena, what do you think about what I told you about my friend in the industry, who was hired to do a jukebox musical for Michael in the mid-2000s, and said that his encounters with him and his people only showed him to be guilty? How he “joined everyone in telling him not to be around children,” and how he talked to someone with a background in forensic psychology, saying “his family talked to me, and they said how Michael’s sick obsessions were taking over his life, and it is clear that he is a criminal sex offender?” Of what he said he saw, and what other people around told him, especially that Michael’s family was speaking out against him?

    Like

  86. March 10, 2019 2:29 pm

    “He didn’t just choose Paris arbitrarily.” – William King

    I think that this is where the Safechuck family really joined Michael on a tour – when the school finished and they obtained their visas for going around Europe. So most probably it was accidental that they joined him in Paris and not another place.

    But what is important is that in his complaint Safechuck told a tale that the abuse began immediately upon their arrival. He didn’t say so directly, but it is clear from his own timeline. Most probably later they realized the mistake and worked on a different variant – the one presented by Dan Reed in his movie (NOT documentary). Reed tells a story of a long journey over cities in Europe – concert here, concert there – and then they arrived in Paris and this is when “molestation” started.

    This timeline is a fabrication, so Dan Reed as complicit in this fabrication in no less measure than Robson and Safechuck. It is the trick done by the director of this film.

    Like

  87. March 10, 2019 3:00 pm

    “what do you think about what I told you about my friend in the industry, who was hired to do a jukebox musical for Michael in the mid-2000s, and said that his encounters with him and his people only showed him to be guilty? Of what he said he saw, and what other people around told him, especially that Michael’s family was speaking out against him?” – luv4hutch

    I really don’t understand why you are so preoccupied with what your Hollywood friend said. Hollywood is the first place where pedophilia is rampant as Corey Feldman tells us and we can now see for ourselves. No one in the film industry, and Hollywood in particular, is even surprised with child molestation as the co-founder of Sundance festival Sterling Van Wagenen (the one who himself molested a boy) admitted it – see this post for details https://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2019/02/10/sundance-festival-co-founder-admits-to-child-molestation-in-early-90s/

    So whenever they in Hollywood see a man and a boy beside him they automatically think that it is “the usual thing”. And of course they thought the same about Michael Jackson and he was naive enough not to understand it. I think that everyone in Hollywood thought Michael to be a p. because for them it is an absolutely routine matter.

    As to what someone in the Jackson family said, if it was LaToya, please don’t ever mention her name to me. I’ve read about her in Margaret Mcdonaldo’s book and Margaret writes that at some point LaToya told her in full seriousness that her mother “wanted to kill her”. As far as I remember it had to do with some medicine LaToya asked from Katherine and she hesitantly gave it to her, with all the necessary warnings, but when LaToya felt bad she nevertheless accused her mother of trying to kill her. There are many similar episodes about LaToya there. If I find it I will provide the quotes.

    One more episode that struck me is that LaToya is obsessed with tidiness, so in order to prevent anyone from entering her room at Havenhurst, she vacuumed her thick carpet moving backwards towards the door. The idea was – if anyone entered her room while she was away she would see their traces on the carpet.

    Incredible woman.

    Like

  88. March 10, 2019 3:27 pm

    Well, naturally, I could definitely tell that clearly he went in there with preconceived notions and they were amplified by hearsay (and yes, though the psychologist friend of his never said beyond “family”, I could tell it was LaToya, who, depending on who you believe, either was coerced to play Judas against Michael or did it of her own free will, and who certainly threw away her credibility long ago, even when she tried to switch to defending Michael), and I wanted him to hear the evidence.

    He didn’t even bother to hear what I had to say, just saying “I know from what I experienced, so I know it’s true.” When I mentioned the FBI investigation, his response was “you know as well as I do that the Bureau isn’t infallible.” That was before I even got to mention that the investigation lasted a full decade. I posted plenty of links and full documents to detail all the different allegations from 1993 onwards, and he didn’t bother to look, just saying “I know Hollywood is full of vipers, and Michael was one. I’m sorry if the facts are unpleasant to you.”

    Like

  89. March 10, 2019 4:19 pm

    “he didn’t bother to look, just saying “I know Hollywood is full of vipers, and Michael was one. I’m sorry if the facts are unpleasant to you.”- luv4hutch

    The fact that should be extremely unpleasant to your friend is that Hollywood is indeed full of vipers and he, like others, doesn’t care about it.

    The people who care are outside Hollywood and don’t know what’s going on there, and vice versa – Hollywood knows everything about it, but doesn’t care. So it’s no use even talking to this person about MJ. A much better question is to grill him why he knows that it is full of vipers and never talks?

    Let this good man give us the names, facts and evidence. We will be very much willing to listen.

    Incidentally, speaking about Hollywood, everyone seems to forget that right at the time when LN movie was to hit the Sundance festival there was a very detailed article in the Atlantic about four men who revealed that they had been abused by Bryan Singer. The two journalists worked for 12 months to interview at least 50 sources and this is what they say:

    The portrait of Singer that emerges is of a troubled man who surrounded himself with vulnerable teenage boys, many of them estranged from their families. Their accounts suggest that Singer didn’t act alone; he was aided by friends and associates who brought him young men. And he was abetted, in a less direct way, by an industry in which a record of producing hits confers immense power: Many of the sources we interviewed insisted, out of fear of damaging their own career, that we withhold their name, even as they expressed dismay at the behavior they’d witnessed.

    Singer himself wrote an Instagram post in October that read, in part:

    I have known for some time that [there may be] a negative article about me. They have contacted my friends, colleagues and people I don’t even know. In today’s climate where people’s careers are being harmed by mere accusations, what [these reporters are] attempting to do is a reckless disregard for the truth, making assumptions that are fictional and irresponsible.

    Singer continues to enjoy the benefit of the doubt in Hollywood.

    And now comes a very interesting part. It is about Victor Valdovinos who says he was molested at age 13.

    By Valdovinos’s account, his experience on the Apt Pupil set was far more upsetting. After being dropped off by his father one morning, he was directed to the locker room. Shooting was about to begin. He remembers that the locker room had been divided—a screen here and lights over there. A crew member gave him a towel and told him to disrobe completely and wrap the towel around his waist. He was 13 years old. He hadn’t yet had his first kiss.

    “I’m hanging out,” Valdovinos says. “All of a sudden, Bryan comes in. He goes, ‘Hey! How are you?’ Real cheerful. And I’m like, ‘Hi.’ I can’t remember his exact words, but he was kind of just saying ‘Come back here.’ He kind of directs me; he kind of grabs me; and he takes us to the back area, which was kind of closed off. Like, this is the whole locker room”—Valdovinos gestures to suggest the space—“they’re doing their stuff over there, and I was back here, in the towel, with no shirt and no clothes on, sitting on one of the locker-room benches. Bryan’s like, ‘Just hang out here. It’s going to be all day. Don’t worry.” Singer left, and Valdovinos waited for what seemed like hours.

    Eventually, he says, Singer came back and made small talk. How are you doing? Do you need anything? “Every time he had a chance—three times—he would go back there … He was always touching my chest.” Finally, according to Valdovinos, Singer reached through the towel flaps and “grabbed my genitals and started masturbating it.” The director also “rubbed his front part on me,” Valdovinos alleges. “He did it all with this smile.” Valdovinos says that Singer told him, “You’re so good-looking … I really want to work with you … I have a nice Ferrari … I’m going to take care of you.”

    “I was frozen. Speechless,” Valdovinos continues. “He came back to where I was in the locker room throughout the day to molest me.” (Three sources confirmed that Singer did drive a Ferrari at the time, and we were able to verify Valdovinos’s description of how the set was arranged and of certain people he says he met there. His father told us he remembers dropping him off for the filming and thinking that perhaps his son would become an actor. Singer’s lawyer said that he could find no record of Valdovinos’s having been an extra and questioned why Valdovinos was not able to produce a pay stub or other documentation.)

    Victor Valdovinos at age 17. Was molested at age 13 Victor Valdovinos says Singer molested him on the set of Apt Pupil when he was 13 years old. He’s shown here at age 17. By then he’d had a child and temporarily dropped out of school. (Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times / Getty)

    Valdovinos says that although he did end up being used as an extra in a number of takes, he couldn’t ever bring himself to watch Apt Pupil. His brother Edgar did, though, and when Edgar told Valdovinos that he didn’t appear on-screen, Valdovinos replied, “That dude was, like, touching on me.” Edgar pressed for more details, but Valdovinos didn’t explain what he meant to his brother, who is now deceased. “It was embarrassing. I didn’t want anyone to know. So I locked it away.” https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/bryan-singers-accusers-speak-out/580462/

    The article contains lots and lots of other information, but the above story is absolutely remarkable. The thing is that Robson, as far as I know, describes the same episode in MJ’s studio which sounds identical. What I mean is that Robson could have taken it directly from the papers that were available to Singer who knew about those materials collected about him at least for a year.

    I haven’t yet seen the whole film and would want to compare those two descriptions. Those who have seen it already, please do.

    One of the boys from that article in the Atlantic is Bret Tyler Skopek who self-published a book “Prince of Darkness”. Here is Bret talking about the goal of the book (a must see):
    [video src="https://ksr-video.imgix.net/projects/3079217/video-827517-h264_high.mp4" /]

    And here is the page for his project: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/742171373/the-prince-of-darkness

    In my humble opinion the current hysteria around Michael Jackson is meant to obscure the accusations the boys molested in Hollywood are making about Bryan Singer.

    Like

  90. March 10, 2019 4:32 pm

    Well, my friend stated “When I work with clients like MJ like I did at that time, I’m always under strict NDAs and confidentiality agreements. I can’t give names or all the details I’m privy to, because they will find out and sue me. My career will be ruined.” And of course, out of respect for him, I’m not giving you his name. Basically, he stated that “I keep my head down and just hope that the bad ones are rooted out somehow, by others with the courage.” He also of course made similar statements about regarding Disney’s termination of James Gunn, claiming that two actresses (no names given) came up to him and told him that Gunn has a cache of child porn and made them act like tweens while they had sex with him and he was videotaping it. And he said “Disney may not be fully aware of all this, but they can’t afford to give any kind of definitive statement, because everyone in the company has skeletons in the closet.” Even though, of course, Gunn has nowhere near the power or clout as virtually anyone else in the company, or like the troubled departure of John Lasseter from the company recently.

    As for timing, it’s not only Singer that Michael is meant to distract from (or like how Michael was convenient for the media to divert attention from Woody Allen). Before Leaving Neverland made it to Sundance, the main film that people were talking about was a documentary about Harvey Weinstein called Untouchable, detailing how he got away with for so long. Not to mention, the HBO premiere of Leaving Neverland came around the time Harvey’s trial began. Oprah has been friends with Weinstein for many years, and after his fall, Seal famously accused Oprah of knowing about and being complicit in his wrongdoings. Whenever she has been asked about Weinstein, Oprah has always dodged the question. And given that she viewed the film on David Geffen’s yacht, this raises a lot of question. Is Weinstein somehow involved in Leaving Neverland? And was Geffen also a part in Weinstein’s wrongdoing over the decades?

    Like

  91. March 10, 2019 4:51 pm

    “Basically, he stated that “I keep my head down and just hope that the bad ones are rooted out somehow, by others with the courage.” – luv4hutch

    Instead of throwing lies about Jackson your friend should collect his brains together and ask himself a question: Why was it only Michael Jackson who was investigated by every law enforcement entity in the US and for decades too? Was there anyone in Hollywood who ever underwent the same kind of scrutiny? Let him think it over and make him answer. Make HIM answer you, instead of YOU answering his questions.

    “As for timing, it’s not only Singer that Michael is meant to distract from. The main film that people were talking about was a documentary about Harvey Weinstein called Untouchable, detailing how he got away with for so long.”

    This is correct, only it should be read the other way round. It was mainly Singer and only then Harvey Weinstein.

    Weinstein will soon go under trial, so his case has already got much publicity and he has already lost everything he had – this company and reputation.

    But it is Bryan Singer who is really Untouchable. He still receives awards and honors, and the media silences his pool parties with boys though everyone in Hollywood knows about them.

    The reason why they want to distract attention from the film about Weinstein is because the pattern of sexual abuse of girls and boys is the same in Hollywood. Weinstein belongs to one faction there, and Singer belongs to another. The factions aren’t on good terms with each other, and are not above throwing each other under the bus, but when it comes to hiding the way they get away with it they are in the same boat.

    Like

  92. March 10, 2019 5:02 pm

    Sadly, my friend is so completely unwilling to budge, that he won’t allow that. And even then, based on answers from earlier conversations, I know what the answer would be: Because Michael showed himself early on to be sick and perverted, and flaunted it publicly. He basically created a cult around him, no different than Jim Jones, and those with their laughable defenses of Michael are lost causes who will never see reality because they drank the Kool-Aid.

    Sad that this is what he thinks and has just refused to even consider the evidence at all, and to write off Michael as the equivalent of one of history’s greatest monsters. But it can’t be helped.

    Though I did think of something just now. What if HBO actually had been wanting to turn on Michael for a long time, or if they did long ago, but in a subtle manner? Remember the planned Beacon Theatre special in December 1995, but Michael collapsed onstage during rehearsals and was hospitalized? Michael recovered in a few days, past the filming and broadcast dates, but he recovered fairly quickly, and they could easily have rescheduled everything by a few days. But, instead, HBO pulled the plug and just said “no, it’s off.” Even though, when U2’s 2015 HBO special was imperiled after the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris, they easily allowed rescheduling.

    The show would have been an intimated, stripped-down affair with a focus on just the music, just the moves, just the man, and a lot of new choreography, with the potential to be just as revelatory as Motown 25, the Bad Wembley shows and the Dangerous Bucharest concert, but HBO just went immediately to collect insurance rather than reschedule. Was there an ulterior motive for that? http://www.damienshields.com/michael-jackson-one-night-only/

    Like

  93. March 10, 2019 5:35 pm

    “What if HBO actually had been wanting to turn on Michael for a long time, or if they did long ago, but in a subtle manner?” – luv4hutch

    I object to ideas like “what if?” and throwing about unsubstantiated conspiracy stories. There is no point in searching for the truth by asking “What if?” and just leaving it at that. If you ask yourself this question, you should study it inside out and if the result is negative, it is a good result. Your time was wasted, but now you know for sure that the idea was non-productive and you shouldn’t go in that direction further.

    When you discard all those false leads you finally come upon a lead which is supported by facts and evidence, and this is when you know that you are on the right track.

    “I know what the answer would be: Because Michael showed himself early on to be sick and perverted, and flaunted it publicly.”

    But Bryan Singer is also flaunting it publicly. I’ve seen a picture of those pool parties and there are small boys there, right among naked grown-up men and you can clearly see that they are minors, just by their small heads in comparison with others.

    Why don’t 1) the police and DA office 2) Department of Children and Family services 3) FBI and 4) the media investigate these parties and talk about them in the same way they talked and investigated Michael Jackson? Why is there complete silence about it?

    Let your good friend answer at least THIS question.

    Like

  94. March 10, 2019 6:12 pm

    When I posted the question to my friend, he just said “money talks and bullshit walks.” Basically just saying that Singer merely was able to pay his way out of investigations. And that when Michael was investigated by the FBI for 10 years, “they dropped the ball, because they’re human, and human error exists.”

    Like

  95. March 10, 2019 6:23 pm

    “Basically just saying that Singer merely was able to pay his way out of investigations.” – luv4hutch

    Then why wasn’t Michael Jackson able to pay his way out of investigations?
    And whom did Bryan Singer pay when those photos of his pool parties surfaced?
    He paid to the media?
    Police?
    FBI?

    Like

  96. March 10, 2019 6:30 pm

    His response: Michael’s wrongdoing was too blatant to ignore. He was caught, plain and simple, but he wriggled out of it like OJ did. And with that, he declared the matter closed and just said “I’m not talking about Michael anymore, because clearly it’s pointless.”

    It’s a shame that he won’t see reason, but you can’t keep on chasing shadows, trying to achieve the impossible, so that basically is the end of anything Michael-related in our discussions together.

    I will say, though, that if anyone has shown their true colors over the whole Michael situation as of late, it’s Oprah. I see her in a whole new light: as the raging, narcissistic egomaniac who only cares about herself, her ratings and her money. Everything about her public image clearly must have been just a facade. And it particularly is hurtful to realize this, since, like many people, while I wasn’t a fan per se, I certainly grew up with her, often seeing her on TV. She definitely made herself quite big, front and center, tackling abuse, and of course with her long-standing friendship and constant interviews with Tina Turner about her life experiences and how she broke out of her own cycle and began a megastar on her own. I thought it meant something.

    Like

  97. March 15, 2019 10:35 pm

    The video rental thing is hilarious but at the same time infuriating because Gutierrez is homophobic. He is saying that the alleged video rental store had child pornography for sale – how come, that is highly illegal. And he is equating homosexuality with perverted behaviours like child abuse. Disgusting.

    Like

  98. March 16, 2019 7:22 am

    “Gutierrez is homophobic. He is saying that the alleged video rental store had child pornography for sale – how come, that is highly illegal. And he is equating homosexuality with perverted behaviours like child abuse. Disgusting.” – Y.

    Gutierrez is gay, but he admits it in a peculiar way:

    “I am not gay, my partner is gay” (the screenshot of Revista El Periodista, 31 March 2003 is provided here in Google translation )

    Victor Gutierrez I am not gay my partner is gay

    As to him throwing it into one pile with child abuse, this question should be addressed to Gutierrez. Personally I would also like him to be grilled on the subject.

    Like

  99. March 16, 2019 3:41 pm

    Just came across a video of Susan Yu, one of Michael Jackson’s attorneys at the 2005 trial, who speaks of Michael in a very heartfelt way:

    “You know why he was so special? Aside from all that he was so decent, and so modest and so humble. A lot of celebrities you come across – they suffer from narcissism, they think they are entitled to everything, not even celebrities, but a lot of people with money and fame… I wouldn’t be sitting here and talking to you if Michael was a horrible person. Who cares if he was famous if he is a jerk? But he was a really, really nice person.”

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. ‘Leaving Neverland’ Has Them Poised for Battle. | Capmocracy.com
  2. Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. ‘Leaving Neverland’ Has Them Poised for Battle. | T I S H
  3. Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. ‘Leaving Neverland’ Has Them Poised for Battle. | Tribunenewslive.com
  4. Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. ‘Leaving Neverland’ Has Them Poised for Battle. | SPOT TIMES
  5. Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. ‘Leaving Neverland’ Has Them Poised for Battle. | Media One
  6. Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. ‘Leaving Neverland’ Has Them Poised for Battle. | BKKNews.org
  7. Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. ‘Leaving Neverland’ Has Them Poised for Battle. — B-Updated
  8. Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. 'Leaving Neverland' Has Them Poised for Battle. – The New York Times – Darwin Wealth Creation
  9. Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. 'Leaving Neverland' Has Them Poised for Battle. - The New York Times - Viral Stuff
  10. Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. ‘Leaving Neverland’ Has Them Poised for Battle. - Latest News US and all around the World
  11. Michael Jackson fans are unpleasant. "Leaving Neverland" has them ready for battle. - Be In Rose
  12. Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. ‘Leaving Neverland’ Has Them Poised for Battle. – WORLD
  13. Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. ‘Leaving Neverland’ Has Them Poised for Battle. – The New York Times | Unhinged Group
  14. Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. 'Leaving Neverland' Has Them Poised for Battle. - The New York Times — Headline News
  15. Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. 'Leaving Neverland' Has Them Poised for Battle. - The New York Times - Americans for a Better America
  16. Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. ‘Leaving Neverland’ Has Them Poised for Battle. – The New York Times – Affiliate Hub
  17. Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. 'Leaving Neverland' Has Them Poised for Battle. | TopNews.win
  18. Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. ‘Leaving Neverland’ Has Them Poised for Battle. – The New York Times – Celeb Crash
  19. Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. 'Leaving Neverland' Has Them Poised for Battle. – The New York Times | Homeless Lives Matter Berkeley
  20. Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. 'Leaving Neverland' Has Them Poised for Fight. - The New York Times - Spider Link Directory Spider Link Directory
  21. Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. 'Leaving Neverland' Has Them Poised for Battle. | | TimesDirect.TV
  22. Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. ‘Leaving Neverland’ Has Them Poised for Battle. - FreeMedia24
  23. Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. 'Leaving Neverland' Has Them Poised for Battle. | Gossip News

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: