Skip to content

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

March 8, 2019

The first week of March this year was packed with so many crucial events around the so-called documentary  “Leaving Neverland” that each of them demanded a post. However covering them all was impossible in principle, so I settled on a review of the main episodes in the battle between truth and lies suddenly imposed on the public by Michael Jackson haters.

Some important pieces of the battle may have been omitted and I apologize for it in advance – if something substantial was overlooked it may be added later, in the comments or as an update to the post.

What you will see here are mostly tweets and messages from various people who have seen the film. I myself saw about an hour of Dan Reed’s four-hour product and to my surprise was so unimpressed that even despite its graphic content managed to have a meal in the process. My comment will be minimal as the impression is not full, however my short review of the first part will also be here.

For a start this is what genuine survivors of child sexual abuse say about the film. 

March 4, 2019


As a victim of child sexual abuse I have never felt so disgusted by a single media event in my life. I take these kinds of allegations really seriously because they are. To lie about something so traumatizing is beyond horrifying to me. These men need to be prosecuted


Real victims should never pay attention to this fake documentary, i was a victim myself and i truly feel this is just a mockery it hasn’t affected me but only wish and pray robson and safechuck pay for their lies along with their supporters its disgusting. #LeavingNeverland

Kae Purbeck‏  If you were a victim of abuse yourself, how can you just dismiss these men’s stories out of hand because you are a fan if MJ?! That is deeply disturbing.

𝕽𝖚𝖉𝖞‏ @rudyvitoria

I don’t know how you feel about this but they also claimed to have kept rings they said Michael gave to them in fake wedding ceremonies? Had my abuser ever given me a gift I would’ve burned it a long time ago. Who keeps mementos of their own abuse? They’re mocking people like us.

𝕽𝖚𝖉𝖞‏ @rudyvitoria

That’s BY FAR the part of the doc that shocked me the most. A real victim would never keep a memento. The fact that they even suggested that victims are sitting at home with souvenirs on their shelves just in case they want to relive their torment infuriates me.

caramella I’ve been sexually assaulted, never considered ever ever ever in my entire life of lives whether or not it would make me “relevant” or “relatable” in my next career, which was the context of his words. Using this in his next career. You know it’s what it sounds like is why.

Michelle heald

I can assure you the entire #MJFAM are behind all true victims. I won’t pretend to know your pain but I know you have to have a great deal of pain. These guys don’t deserve to be walking free after the mockery they have made of true victims. Prayers for you and others.

𝕽𝖚𝖉𝖞‏ @rudyvitoria

Tearful reading all the from the #MJFam. I’ve been to therapy & taken meds to deal with the abuse I endured. It’s so hard to come through the other side. Shame on @HBO, @Oprah, Wade, James & Dan for playing with these issues. May God forgive you. #MJInnocent #LeavingNeverland

Steve Brookstein‏ As a survivor, I don’t feel silenced by Michael Jackson fans. I feel silenced by media controlled by powerful paedophiles who would throw anyone else under the bus to protect their own.

The  viewers who expected evidence in the film didn’t find any.

Blackwings‏ @shadowsforlight

2 hours in, and not a shred of evidence. Just grotesque pedophilia fan fiction. Feels very emotionally manipulative and propagandistic.

RazörFist‏ @RAZ0RFIST

…and how they record even the most inoccuous phone calls, yet conveniently never record one where Michael says the faintest incriminating word. In hours and hours of tape. Boy, that’s some uncharacteristically bad luck.

WildStyle   Forgive me, but just got to the MJ showing Wade porn section. Sorry to be graphic, but apparently a grown mans penis in his mouth was ok and something he “looked forward to” when visiting with Michael again after being away in Australia. But later when he got back and MJ started showing him porn (a “new thing” straight from the Arvizo trial)… that wasn’t ok. That wasn’t so fun. And he still looks so troubled by it. Ok, Wade.

Just a short note on the above – besides the “penis” horror tale which is of course a totally new thing as compared with Robson’s testimony under oath in 2005, porn was not an issue there either. We remember Robson’s genuine surprise at the prosecutor telling him that “the exhibit” he was holding in his hands (an erotic heterosexual magazine) once belonged to Jackson. Robson said that this was the first time he knew Michael had any such material.

What the viewers also noticed is that there was something not right about the strange way the two characters in Dan Reed’s film describe their “abuse” and how jolly both “victims” and their family members are.

Mandy Hale

Watching #LeavingNeverland. I’ve always been Team #MJInnocent & so far this documentary is only confirming that belief. There is something very odd & disturbing about how jolly all the “victims” and their families are. The moms keep giggling like schoolgirls.

What doesn’t add up is the relaxed and smiling way they describe their first meetings with Michael and the same relaxed and composed way they describe the alleged abuse.

Safechuck breaks his horror story about how his “molestation started” by talking of his penis swelling.  Yes, it was just like that – a graphic description coming out of the blue. Besides this sudden intimate revelation what also takes you aback is that while saying that he is looking straight into the camera and is speaking in a calm voice with a kind of a lingering smile to it.

Well, I have seen videos of genuine victims talking and remember all of them stammering, making extremely long pauses and struggling to utter just a single word. And Safechuck’s smooth narration definitely has nothing to do with the painful way genuine victims talk – even if they try to occasionally smile.

Here is just one video and you will see what I mean. Mind you that this man is not even describing the abuse he suffered but is only asking other victims to seek help like he did. To reveal the details of his abuse will take him and other real victims a thousand more miles to go before (or if) they ever manage it.

If you compare the above with Safechuck’s relaxed pose you will see that he and Robson are an imitation. A very good imitation, but still an imitation.

James Safechuck about ejaculation1

Just look at his relaxed pose

The post-film show of the two actors talking to Oprah produced on some viewers the impression of pure evil.

𝕽𝖚𝖉𝖞‏ @rudyvitoria

Just caught up on last night’s #LeavingNeverland & #AfterNeverland and I’ll never forget @Oprah saying “when you’re 7 & someone strokes your penis it feels good” & Wade nodding in agreement. I was 5 when I was molested. It didn’t feel good. How dare you. I feel crushed. #MJInnocent

𝕽𝖚𝖉𝖞‏ @rudyvitoria

Pure evil. I don’t even know what to say. I had to pause it and compose myself.

Indeed, imagine the genuine victim we’ve seen in the video hearing that “stroking his penis at age seven felt good”. I think he would have simply thrown up in front of the camera.

The same creepy feeling of something terribly wrong about Dan Reed’s film came over the viewers after the program “Good Morning Britain”, where the filmmaker clashed with Piers Morgan despite the latter’s reasonable and perfectly adequate questions.

Becoming more and more irate, Dan began accusing Piers, 53, of falling for the story from the singer’s estate, which has claimed the two men, who are now in their thirties, are only going back on their initial statements in the court case as a bid to win millions of dollars.

“They’ve repeatedly said under oath nothing happened,” the journalist offered, citing a previous story in the media which saw “everyone rushing to believe the accusers’ truth,” when it actually “turned out the truth was a very different thing”.

“Why should we not believe them?” Dan blasted. “You are swallowing the Michael Jackson line hook, line and sinker. This is not about money.”

“No I’m not!” Piers insisted, but Dan ignored him and carried on.

Piers asked if the director was “100% sure” if the word of the two accusers was enough to prove Jackson was a paedophile.

He said: “It is all very weird and odd and makes me feel uncomfortable. I’m just not as certain as you are that Jackson was proven to be a paedophile and I’m concerned about the credibility of the two people you so whole-heartedly rely on.”

Dan said he believed their accounts and to “concoct a whole charade” of the family’s being devastated would “beggar belief”.

Dan explained there were eyewitness notes, statements made by Neverland staff that corroborated the allegations.

What struck some viewers most is that Dan Reed was not shy to express pedophilia views.

The Wigsnatcher His narrative on sexual relationships between adults and children is wrong in general. Were you totally creeped out by him on Piers Morgan? He says “Sex can be pleasant” between adults and children! Something is wrong with this man I tell you.

Justice for The Falsely Accused These creeps like Robson, Safechuck and Reed come out and talk about little children having a “sexually and emotionally fulfilling relationship” with an adult man, internalizing NAMBLA propaganda just to further their agenda, but it is MJ who is the pervert? I don’t think so!

Sameh Wow. “Lover” instead of “abuser”??!Dan Reed has already described it as “the sex” instead of “the abuse”. Would he care to explain his choice of words? No wonder why Safechuck’s accounts are drawn from NAMBLA affiliate Gutierrez’s recounts!

And the thing I noticed about Dan Reed is that when attacking Piers Morgan he said the following, as reported here:

I make allegations about Michael but Michael’s dead and I’ve put his rebuttals, his denials in the film,” Dan explained. “Wade Robson and James Safechuck are not dead…To talk about hard evidence, soiled underwear 20 years later, I’m sorry that’s… In paedophile cases, if this was tried in a court it would be on the evidence of these two very credible witnesses.”

Forget about the “hard evidence” and “soiled underwear” nonsense – in the recent post about MJ’s personal maid Adrian McManus who washed Michael’s and his guests’ clothes and underwear, I found not a single shred of evidence of what Dan Reed is talking about, even in her latest and nastiest version aired on Australian TV.

But what astonished me most is that Dan Reed admits it himself that it is he who is making these allegations (“I make allegations about Michael…” ) and he is absolutely not impartial here. After such an admission all questions about the gentre of this film will fall off by themselves – the film is NOT a documentary, but is a deliberate hatchet job where everything, from music and changing the timeline of the events to open and vicious lies about Jackson, is dedicated to his murderous character assassination.

The example of this assassination is the way Dan Reed tampered with the tape of Michael Jackson congratulating Wade Robson on his birthday.

Michael Jackson: “Hello Wade. Congratulations little one. Today is your birthday. I don’t celebrate birthdays, of course, but I thought I would take this moment to say congratulations on the day that you were born. In my opinion, you should spend this day with your mother & your father, who conceived you. You should be giving them the presents & being thankful that they brought you into the world.”

And the first few seconds in this video show us the way it looks in Dan Reed’s trailer:

MJJJusticeProject‏ @MJJJusticePrjct

Pay attention people judging #MichaelJackson there is manipulation in the film #LeavingNeverland – He didn’t come between children & their parents, quite the opposite- in this bday message Michael appears to tell WADE to appreciate his parents and give them gifts –

Let me add that besides Michael asking the boy to be closer with his parents this message shows the unique way of his thinking – Michael tells Wade that it is he who should be grateful to his parents for bringing him into the world and who should make presents to them. After listening to this tape I have no doubt whatsoever that together with the tape Michael sent gifts to Wade’s parents too (and rings to his mother, same as to Safechuck’s).

Coming back to Dan Reed’s film the only journalist who has grilled Dan Reed about his product is Piers Morgan.

As you can see in the above tweet Dan Reed ridiculed Piers Morgan, but the journalist responded saying that he was simply doing his job, putting to him “the obvious questions any journalist should ask about the documentary, which is based on the testimony of accusers who said (under oath) the complete opposite before Jackson died, and now stand to make millions from his estate by changing their stories.”

Who could expect that in the shameless smear campaign against MJ Piers Morgan will remain the pillar of journalism in the UK?  Only recently Charles Thomson, an award winning journalist himself, was talking about the death of journalism – however it seems that all is not lost yet given Piers Morgan’s example.

Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson

A ‘journalist’ who refuses to do any research calling somebody else a disgrace for stating a fact. Death of journalism.

Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson

I dropped a couple of little truth bombs on a pair of BBC presenters yesterday. Watch this video below and hear how surprised they were after I’d finished. One, an ex-journalist, couldn’t understand why nobody else is balancing the story with these facts.

Later Charles Thomson spoke again on the BBC:

When some MJ supporters refuse to watch Dan Reed’s product the arrogant media tells them to see the film before commenting. Charles Thomson has the following to say about it:

Charles Thomson‏ @CEThomson

Why would anyone who’s spent 5 years reading the court documents, including lengthy deposition transcripts, need to watch a heavily edited TV show by a director who freely admits that it is completely biased in favour of the accusers & contains zero scrutiny of their allegations?

Instead of inspiring people to watch the film Dan Reed’s mock documentary inspired people to come out of the woodwork and speak up.

Brandi Jackson revealed that while Wade claims that MJ allegedly monopolized the boy for himself, her uncle Michael actually set up Wade and Brandi together and they dated for 7 years after that.

Brandi Jackson was later interviewed by John Ziegler. Among the many things we learn is that Brandi was booked for interviews with two major TV channels, but both were inexplicably cancelled; knowing Wade very well she can see where he is trying not to laugh when he tells his graphic story; and after her uncle’s death Robson’s mother Joy called her and had the nerve to suggest that she was best suited to care for Michael’s children than his mother Katherine. In other words the interview is a gem – here is a link to it.

A woman who worked at Neverland in the early 90s and initially didn’t want to be involved found the film to be the last straw. She recalled that the Safechucks had no problem of taking advantage of Jackson’s generosity and that Michael even chose not to be on the property when they came.

Judi Brisse‏ @JudiBrisse

I didn’t want to get involved Maria, but the time has come. Thank you.

Judi Brisse‏ @JudiBrisse

I worked in the house at Neverland when the Safechucks were there, in the early 90’s. They had no problem taking advantage of Mr.Jackson’s generosity back then. Michael was never on property when they came. He chose not to be.

Girls started recollecting their own sleepover experiences with Michael Jackson:

Hammertonhal posted the picture of a girl who slept in Michael Jackson’s bed.

“During the trial they kept talking about all the boys who slept in his bed. Well, I’m a girl and I slept in his bed when I was a kid. The prosecutor must know that there were girls around, but he never mentioned it. I was tempted to offer myself up as a defense witness, but I didn’t relish the media circus” [Ian Halperin: Unmasked, page 108-109]

Scott Ross, the investigator with more than 40 years of experience was incredulous that anyone would believe Safechuck and Robson current stories.

He talked for more than two hours in a livestream interview with Nicole and disclosed some of the two guys’ secrets.

One, for example, is why Robson waited for the 7-year statute of limitations to expire after the 2005 trial in order to release his story. Ross’s answer to that is because Robson was afraid to be prosecuted for perjury (see 11:50 of the tape) and didn’t want to take any risks.

Scott Ross says that before allowing Wade Robson to testify at the 2005 trial he interviewed Robson for 3 or 4 hours to see whether he was telling the truth. Then came a short talk with Thomas Mesereau and Susan Yu, and then another long interview with two detectives on the prosecution side. Scott Ross doubts that Robson could outsmart all of them – the people with decades of experience in investigating crimes and interviewing witnesses (10:00 of the tape).

And Scott Ross didn’t ask Robson simple questions like “Did he do it to you?”. Ross used the method called by him as “Colombo”, when the detective returns to the same point an hour later and words it in a different way to see the consistency of the answer. Remarkably, Wade Robson never wavered and never once slipped in his answers (28:50 of the tape).

When Scott Ross hears that now Robson claims that he was subpoenaed by the defense he says he would love Robson to show him that subpoena (20:50 of the tape).

As to Safechuck who complained about Michael’s legal team pressuring him into testifying, Scott Ross says that Safechuck was irrelevant as a witness because the judge had ruled against his testimony long before the defense opened their case at the trial (mark 16:15 of the tape).

And what legal team did Safechuck talk about at all if it was only Scott Ross and his wife Lisa? And they certainly didn’t call Safechuck as he was a non-entity to them. The only one left of the “team” was Eva Tavasci, but she didn’t call Safechuck either as at the time she was preoccupied with a very ill relative of hers and was not available even to Ross and sometimes for 3 days at a time (17:15 of the tape).

At 56:30 Scott Ross talks about the behavioral changes that take place in sexually abused children – they grow shy and quiet, don’t talk and jerk when somebody touches them – and none of it was noticed about Robson and Safechuck. (To make sure of it you need to watch at least the first 40 min of the film and see Safechuck happy and elated in Michael’s presence).

As to Dan Reed who now claims that he looked through “eyewitness notes, statements made by Neverland staff that corroborated the allegations”, Scott Ross compared those declarations to a piece of toilet paper. These notes are worthless as they were not made under oath and cannot be cross-examined. What’s more, during the 2005 trial Scott Ross found some of those “eyewitnesses” not even able to speak or read English! (mark 23:10 of the tape).

Another fine piece in Scott’s interview is that Robson’s brother Shane is a policeman with a licence both in Australia and the US, so Scott wonders: “Your brother is a police officer and you don’t tell your own brother?” Scott and Shane are still friends and knowing full well Ross’s views on Wade’s story his brother Shane Robson still works with Scott on their mutual investigations. As to why he took part in the film Shane said: “He is my brother. I need to be supportive of him”.

The talk about Safechuck’s relatives reminds me of his cousin Tony who said in October 2013 that he and Jimmy used to hang out together at Neverland and all allegations about MJ are bullshit. It was the time when Tony didn’t yet know that his cousin Jimmy would join Robson’s complaint, so this tweet was the last we heard from Tony:


“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.”

Tony’s tweet is in direct contradiction with statements of Safechuck’s mother who says that she danced when she learned of MJ’s death:

Stephanie Safechuck “Oh thank god, he can’t hurt anymore children. Those were my thoughts, and I danced. I was so happy he died.” – James Safechuck’s mother on Michael Jackson’s death #LeavingNeverland

Why was this callous woman so happy when Michael Jackson died if Tony tells us that at that time they considered Michael Jackson a great person?

The lies these people tell us would be even entertaining and fun to disentangle, if they weren’t that tragic in the first place.

A couple of other incredible details were also noted by knowledgeable MJ fans. Someone recalled that Wade Robson was caught visiting the blog of the worst Michael Jackson’s haters – apparently, in a quest for details of his own abuse or suitable timeline for it.

PHOENIX  What real victim has to research his own abuse on sites decided to smearing his “abuser”?

Others recall that while we are told to believe that both characters were protecting their “lover” not knowing that it was a crime, the judge who looked into their case didn’t buy this BS.

“Plaintiff knew at the time of the decedent’s death in June 2009 that it was a crime for an adult to engage in sexual conduct with a minor.”

There were so many versions of their stories that now I am a bit confused which version is valid for today – “they didn’t know it was abuse and thought it was love” or “they knew it was a crime but were protecting their lover”. But in any case it was a perjury on their part, and Scott Ross is probably right when he says that to avoid going to jail Robson deliberately waited for the 7-year statute of limitations to expire before releasing his complaint.

These guys seem to have safeguarded themselves from any problem while working on their elaborate long-term plan.

The Estate’s lawsuit against HBO will tell you more about the twists and turns in these two charactes’ tales:

And yes, a week ago Richard Plepler who had worked HBO for 28 years suddenly resigned amid what they called the “restructuring” of the company.

HBO CEO Richard Plepler to resign amid restructuring under AT&T

CNBC February 28, 2019

HBO CEO Richard Plepler is out amid a broad restructuring of the company under new parent AT&T T , according to an internal memo obtained by CNBC.

Plepler had been at HBO for nearly three decades and led the company as it became one of the market leaders in streaming video on demand. AT&T’s purchase of Time Warner earlier this year spurred reports of a culture clash between the telecom giant and its newly acquired media assets.

Plepler is leaving in part because he would have seen less autonomy under the new structure, according to a person familiar with the transition. Plepler is still working out the exact timing of the transition, the person said, but chafed at the prospect of a larger company and more oversight.

MJ supporters responded to it as follows:

The pushed narrative states Richard is resigning because of “reconstruction.” I’ll say the Michael Jackson Estate’s lawsuit over #LeavingNeverland has more to do with it than anything else. Oh not to mention that backlash this film is going to receive.

After Dan Reed’s film aired on TV a certain clip from it came to Taj Jackson’s attention.

The clip has to do with Robson’s explanations why he had to lie in the courtroom. According to the heart-wrenching story of this epitome of human kindness he felt sorry for Michael’s children and couldn’t bear the thought of them left alone if their father went to jail, and this convinced him even more that he should lie in court to protect him.

Here is the transcript of that clip:

Chantal Robson: (music) “So we are at the ranch with all his family. Michael didn’t look well. He looked very sick. His kids were there. Everybody was there.

Wade Robson (music, an aerial view of Neverland):  His mind was in a whole other place (music). I remember all of us sitting at dinner and Paris, his daughter, just wanting her dad’s attention, like pulling on his arm and pulling on his fingers, “Daddy, daddy, daddy”. And he wasn’t there, and I was feeling really sad.

(video of MJ’s children) What if he loses? What if he goes to jail? These are the last couple of times that they see their daddy, you know? Which built my conviction even that much more – to save him.

Amanda Robson: “I think that definitely helped Wade to go into the courtroom feeling that he wanted to support Michael”.

And this is what Taj Jackson revealed in his tweet on the above:

“How do you know, you weren’t there.” That has been one of the main lines the press have used against me as I speak up for my uncle. Someone sent me this part of the “doc”, and I can tell you with 100% certainly, Wade’s WHOLE family flat out lied on camera in this video.

If I was not physically there myself to witness this dinner, I probably would have not even questioned it. This story beat is supposed to give Wade the motivation to “lie” under oath to “protect” Michael Jackson. Problem is, this dinner HAPPENED AFTER Wade testified… Oops

Timelines matter and so does the truth. Although this is carefully scripted and edited, Chantel says “Everybody was there”. She means me, Brett and his family. But our names were wisely omitted because it doesn’t fit this narrative.

After watching this segment, you can now see that it is a lie. And the fact that they can lie on camera & twist this event & timeline so freely and convincingly, told me everything I need to know.

As Dan Reed said.. “he had a narrative to tell”. But truth has its own narrative.

Clip sent to Taj Jackson

A shot from the clip

The scene of the whole Robson family lying on camera is indeed powerful, but a much more powerful side to it is that it reminds us of Michael’s children who due to this devilish campaign against their father must be living in sheer hell now.

What brand of stone are these people’s hearts made of if they allow themselves to lie so horribly with no regard for Michael’s children? And why doesn’t anyone care for Michael’s kids while embracing and siding with the two liars?

Lisa Croft  I cannot imagine what this must be doing to his children.. The whole way this was done was so unethical and it just damages believability of victims and sets the hard earned MeToo movement back.. Dan Reed was so arrogant and blindly insensitive about it..

Incidentally, when Taj Jackson made his tweet about the whole Robson family lying in the above scene, it miraculously disappeared from the film and was cut out before screening in the UK.

Michael’s other nephew TJ Jackson‏ was right when he tweeted that the world is sick.

TJ Jackson‏  This was my Uncle Michael’s hero. This is who he modeled his life after… is showing kids love now a crime?! My uncle was just too darn good for our sick, greedy & manipulative world driven by money and ratings. His heart was too big. Period. RIP Uncle Michael. I love you!

A short note on the above. Jesus Christ was indeed Michael Jackson’s hero and the one he modeled his life after. Another image of Christ was hanging over Michael’s bed and right at the time when the alleged “abuse” was allegedly taking place there. We’ve seen this image in the photo of Michael’s room and the same image over Michael’s bed in the outtakes of Oprah’s interview with MJ in February 1993.

The image of Christ over Michael Jackson’s bed

The image of Christ over Michael’s bed in the outtakes from Oprah’s interview with MJ

Well, probably others also have a cross or image of Christ over their beds, but what surprises me most is that no one in the media ever mentioned it when describing Michael’s bedroom. They would talk for years about some secret closets and every speck of dust there, but they will never tell you who was Michael’s hero and that there was an image of him in the very center of Michael’s room.

This detail about Michael Jackson was simply not to be known by the public. The public was to know the “official” version about MJ propagated by the media, prosecution and various con artists – the version which had nothing to do with the truth.

But as Abraham Lincoln said,

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time” – Abraham Lincoln

There is a limit to people’s patience, and this seems to be the moment when people start saying “enough is enough”. At least this is what the Schleiter family from Germany said just several days ago.

“Enough is enough. Today we speak up for Michael because he deserves better and because he was the best friend we could have ever imagined”

Here is their letter in full:

An Open Letter

From the Schleiter Family

the Schleiter familyHi, we are Franziska, Anton, Marlies and Wolfgang – brother and sister and our parents. We were close friends with Michael Jackson from childhood on. What we are about to say comes out of a place of great love and appreciation. If you would like to quote this text, please do not take it out of context and always link back to this page. We won‘t be giving any interviews to the press. Thank you for understanding. This is all we have to say:


Enough is Enough.

In 1995 we first met Michael at a German TV Show. That day, something that we could never have imagined in our wildest dreams happened. It was the start of a unique friendship. A friendship so normal yet so unusual and magical. One that would last until the very last day of Michael‘s life and will continue forever in our hearts.

From the beginning we knew that what we were privileged to experience, was a treasure worth protecting. Especially regarding the world we live in, with media that wants to make up stories that sell, rather than seeking the truth and people who want to read shocking headlines rather than knowing the truth. Over the years we were offered over a quarter million of Euros for interviews, but no money in the world could ever materialize a value that would stand above the value of our memories with Michael. This is the reason why we have never spoken a word publicly about our friendship.

Something has changed our mind about speaking up lately. The utter shocking news of a new documentary that would portray Michael once again as a child molester. Even writing this sentence, putting his name and that word together, makes us feel sick to our stomach. Michael never behaved inappropriately towards us and we neither witnessed nor suspected him doing it to someone else ever.

We have been angry with the public treatment of Michael many times in the past, but we chose to stay silent – hoping the truth to run marathons and protecting Michael and his privacy.

And we had good reason to be angry, for example when Anton was falsely portrayed in a German tabloid as having a homosexual affair with Michael. We witnessed first hand how ugly the media can be and how they make up most terrible lies just to have a story. When our father denied to talk to an inquiring journalist on the phone, the story read something like “Father refuses to defend Michael”. Unfortunately scandals sell much better than anything else.

Spending a lot of time with Michael, we experienced two-faced people more than once. When Michael was in the room, they acted most charming with seemingly good intentions, but once he turned his cheek they would become rude and you could sense that their intentions were not that good after all. In front of us, they didn‘t care showing their real face. We were only the shy German family in the background, not worth paying attention to. But we were observing and slowly but surely we started to get a glance at the often difficult world Michael was living in. It was a world in which it was so very difficult to trust.

And yet Michael was kind to everybody he would meet and believed in the good so strongly. Some would call it naiv, to us it was just one of his character traits that made us look up to him. Giving everybody a chance, even if you’ve been fooled by people over and over, really is remarkable. And it makes us even more sad to know, that many took and still take advantage of this.

Being around Michael made us realize that everybody wanted a piece of him. We often wondered why, from all people, he would let us into his circle of trusted friends. Now we understand it was maybe the fact that we didn’t want anything from him and simply enjoyed being together. When he offered to pay for our education, our parents denied because it was too much of a gift. It was a no brainer for us then, but looking back on it now, it was probably something that Michael didn’t experience often.

Those who wanted a piece of his fame or his money did not care about Michael as a person or about his kind heart and uplifting spirit. It is truly a shame and we almost feel bad for those people in a way, because blinded by money, they probably didn’t realize that they just had the honor to meet a person that has a uniqueness about him that the world would only witness every other century. His music, his message, his creative and genius mind was truly one of a kind.

While our friendship with Michael was very normal in a sense that we hung out, chatted on the phone, went to the movies just like friends do, it was also magical in the sense that Michael had a warmth about him that was captivating. You would immediately feel comfortable and safe around him. He was one of the most humble persons we’ve ever met, always putting the well being of others over his own. There was never a single moment of doubt of his pure heart and intentions, which also led our parents to allow us to travel alone with Michael.

Though we‘re speaking up today, we still want to protect and respect our personal stories. What we can say though, is that each and every time we had to say good bye to Michael, we all cried because we knew how much we would miss him. The times we spent together were the most fun. And while Michael was always up for a good water balloon fight, he was also a great mentor, teaching us about life and sharing his incredible knowledge. We can remember how excited he was to tell us about the Wright brothers when he learnt that we had never heard of them. He gave us books and movies of stories we could learn from and he was eager for us to develop our talents.

We understand that our story can only put a small piece of the puzzle together for those who are still in doubt of what to believe about Michael Jackson. To those who still doubt that he was innocent, we can only plea to simply do your own research. And if the fact that Michael had to endure every possible raid of privacy in his trial in 2005 and still was found NOT GUILTY on ALL CHARGES, if this fact is still not enough for you, then maybe you can simply listen to his music.

Meeting many of his fans over the years, we were astounded how much they “got him“ as a person, even though they never personally met him. Michael and his fans had a unique friendship of their own. He trusted them and it is no wonder why they continue to trust in his good heart. They simply listened to his music and to his words. If you listen closely you‘d know all of his stories and you‘d know what kind of person he was. You would know that his mission for his time on earth was not only to bring happiness in form of melodies and rhythm but also to change the world to the better.

Boy, how he could inspire us to be our best selves and to show more love and respect to each other! Yet people choose to blow up lies that threaten to overshadow all of the greatness this man has brought.

Enough is enough.

Today we speak up for Michael because he deserves better and because he was the best friend we could have ever imagined.

Anton and Franziska and our parents Marlies and Wolfgang

Email :

The Schleiter Family – All Rights Reserved

This remarkable letter managed to convey to us a piece of the real him – the pure man we can hardly see now behind the thick crust of lies and a monstrous amount of mud covering his face.

Like Michael Jackson during his lifetime most of us are now immersed in studying innumerable lawsuits, debunking revolting lies abut MJ and even reading pro-pedophilia books about him written by personalities like Victor Gutierrez – and are sick and tired of the whole thing in the same way Michael was sick and tired of it too.

In the climate we live in now the letter from the Schleiter family is like a breath of fresh air and sip of clean water enjoyed for a brief moment before we have to dive into the mud again in the hope that telling the truth about Michael Jackson may produce something positive one day.

Mark Flear @MarkFlear

It’s an odd time to live in generally. I suppose this brings up old emotions for some. People can and do change their minds. The younger generation might be more wise to facts in this age. So keeping at truth seeking and dissemination might produce something positive.


And now comes the difficult case of Corey Feldman.

Corey is a survivor of child sexual abuse who has been consistently fighting pedophilia and the right of abused children to get justice for themselves. At the moment he finds himself between a rock and a hard place – on the one hand he has the fondest memories of Michael Jackson and can’t even imagine him do anything to a child, but on the other hand Corey is campaigning for the right of all victims of child sexual abuse, and is afraid to undermine his own cause by doubting these two characters.

His instinct didn’t let him down when he watched the film and wrote the following tweets:

The tweets had to be rewritten as otherwise they are virtually unreadable:

OK I watched it all. I know what I experiences, and yes every experience was the same .. right up to the sex part! That is where it becomes LaLa land, instead of Neverland for me.

We never spoke about sex other than a few warnings about how sex was scary and dangerous. MJ never once swore in my presence, never touched me inappropriately, and never ever suggested we should be lovers in any way!

I feel like if people could hear our tape, I’m thinking about releasing, which could give people a real look at what a 30-year old man/child and a 13 year old boy would discuss, so everyone could hear the innocence of a relationship.  

Again I wasn’t there when those boys were. But I was there around the same time as Jimmy, and I saw many kids around (girls included) who I am still friends with to this day, and none of us were ever approached by him in a sexual way at all! So as much as those 2 men deserve to have their voices heard, so do the thousands of kids who hung around him, that don’t agree!

Most pedos are serial offenders, they don’t have self control. So given the opportunity which he certainly had with me and others, being alone, with no parents around, how did he control those urges so well, while so blatantly sexual with those 2 boys? It doesn’t really fit the profile, but what motive besides $ do they have? Abandonment is a strong one!

However I do take issue with the fact that this whole thing is one sided with no chance of a defense from a dead man, and no evidence other than the word of 2 men who as adults defended him in court! But as we will never really, I only have my memories.

And thank God for me, my memories of MJ were mostly fond, aside from one and only fight because he incorrectly feared I would turn on him, and make up lies. I never did. I never would! Pray those boys can sleep with the same clarity of consciousness! Let God be your judge!

However then Corey Feldman was contacted by HLN of CNN and obviously offered a chance to speak about his fight against child abuse, certainly in connection with their Leaving Neverland film which required from him a “balanced” view on the problem.

In the elation that a major TV network noticed his lone fight against pedophilia Corey Feldman wrote the following:

I have just spoken with CNN to give a brief statement! This is important, as my position has changed as I continued to process everything. I will go on camera with the news network to discuss my decision and reiterate my support for all survivors! Heading to HLTV CNN to answer some important questions, live on 7am. Trying to make sense of all of this. It’s a difficult time for all of us. Let’s try and stay calm, and find out what God’s will is in all of this.

And this is what came of Corey’s plans and the way they were presented by HNL.

Here is the full tape with a misleading title “Corey Feldman: I can no longer defend Michael Jackson” and its transcript:

Actor, Corey Feldman, a long-time friend of Michael Jackson tells HLN’s Mike Galanos about the man he knew and how that jibes with the startling allegations made in the controversial HBO documentary “Leaving Neverland.”

HLN Host: …Now that actor is clarifying what he’s said, saying: “Michael was my friend, but that doesn’t mean that I condone any harmful behavior, physical or mental. This is new information to me too. It takes time to absorb and process”.  Let us pick up with that last line – absorbing, processing – where are you with all this?

Corey Feldman: Well, as I mentioned in my statement, it is obviously a very emotional time for me. And this is a very emotional process for any survivor of abuse, of anybody who’s been through these things.

First of all, I ask people to put themselves in my shoes. You are a kid who has endured sexual abuse. And during those times I am looking at somebody like Michael Jackson as a friend, as a big brother figure, and he was that person to me. However, as you’re friends with this guy you start to hear more and more accusations being thrown around by various people and it comes to a point where as an advocate for victims, as an advocate for changing the statute of limitations to make sure that victims’ voices are heard, it becomes impossible for me to stay virtuous and not at least consider what’s being said. And not listen to what the victims are saying.

This is very important. We must give them their voice. We must allow them to speak and therefore we also must consider all sides of this, even as uncomfortable as that may be.

HLN Host: Got it. Describe your relationship with Michael Jackson. What was it like?

Corey Feldman: Absolutely nothing inappropriate ever happened, and we were friends. As I said I have a tape of the two of us hanging out, and when you listen to it you can hear the innocence in the conversation, but again I don’t want to be perceived as I am here to defend Michael because I can no longer do that.

I cannot in good consciousness defend anyone who is being accused of such horrendous crimes. But at the same time I am not here to judge him because again he didn’t do those things to me and that was not my experience. So therefore my place is not to be the judge and is not to be the accuser and not to be the defender. My job in this is to focus on what’s most important – helping to reform the statute of limitations in every state, because if we can reform the statute of limitations we can prevent things from ever getting to this point.

The fact is, I started reporting my molestations to the police in 1993 while all they were investigating Michael Jackson for the first time. I’ve never had a shot at justice. I’ve never had a chance to bring my predators to the court system. I’ve never had that opportunity. I’m hoping that after decades-long battle that through the process of making my own documentary – which I am making right now and I hope to find a distributor for it – we can get my story heard, we can help abolish the statute of limitations and I can finally have justice for my own case. So I think it’s extremely important that we all take a pause and listen to all victims right now.

And I certainly want to apologize if anyone took anything out of context in those tweets because it wasn’t meant in any way to question the validity of the victims.

(the host has no questions about Corey Feldman’s campaign and proceeds with “Leaving Neverland” instead)

HLN Host: Did you watch parts of Leaving Neverland?

Corey Feldman: I watched the first part. To be honest with you it was very emotional, was very painful and I couldn’t watch all of it.

HLN Host: We are going to play – if it is okay with you – it is just a short clip. This is James Safechuck talking and he is talking about a marriage ceremony he had with Michael.

(Safechuck talks about the “mock marriage ceremony”)

HLN Host: James Safechuck. You can tell he is still processing. They both tell compelling stories.  What are some of your reactions and thoughts?

Corey Feldman: Shocking and disturbing. There can be nothing else that can be said other than shocking and disturbing. Very compelling stories. And both of these guys sound very believable, because they are talking about a cycle that’s called grooming and the grooming cycle, the grooming process certainly fits the mold. And that is why this case must be taken seriously and that is why all cases must be taken seriously.

And again, my issue – when I wrote those tweets – was the way that documentary had laid it out, because as a filmmaker I was making a judgment in the sense that I know that to stay journalistically proper, to stay true to form we must investigate all sides, so certainly to have credence in my own film we are going to make sure to reach out to the people we are accusing and also to people who knew those people, so I think we have to have an all-rounded conversation.

That’s all what I was trying to say. And I really hope that with raising this awareness, thank God that they are doing this, and getting it out there, and all I can say is I wish it had happened when Michael was alive, so that he could have been in trial and faced it, and defended himself, and that can’t happen today. So I don’t know where this leads, but I do know that we keep talking   and we keep hearing each voice and each victim.

(the host is not interested in hearing other voices, all he wants to hear is Safechuck and Robson)

HLN Host: We should say that to James Safechuck and Wade Robson who are featured in the film. [..] Back to you when you were watching this – what were the conflicting emotions? Did you begin with the premise “these guys are not telling the truth” to the point “I need to rethink this”. Has this been that kind of process for you?

Corey Feldman: I would never come out initially thinking that anybody is lying because obviously you cannot even open the door to watching it if you don’t come to it with an open-ended interpretation of what you are about to witness. So I would never go into something, assuming that they are lying. But that said, as I’m watching it, I’m going “this doesn’t make sense to me”, “this isn’t the guy that I knew”, but look, I am a guy that as a 14-year old was molested! Did that pedophile completely lie to me about who he was? I trusted him, I believed in him as a friend and I thought he was a good person, and then he molested me. It all proves that I am not the best judge, that’s why I shouldn’t be the judge in this situation, especially given the fact that I am so close to him.

Again, if he were my brother, my own flesh and blood, and all these accusations being said against him, I would not be able to judge it. I would have to stand back and look at all sides. And if my brother is guilty of something, then I am going to go against it, because what matters most is to preserve the innocence of children. Children must come first. We must do God’s work and protect our children on this planet – it is the most important thing, so I have to bring it back to please help me in my fight to abolish the statute of limitations in every state so that we can get victory and justice for all survivors of sexual abuse. And there is a lot of it. It is out there in a massive way. If you really start to recognize the amount of kids that have been abused in the system and ignored, it is staggering, so we’ve got to focus on making it better. We’ve got to get justice for all kids.

HLN Host: Corey Feldman, thank you for your thoughts and emotions as you go through this.  Let me say that the Jackson Estate is suing the HBO over the documentary Leaving Neverland and I also want you to know that HBO and HLN share the same parent company Warner media. We’ll be right back.

You may have guessed that I perfectly understand Corey Feldman’s dual problem – protection of children is indeed the most important thing in the world and he hopes very much that the more people talk about child abuse the easier it will be to fight the problem.

However he is making the same mistake as in 1993 when he spoke of his own abuse to the Santa Barbara police hoping for their help – to only find that they didn’t give a damn about the genuine victim and were interested in Michael Jackson only.

And now he is falling into the same trap and the same illusion. HBO and HLN are absolutely not the right people to address his appeals to.

In his genuine passion to fight child abuse, in Hollywood in particular, Feldman talks about the staggering number of victims, but his HLN interviewer couldn’t care less – all he is interested is Safechuck and Robson and their film about Jackson, and this makes me afraid that when they make good use of Corey to support their two so-called “victims”, they will discard him as scrap and Corey’s hopes for his own documentary about pedophilia in Hollywood will be in shambles again.

The Hollywood predators will hardly ever allow a film exposing themselves, so over here Corey’s hopes are almost doomed – unless a miracle happens.

But there is one more point in Corey Feldman’s interview which is exceptionally important for understanding what Dan Reed’s film is all about.

You have probably noticed that for Corey Feldman as a survivor the most important part of their tales was the so-called “grooming” period which the film so convincingly portrayed.


“…they are talking about a cycle that’s called grooming and the grooming cycle, the grooming process certainly fits the mold”.

“Did that pedophile completely lie to me about who he was? I trusted him, I believed in him as a friend and I thought he was a good person, and then he molested me.”

This grooming process can be likened to a courtship between two adult people during which they grow to trust and love each other. And it seems that for pedophiles set on molesting their victims a similar kind of courtship is essential too – the predator first wins the trust of a child and then molests his victim as a “friend”. This is why Safechuck’s and Robson’s stories which seemed so convincing in this respect, were crucial for Corey to think that they “fit the mold”.

However Corey hasn’t read the documents, doesn’t know the timeline and didn’t compare it with what Dan Reed actually told his viewers.

And we have read the documents and that is why know one extremely important point. Here is this point:



The terrible thing I noticed in the seemingly innocent first part of the film is that Dan Reed deliberately changed the timeline and devoted the major part of those first 45 minutes to artificially construct the grooming period which in reality was never there.

This is the real reason why the first “innocent” part of the film is so long.

Its goal is to groom the viewers, yes, groom them into thinking that there was a long friendship between Michael Jackson and those families during which he got closer and closer to the boys and won their trust, only to betray it months later when the whole thing allegedly began.

However this is where the first big lie is.

In Robson’s case Michael Jackson didn’t see the family for two years before they came on their fist visit to the US, and it took Robson’s mother another week to get Michael’s phone number, after which they met him and were invited to Neverland the same day, where according to Robson’s complaint the alleged molestation took place on the second night (which as I hear, he later corrected into the first night and later into the first week).

And as to Safechuck the timeline the film presents is a different, visual kind of a fraud – Dan Reed first shows Safechuck happily dancing with Michael Jackson all over Europe and only then gives the aerial view of Paris by night and tells us that it is then that the molestation started.

However there was no “then”.

Safechuck’s complaint tells us that Paris was the first place where the family joined Michael Jackson on a tour, and this means that the alleged molestation came after months of not seeing Jackson and also on the very first day they joined him there.

For those of you who think that the absence of the grooming period is not that important, let me say that it is the basic element of their “friendship growing into love” story imposed on the public.

According to the film the alleged “sexual love” is the main reason why Robson and Safechuck supported Michael Jackson for so long – for them it wasn’t abuse, but “love” and this is why they “protected” him, and realized that “rape was abuse” only when their good therapists explained it to them … well, you remember all that bullshit.

They want us to regard their film as an example of a tender friendship between an adult and child developing into a “consensual love” which they saw to be the abuse only as grown-ups.

So the “friendship-turning-into-love” line is the whole foundation of their story, the fundamental element to it without which their careful construction of “love between an adult and a boy” will be something different – it will turn into a plain sexual assault, and this will deprive Robson and Safechuck of their main argument of a “loving relationship” in their wholly fake story.

Imagine yourself being sexually assaulted by a virtual stranger, say somewhere in the street or at a party in someone’s home, and ask yourself a question – will you happily dance around your abuser the next day and forever after, and declare that it was a tender friendship growing into love?

Whether you are an adult or a child your answer will be a flat NO.

Even if you terribly liked someone on television two years ago and he suddenly exposes himself to you or touches your genitals the very first time you see him in person, you won’t turn into his die-hard supporter for years ahead. Instead you will feel confused, scared, dirty and dismayed because someone who was your idol did to you something inexplicable, frightening and extremely disturbing…..

In short one of the keys to their big lie about Jackson is found in the lullyby first part of the film and its distorted timeline, which needs to be studied in much detail. The rest of it is just their free fantasy on the “love and grooming” theme introduced to the public at the very beginning of the film.

The timeline I am talking about will have to be analyzed in another post.  In the meantime I suggest that you simply  imagine that Safechuck is happily dancing and jumping around Michael Jackson after the alleged sexual assault and not before as Dan Reed makes you believe in his fake film.

Safechuck and MJ


29 Comments leave one →
  1. Suparna Goswami permalink
    March 31, 2019 2:48 pm

    Oh sorry that the link did not work Helena! Yes I read the other article. One good thing is that ‘The Sun’ and ‘The Mirror’ have started covering the falsities in ‘LN’. Hope Dan Reed and his crew is fully exposed before the public and the mainstream media now.

    On Sun., 31 Mar. 2019, 10:28 pm Vindicating Michael, wrote:

    > Vindicatemj (Helena) commented: “”I found this exciting excerpt from the > book : Screenshot from the book: “Maker of Dreams: Creating Michael > Jackson’s Neverland Valley Park” by Robert E. “Rob” Swinson” -Suparna > Goswami Suparna, the link somehow doesn’t work, but thanks anyway. I’ve > also” >


  2. March 31, 2019 6:28 am

    “I found this exciting excerpt from the book : Screenshot from the book: “Maker of Dreams: Creating Michael Jackson’s Neverland Valley Park” by Robert E. “Rob” Swinson” -Suparna Goswami

    Suparna, the link somehow doesn’t work, but thanks anyway. I’ve also found some excerpts from this book online and included some pieces into the latest post about the 2nd half hour of “Leaving Neverland” fake.

    Here is also an excellent read about Robson’s friend who lived in the same apartment with him for a year and a half when he moved to LA in his early 20s. Robson was quite open with his friend and always said only the best about Michael.

    Wade Robson’s friend ‘felt ill’ after watching ‘Leaving Neverland’
    By Sara Nathan March 29, 2019 | 8:05pm

    Dan Karaty and Wade Robson

    A longtime close friend of Wade Robson – the choreographer accusing Michael Jackson of childhood rape – says he is stunned by the allegations.

    Dan Karaty, best known as the effortlessly cool judge from Fox hit “So You Think You Can Dance,” shared a house with Robson and his mom, Joy — who was his first ever manager.

    And he was shocked upon watching the HBO documentary “Leaving Neverland”, where Robson and James Safechuck made horrifying claims that the superstar subjected them to years of abuse.

    In Robson’s case, he said the abuse started when he was just 7 years old.

    And Karaty, a talented choreographer who’s worked with NSYNC, Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson and Kylie Minogue, told Page Six: “I watched the documentary and I was shocked, of course I felt ill.

    “This was just something I had never heard about, Wade had never spoken about anything like this — and in fact, it was just the opposite.

    “Michael would call our house every week, he was a huge inspiration for Wade — as he was for every other dancer and choreographer.

    “I moved in with Wade when I moved from New York to L.A. in my early 20s and lived with him for a year and a half. Eventually he spoke really openly about Michael and how much he meant to him.”

    Karaty even joined Robson and his family at Neverland for dinner one night, saying: “Michael was only interested in his guests and our dreams, what we wanted to do. He was so gracious.”

    The now married dad of two — who appeared on six seasons of SYTYCD in the US — now has a successful TV career in Europe and has just inked an exclusive, multiyear, multimillion-dollar overall deal extension with mega network RTL.

    The deal was negotiated by Karaty’s long-term rep Michael Sanchez of Axis Management.

    It means he’ll stay on The Netherlands’ biggest TV network for the next four years, where he appears on European versions of SYTYCD, “Got Talent,” “X Factor,” “Dancing With The Stars” and “Time To Dance.”

    He met Jackson, who died in 2009, a few times more with Robson and has strong feelings about the principle of due process.

    He said: “I think that all accusers should be given the chance to speak out, but the problem is that Jackson isn’t here to defend himself. There needs to be due process.”


  3. Suparna Goswami permalink
    March 30, 2019 9:19 am

    Hi Helena

    I found this exciting excerpt from the book : Screenshot from the book: “Maker of Dreams: Creating Michael Jackson’s Neverland Valley Park” by Robert E. “Rob” Swinson.We see how MJ was inspired to build ‘Neverland’ for children due to his ex girlfriend Tatum O’ Neal and how he had a genuine love of music, charity and children. Courtesy :

    On Sat., 30 Mar. 2019, 11:57 am Vindicating Michael, wrote:

    > Jill commented: “Why is that monster following Paris and MJ accounts. Is > he ready to go to hell.” >


  4. Jill permalink
    March 29, 2019 7:57 pm

    Why is that monster following Paris and MJ accounts. Is he ready to go to hell.


  5. Gigi M permalink
    March 18, 2019 9:46 pm

    Something is seriously off with Reed. A guy tweeted a screenshot of Reed’s Twitter. Dan Desperation Creeper Reed is following Paris and the MJ accounts.


  6. March 18, 2019 6:49 pm

    Here is a statement from the MJ Estate:

    The Estate of Michael Jackson:

    We want to start by again thanking all of Michael’s fans and acknowledge and thank Michael’s nephew, Taj, his niece, Brandi, and his brothers, Jackie, Marlon and Tito, Grace Rwaramba, Aaron Carter, Brett Barnes, Stephanie Mills and all of the other individuals around the world who have spoken out on his behalf. We also want to acknowledge those in the media who have done their job as journalists by reviewing the facts, noting how they were ignored in Leaving Neverland because it didn’t fit into the filmmaker’s one-sided agenda of denigrating Michael’s legacy.

    We also want to provide a brief update on our efforts, as well as share some thoughts with you from the past two weeks. We share your frustration and anger that a man who was found innocent in a court of law in life is being attacked, financially exploited and smeared by corporations and individuals who are only making claims now because he is no longer here to defend himself.

    In addition to our public statements regarding our position on Leaving Neverland, our legal efforts continue. While it would not be prudent to publicly divulge our strategy and list our efforts, rest assured we are committed to holding HBO and Channel 4 accountable for their egregious, uncorroborated smear of Michael’s legacy. Many of you have asked why we are seeking open arbitration. The answer is simple: we believe the public deserves to know how Leaving Neverland really came about, why no counter opinion was ever sought, why so many facts were ignored and why individuals were smeared who should have at a minimum been contacted to get the other side of the story. It is outrageous that such a one-sided smear was ever allowed on the air without challenge. We all know that if Michael was still alive it would never have been aired.

    We also have other non-legal initiatives that we will disclose at the appropriate time. What is important for us, and always has been, is that we continue to take the long view as we have over the last decade. That means not doing anything rash that would give HBO, Channel 4, the film’s director and, especially, the subjects of the film, what they most crave now. They want to engage in a way that focuses more attention on a film that has no doubt underperformed given that the media did everything in its power to sell this film to viewers. But given the enormous attention and free publicity the media gave this film, the numbers have clearly not matched the hype in the markets where it has aired, with many viewers opting to stop watching after the first part.

    We recognize that the press often magnifies each affront related to this film. But from our view the actual impact of this documentary on the public and their behavior has not been as significant as the media want people to think. While some would like you to think otherwise, we can confirm that the consumption of Michael’s music has not declined and his streaming numbers have not decreased in the wake of this documentary. This tells us that in addition to those of us who know the truth about Michael, those who may not understand Michael’s eccentricities and the way he chose to live his life outside of society’s norms are still choosing to appreciate and enjoy the art he created. We have licensees worldwide who are proudly selling Michael Jackson merchandise. We have insight into a significant amount of data that the fans do not see and we are working 24/7 behind the scenes to synthesize all that information and act accordingly.

    We are also seeing a sharp disconnect between the reception of the film by everyday viewers and the mainstream media. Despite being outright propaganda, many viewers see through the one-sidedness, the over-the-top salacious claims, the staged dialogue and other dramatizations. They see that what Leaving Neverland boils down to is a sales job aimed at convincing viewers Michael Jackson isn’t the man millions of people know and love, including the two subjects of the film and their families until they chose to sue for hundreds of millions of dollars. As people have had time to digest Leaving Neverland and review the facts, many are recognizing they can’t take it at face value. We are especially proud of Michael’s fans and those who continue to stand up for him by pointing out the numerous inconsistencies and flaws in the film. Numerous individuals who have studied every facet of these cases has poked numerous holes in the stories of the two subjects. Some critics and individuals are now courageously admitting publicly that, having studied the facts, their view of the film changed 180 degrees.

    Michael Jackson cannot be silenced, and neither can his fans, whether it is those who proudly play his music in public squares to show their support, the coffee shop owner in New Zealand who played his songs all day long in protest of Leaving Neverland or those who put posters and signs around cities proclaiming his innocence. As Michael predicted 25 years ago, the truth will be his salvation.

    The Estate of Michael Jackson

    SOURCE: The Official Online Team of The Michael Jackson Estate™


  7. March 17, 2019 6:18 pm

    “This is a very good article by Stereo Williams asking a lot of good questions regarding this garbage film.” – susannerb

    Susanne, Stereo Williams’ Twitter page has been suspended.

    Kelley Parker, the girl who was Michael’s child friend and played in his film “Moonwalker”, has been defending Michael a lot on Twitter. Her account is also suspended.

    I hope that at least Dan Stephens will stay:

    “Leaving Neverland” Weaves A Provocative Narrative But Is It Just One Big Lie?
    Posted On 14 Mar 2019
    By : Dan Stephens

    Once the dust has settled, Dan Reed’s calculated storytelling in Leaving Neverland reveals itself to be a continuation of the anti-Michael Jackson narrative bias in news media; cynical emotional manipulation built on lies and ulterior motive. Don’t believe me? See if this doesn’t change your mind…

    When I posted my reaction to Dan Reed’s documentary Leaving Neverland, one person on Twitter said it was fake news, that, by extension, I was wittingly contributing to an anti-Michael Jackson media bias. That was certainly not my intention. However, by choosing to highlight the impact of the sordid events alleged by Wade Robson and James Safechuck I was stoking the fires of a narrative that is predisposed to accept the iconic pop singer’s guilt without questioning the facts.

    And because Reed’s film is so one-sided – and admittedly effective in piecing together a story that, at face value, appears genuine – we must give ourselves a chance to allow the emotional manipulation of clever storytelling to settle. To take a step back. To consider other factors and other opinions and other potential witnesses and even undisputed facts that, according to investigative journalist and long-time reporter on matters related to Jackson’s life, Charles Thomson, “catastrophically undermine these men’s accusations”.

    It is Thomson, author of One of the Most Shameful Episodes In Journalistic History (about media bias in relation to the pop singer’s 2005 trial), who is one of the few commentators acknowledging the holes in Reed’s film. Not only must we consider them given the severity of the crimes alleged, but we must also question if the film is riding a wave of #MeToo hysteria where “truth” is garnered from whatever gains viral traction.

    The Truth Needs Only Sensationalism & The Appearance Of Validation

    Not only does the film present a compelling story but a search on the internet quickly reveals supposedly supportive conjecture from sources that boast credibility (including Vanity Fair’s 10 Undeniable Facts About the Michael Jackson Sexual-Abuse Allegations) One article published on the BBC’s website questions whether Jackson’s legacy is forever tarnished but this twists public perception away from questioning where this concept originated (the hoopla surrounding Reed’s film) and fuels the Jackson-Is-Guilty narrative by peddling emotion with sensationalist stories of his songs being cut from radio playlists and his Neverland house price dramatically dropping.

    His guilt is assumed in this viral cooking pot of media dissemination because, oh, look Canada isn’t playing his songs anymore, The Simpsons aren’t playing the Jackson episode anymore, and his house has dropped in price. All these factors detract from a considered look at what Leaving Neverland said happened. And they detract from accepted truths in a court of law: the fact Jackson was acquitted on child molestation charges in 2005 after the jury unanimously found him not guilty of all charges.

    With no right to reply afforded anyone in defence of Michael Jackson, Leaving Neverland is understandably effective in weaving a seemingly credible story of guilt (but one that relies on carefully orchestrated cinematic technique to provoke emotion, favouring sentiment in order to massage supposed truths). Under the guise of being a “documentary” and offering the viewer the freedom to make up their own mind, Reed, Safechuck and Robson conspire to make up your mind for you. As John Ziegler says in his podcast World According to Zig, at the very least this film is completely unfair.

    Reed has tried to counter the criticism of bias by saying he showed archive footage of Jackson’s own denials. But as Charles Thomson says, because these allegations were made after the singer had died, the only people who could offer a genuine counter argument were the people who had been litigating the two accusers over the past few years.

    Fact: Wade Robson & James Safechuck Are Liars (But Which Lie Do You Believe?)

    Oh, did you know Robson and Safechuck had been suing the Michael Jackson estate since 2013 for hundreds of millions of dollars? “This has generated thousands of pages of court documents – deposition transcripts, witness statements, disclosure motions, etc.,” notes Thomson. “That litany of paperwork includes so many contradictions. Their stories are constantly changing, they contradict their own prior versions of events, and one of them was caught lying under oath so brazenly that the judge ruled that no rational juror could believe his story.”

    I’ll repeat that. A judge, experienced and qualified in discerning truth-tellers from fakers, said one of these men’s stories could not be trusted.
    That, after the release of Leaving Neverland, was corroborated by Brandi Jackson, Michael’s niece, who declared Wade Robson a liar. Another convenience ignored by Reed’s film is the fact Brandi dated Robson. She told The Kyle and Jackie O Show: “When I was watching [Leaving Neverland], I was completely sickened by it, to be honest with you. The things that he was saying were so over the top and so ridiculous.”

    Saying she did not believe her uncle was a paedophile, Brandi added: “[Wade] was not describing my uncle. He was describing a totally different person, but not my uncle. And that’s why this is a narrative that has changed… over the last 15 years. Everything that he’s ever said about my uncle is the complete opposite of who he was painting in this documentary.”

    While Reed reveals the fact Robson twice testified under oath (once in 1993 and again in 2005) that Michael had never sexually molested him or behaved inappropriately, arguing, in hindsight, that he didn’t understand the inappropriate nature of his relationship with Michael as a child and thus believed it to be innocent, the filmmaker doesn’t question whether Robson now feels any guilt around missing the opportunity to stop an abuser of children when he appeared in court as an adult in 2005.

    Brandi, who was in a relationship with Wade for a decade, is adamant her ex-boyfriend is lying. She says he and James Safechuck are solely motivated by money. The film is perhaps their final attempt to get money out of the Jackson estate having been trying for the last seven years.

    The Witnesses That Dan Reed Conveniently Ignored

    Says Ziegler, “In my opinion, if you simply listen to the interview with an open mind, Brandi’s credibility speaks for itself. There will still be people who will understandably still believe Robson’s version, but there is no doubting that Brandi’s narrative makes a whole lot more sense. But again, the primary question here is, why was her existence censured from Leaving Neverland and why hasn’t she been interviewed on network television about all of this?!”

    Taj Jackson, Michael’s nephew, has also questioned why Wade would be with Brandi if he was being abused by Michael (and, according to Wade, being discouraged from dating women). “He dated my cousin for over seven years and it’s really interesting because they left that out of [Leaving Neverland] – and he dated her during the time period that he’s getting supposedly molested by my uncle. I think it’s ridiculous especially since my uncle Michael was the one that basically brought them together. And so it throws off the whole narrative of Michael Jackson only wanting [Wade] for himself or teaching him to hate women.”

    Taj is now developing a a counter-documentary according to NME to dispute the claims made in Leaving Neverland which will likely feature other children who befriended Michael Jackson – such as Macaulay Culkin and Corey Feldman – and who have stated that they neither witnessed nor were the victim of sexual abuse. Singer Aaron Carter, who was friends with Jackson when he was a teenager, told TMZ he had the “time of my life with Michael”, adding “I hung out with Michael Jackson, I stayed at his house, I stayed in his bedroom … it’s hard for me to understand [the accusations in Leaving Neverland] – how am I supposed to understand that when my own personal experience with him was gentle and beautiful and loving and embracing.”

    What is ultimately revealing in the fallout of Leaving Neverland is how news media is failing those it purports to inform. “One of the many difficulties in telling a version of events which is contradictory to someone the news media — as opposed to the courts — has determined is a “sex abuse victim” (especially those who, like Robson and Safechuck, have been sanctified by Oprah Winfrey on HBO) is that, particularly post #MeToo, no one data point can ever been seen as a “smoking gun” that their allegation is false,” notes Ziegler.

    “However, when viewed in the full context of Robson’s already suspect narrative, I strongly believe that Brandi’s version of events comes as close as possible to being just that (as do many other non-Jackson fans who have spent the time to hear her, and her cousin Taj, out).

    For Charles Thomson, this is a continuation of a news media bias that has been peddled for years. Speaking about the coverage of the 2005 trial, he says: “It seemed to me that the media was just loathe to accept the possibility that Jackson could be innocent. Most reporters seemed to already be convinced of Jackson’s guilt because they thought he was a weirdo.”

    It almost didn’t matter that Michael Jackson’s innocence was proven in a court of law (“All too often you see right-wing pundits making comments like, “Not guilty is not the same as innocent.”) Indeed, Thomson notes how the prosecution had every advantage to win their case (but “failed to produce a single piece of tangible evidence connecting Jackson to any crime”) and ended up parading witnesses who “collapsed under cross-examination” with the other half “helping the defence rather than the prosecutors.”

    He remembers a story by reporter J. Randy Taraborrelli, who was covering the trial and said he was with the press pack queuing for their court passes when a well-known female reporter from a big magazine said: “Does ANYONE here believe Michael Jackson is innocent besides J. Randy Taraborrelli!?”

    That story, argues Thomson, “sums up much of the media’s attitude towards the trial: “We know he’s guilty. This is a waste of time. They should just lock him up now.” It tainted their reporting, consciously or otherwise.”

    Setting The Narrative, Disregarding The Truth

    Leaving Neverland has stirred up similar misreporting and misinformation around Michael Jackson that makes Reed’s effort – supposedly giving sex abuse victims a voice – at the very least distasteful, at worst, as Thomson states, “shockingly unethical”.

    “Looking back on the Michael Jackson trial, I see a media out of control,” said the writer of One of the Most Shameful Episodes In Journalistic History. “The sheer amount of propaganda, bias, distortion and misinformation is almost beyond comprehension. Reading the court transcripts and comparing them to the newspaper cuttings, the trial that was relayed to us didn’t even resemble the trial that was going on inside the courtroom. The transcripts show an endless parade of seedy prosecution witnesses perjuring themselves on an almost hourly basis and crumbling under cross examination. The newspaper cuttings and the TV news clips detail day after day of heinous accusations and lurid innuendo.”

    We’re seeing some of the same things now. Says Ziegler, “Not being armed with even the basic facts (inexplicably, and quite tellingly, Brandi Jackson is not even mentioned), the audience, including the media, was easily manipulated into being able to disregard even the biggest holes in their stories, and to gladly accept even the most bizarre rationalisations for their nonsensical actions. Once Oprah, an abuse victim herself, effectively validated their stories (even as Safechuck, who barely participated in the post-movie interview, sweated noticeably right in front of her), the preferred narrative was set, and nothing would then be allowed to credibly contradict it.”

    Instead of the trial vindicating Michael Jackson, the media’s irresponsible coverage made it impossible. “The legal system may have declared him innocent but the public, on the whole, still thought otherwise. Allegations which were disproven in court went unchallenged in the press. Shaky testimony was presented as fact. The defence’s case was all but ignored,” notes Thomson.

    Being critical of Leaving Neverland is not about silencing or shaming victims. That is despite British journalist Louis Theroux, a documentary filmmaker I admire, saying the exact opposite. But if we consider all the facts – facts that we’re not privy to in Reed’s film – we are likely to conclude Leaving Neverland does far more harm to abuse victims than it does good.

    Diana Michaels, in her piece entitled “Leaving Neverland Debunked in 10 Minutes or Less”,states: “Abuse survivors need our support, and they especially need to be listened to when they are brave enough to speak out. However, we have to be cautious to not let the #MeToo movement jump the shark. If we accept all allegations without turning a critical eye when necessary, and we allow the #MeToo movement to justify putting the dead on trial, we won’t be doing anything but opening Pandora’s box. And real survivors of abuse deserve better than that.”

    The sadness and anger that I felt after watching Reed’s film because I, at first, believed the accusers now remains for a very different reason. I’m angry that Leaving Neverland had that impact on me because I now feel duped, and I’m saddened that Jackson’s family and children have to endure such a negative media circus while his legacy is questioned. If there are stories to be told from behind the closed doors of Michael Jackson’s bedroom, Reed’s film is not the place to start hearing them.

    About the Author
    Dan Stephens is the founder and editor of Top 10 Films. He’s usually pondering his next list, often inspired by his adoration for 1980s Hollywood, a time-travelling DeLorean and an adventurous archaeologist going by the name Indiana.


  8. March 17, 2019 3:26 pm

    Here is one more article meant to alert the public to the fact that pedophiles are on the march and it was also published just a month ago – on February 21, 2019 (!) Apparently, the anti-pedophilia activists have noticed some activity around this subject and therefore say, “It’s real and it’s here and it’s gaining strength.”

    The Pedophile Project: Your 7-Year-Old Is Next On The Sexual Revolution’s Hit Parade
    We cannot dismiss the campaign to legalize pedophilia as fringy stuff that will get nowhere. It’s real and it’s here and it’s gaining strength.

    By Stella Morabito
    FEBRUARY 21, 2019

    Activists for normalizing pedophilia are on the move. Public acceptance of adult sex with children is the next domino poised to fall in identity politics. It’s being sustained, among other things, by the rapid sexualization of children in the media and in K-12 education.
    We cannot dismiss the campaign to legalize pedophilia as fringy stuff that will get nowhere. It’s real and it’s here and it’s gaining strength. It’s a very logical outgrowth of the nihilism inherent in the sexual revolution.

    If you doubt this, just consider, for example, how unthinkable to many Americans was the recent celebration of infanticide (in the guise of abortion rights) by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Likewise, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam—supposedly a pediatrician—spoke cavalierly about whether to dispose of a living infant who survives abortion.

    They and governors of many other states are betting that your shock will simply wear off and we’ll all eventually get with the infanticide program. People do tend to settle into such shifts, believing it won’t affect them. But the selective dehumanization of children has been going on for a long time now. Why should we think it’ll be any different when the time comes for legalizing pedophilia?

    As with any propaganda campaign that pushes outrageous changes on an unwary public, it’s all about timing. Academics might refer to timing as the Overton Window or the Availability Cascade. But we should all be able to understand the process of conditioning the public to accept the unacceptable.

    First, the groundwork is laid through carefully planned propaganda. There are various types of messaging for various audiences: the medical establishment, the education establishment, legislators, judges, the general public, and so forth. Then the agitation begins with poster people who are “just like you.” And before you know it, it’s all over.

    Unveiling pedophilia as “just fine” will likely be an ambush if we aren’t prepared. It promises to be as swift as the “transgender tipping point” campaign that shrewdly coincided with the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision in 2015. It will be accompanied by a defiant campaign to paint any resistance as a relic of outdated morality that oppresses the rights of an identity group and the civil rights of any children caught in it.

    So, when that inevitable time comes, will we just sit back and cower in confusion? Or will ample voices be able to break through the pressures of political correctness beforehand and shout “Enough!” Be prepared to make that happen, because the pitcher is full and they are mixing the Kool-Aid.

    Designating Pedophilia a Sexual Orientation

    There are two main avenues to legalizing adult sexual relations with pre-pubescent children: 1) to designate it as a sexual orientation; and 2) to lower—or abolish—the age of consent for sexual activity. Both efforts are on track by pedophilia advocates, especially in academia and in the mass media. Take a look at this TED Talk released last year, in which the speaker chides us: “Let’s be mature about pedophilia.”

    The speaker, Madeleine Van Der Bruggen, makes the case that pedophilia is simply a sexual orientation that can be neither chosen nor changed. She appeals us to “stop with the hate!” (sound familiar?). She argues that everybody probably knows someone with a pedophilic interest. And, really, they’re just like you. Most don’t talk about it because it’s illegal. Imagine, she asks, if you’re told you could never act on your passion? She implores us to imagine “how lonely” that must be.

    Yet another TED talk from another young female pushed the same argument. But that talk was taken down by TED, at the request of the speaker. You can still access it here.

    The academic literature is also getting much bolder by publishing increasing numbers of articles in support of both avenues: designation as sexual orientation and re-considering age of consent. Perhaps most shocking to people of conscience is the December 2018 article by convicted British child molester Tom O’Carroll that was published in the peer-reviewed journal Sexuality and Culture. More on that later.

    There has also been a rash of publishing in popular magazines. The idea of the “virtuous pedophile” was unveiled in Todd Nickerson’s Salon article “I’m a Pedophile, but not a Monster.” Salon actually removed the article, although it’s still archived on the internet. Nickerson says he would never act on his urge and never has. He also has a website called “Virtuous Pedophile,” ostensibly for helping celibate pedophiles resist their urges.

    You can find an extensive bibliography of such articles in popular media if you don’t mind visiting the “virtuous pedophile” website. Typical titles include a 2016 New York Magazine article, “What’s it like to be a celibate pedophile?” or a 2016 Vice article entitled “Realizing You’re a Pedophile Can Make you Want to Kill Yourself.” Then there’s the “born that way” defense, as discussed in this BBC news item entitled “Are Paedophiles’ Brains Wired Differently?”

    Born This Way Shouldn’t Seal the Deal

    I don’t question the need for people to get the help they need to avoid engaging in destructive behaviors. We should all have mercy for those who struggle, especially people who feel utterly rejected and demonized by society, particularly if they want to regulate any wild urges that would hurt others, especially kids.

    The sad irony is that when people feel so marginalized and dehumanized, especially if they are unnecessarily barraged with humiliations, when they finally get what they want they tend to take revenge. They cannot distinguish between kind people of goodwill who have legitimate critiques of their demands and the bullies who embittered them in the past.

    So be prepared: simply having an opposite opinion will get you marked as an enemy, even if you always treated every human being with compassion and dignity. If you cave to political correctness, you are allowing your goodwill to be weaponized against all you stand for.

    So here we are. The argument in all of the above is that pedophilia is a sexual orientation that is not chosen. So if we accept it as such, wouldn’t any therapist who didn’t affirm the orientation be accused of “conversion therapy?” Would pedophiles even be permitted to get help?

    Finally, whether or not you want to believe the warnings of former child actor Corey Feldman, there can be no doubt that Hollywood has a good share of pedophiles. “An Open Secret” is a 2015 documentary about it by Amy Berg. We should not be surprised in the future when Hollywood gives pedophilia a final Caitlyn Jenner-styled juggernaut to push it all over the top. Again, it’s all about the timing.

    APA Will Ultimately Decide How to Classify Pedophilia

    Just as the American Psychiatric Association (APA) re-classified gender identity disorder to gender identity dysphoria, it also tinkered with classifying pedophilia in its fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V.) As the psycho-bible of mental disorders, the DSM has always been the go-to source for making the sexual revolution the law of the land. Its reclassifications of homosexuality and transgenderism are really just the beginning.

    There is no reason other than timing to think it won’t do the same for pedophilia. Currently, the DSM makes a distinction between pedophilia as a paraphilia (a desire not acted upon) versus “pedophilic disorder” (actual child molestation.) But the lines in society sure feel like they’re blurring.

    In 2013 the APA “erroneously” referred to pedophilia as a sexual orientation on page 698 of the first printing of the DSM-V. After a public outcry, the APA said it would correct the error in subsequent printings, changing the term “sexual orientation” to “sexual interest.” Their public relations folks also added for good measure that the APA still considers acts of pedophilic disorder to be criminal.

    Okay. But ask yourself this: With all of the meticulous attention the APA applies to every controversial aspect of the DSM, and the bated breath the news media holds for any new edition, how exactly does a reference to pedophilia as a “sexual orientation” end up in there by accident?
    Sadly, the error smells more like a trial balloon. Both the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have long been politicized to promote every outgrowth of the sexual revolution. Groupthink is deeply embedded in both organizations.

    Bottom line here: if you track the promotion of pedophilia in academia and the media, all that remains is for the medical establishment to officially proclaim that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Then anti-discrimination laws kick in to protect it in its entirety, and children are at the mercy of some judge’s interpretation of “penumbras” to determine what constitutes harm.

    The Farce of a Child’s ‘Right to Choose’

    The other turning point in legalizing pedophilia would come with repeated claims in public discourse that prepubescent kids can enjoy and consent to sexual relationships with adults. Furthermore, denying children this avenue of expression with adults, the argument goes, violates their civil rights.

    Perhaps the biggest bombshell recently is that December 2018 article mentioned above, written by convicted child molester Tom O’Carroll in the peer reviewed journal Sexuality and Culture. The title of the article is “Childhood ‘Innocence’ is not Ideal: Virtue Ethics and Child-Adult Sex.” At the outset, he puts the word “innocence” in scare quotes.

    If you don’t want too much of a soak in that sewer, you can look over a good review of O’Carroll’s demented reasoning in Justin Lee’s article written in Arc, “The Pedophile Apologist,” or see Rod Dreher’s commentary.

    In his article, O’Carroll masquerades as a philosopher. He takes on Kant and Aristotle. Like a Chihuahua barking furiously at the ocean, O’Carroll also attempts to bash the impeccable scholarship of Sir Roger Scruton.

    O’Carroll’s goal is to make the case that pedophilia is simply a sexual orientation that should have all the protections of anti-discrimination laws for other sexualities. He tries to appeal to the same litany of arguments that subjects children to early sexualization and to the transgender curriculum: that kids can decide for themselves how to express themselves and shouldn’t be denied a choice in how they identify—no matter how young they are.

    He lets loose a panoply of arguments strongly suggesting we should lower or abolish the age of consent: that children shouldn’t be denied any form of sexual expression; that allowing them the full range of sexual expression actually promotes their flourishing and development; and that stigmatizing pedophilia is in the same class as stigmatizing people on the basis of their race, sex, religion, or, naturally, their sexual orientation, which he argues pedophilia is. To object to any of the above is, in a word, “hate.” (Sound familiar?)

    So get used to it: the goal is to frame pedophilia as a human right, redirecting your attention away from the adult and reframing it as a child’s right to sexual expression. If the child claims to consent, who are you to get in his or her way? Hence, every child becomes fair game for child molesters, especially if the child can be persuaded and influenced to say he or she consented.

    Worse is that there are recent studies by Bruce Rind published in the academic journal The Archives of Sexual Behavior, claiming there is no long-term harm to adult sex with children. (As O’Carroll also claims, the positive effects on children is a growing field of inquiry.) You can read about it in a 2017 Public Discourse article by Mark Regnerus. Otherwise, the silence is deafening.

    The issue of consent has been made murky, especially when trying to clarify cases of he-said-she-said in accusations of sexual harassment or assault. But if you accept the claim that children can consent to sex with adults, then it seems we must now take their word for it, and never question if that “consent” was coerced.

    In addition, our society seems increasingly ignorant about the causes and effects of undue influence caused by a disparity in power between two actors in a relationship. Any substantive discussion of this element in human dynamics is fading fast. Yet it ought to be common knowledge. Undue influence is a cult-like dynamic to which children are particularly vulnerable.

    The ‘Equality Act’ Would Protect Pedophilia

    Just about all of today’s so-called “anti-discrimination” laws include sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) classifications. Once pedophilia is classified as a sexual orientation, then it’s protected under that umbrella, which covers all areas of life: employment, education, medicine, housing, business, military, even the parish life of churches, family life, and much more.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced that a big priority for this Congress is to get the “Equality Act” passed. So the big question is this: If pedophilia is ever classified as a sexual orientation, wouldn’t the Equality Act afford it federal protection? Seems logical. What am I missing here?
    If that happens, then any objection to a known pedophile teaching at any level in any school or daycare center would have to be considered illegal discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

    There can be no doubt pedophilia will eventually be officially classified as a “sexual orientation” if more people don’t grow some spine. You don’t have to be a master of logic to understand that once that happens, then expressions of disapproval will be deemed illegal discrimination.

    So, are you going to be one of the folks in the morning show audience applauding the sexualization of your child? Will you just get used to it? Or will you take a stand? Time is running out.

    You Bigoted Pedophobe!

    No person of conscience can allow this sinister pedophilia project to gain any more momentum. If we do, it will produce an unexpected avalanche of comings-out with an aggressive campaign complete with poster children (and their parents!) to support it. This is no more a conspiracy theory than to say the same thing about the transgender project in 2014. It’s pure logic, and it’s totally in keeping with our society’s trajectory.

    So if you’re not all in with pedophilia, prepare for the smear campaign. Today “pedophobia” is defined simply as a fear of children in the same sense that acrophobia means a fear of heights. But it could easily take on a new meaning as our culture sinks ever lower.

    Consider this: If pedophilia is ever normalized, what are the chances that the word “pedophobia” and the term “pedophobe” will be used as slurs against people who disapprove? Against churches that disapprove? Could they be used in the same way the terms “homophobia” and “transphobia” are used as slurs today?

    Of course. In this scenario, if you express reservations about sexual activity between pre-pubescent children and adults, you will be publicly shamed and silenced as a “pedophobe” for doing so. A bigot. A hater.

    For those just waking up, we’re not in Kansas anymore. We’re on a speeding train through the Twilight Zone. And the hyper-suggestibility of most folks in this age of internet-induced mass delusion will get us there even faster.

    We’ve become a nation of complete squishes because all that matters to most people is how they think they’re perceived in social circles. The fear of the smear is in high gear today, generating a pandemic of moral cowardice. It’s infecting state legislators who ought to know better. It’s infecting judges who ought to know better—and teachers, journalists, even parents. Sadly, there are many who really don’t know better and simply try to maintain the social status they think they’re afforded by political correctness.

    It’s up to those who do know better—those who have an active conscience—to speak up, and to stare down the smear artists in propaganda journalism, pop culture, and academia who’ve been stoking that cowardice. Too few people publicly take unpopular stances anymore, and when they do they pay a highly inflated price for it only because no one else joins them.

    There are too many cowards who apologize for being right, too many who self-censor out of fear of social rejection. That’s exactly the dynamic that will fast-track trends like the normalization of pedophilia.

    We have no choice but to stop accommodating political correctness, no matter the price. Its movement in the shadows has all the hallmarks of an impending ambush. People of goodwill must do all they can to stop the momentum of this pedophilia project in its tracks. Otherwise, it will destroy children and childhood together.

    Stella Morabito is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Follow Stella on Twitter.


  9. Suparna Goswami permalink
    March 17, 2019 2:40 pm

    Thanks Helena. Yes, propaganda of one kind was needed to stop the other kind.

    On Mon., 18 Mar. 2019, 12:47 am Vindicating Michael, wrote:

    > Vindicatemj (Helena) commented: “”You may be already aware The Russian > State television has refused to air ‘Leaving Neverland’ and so has > Gogglebox. Some positivity at last!” – Suparna Goswami Yes, Suparna, I’ve > read about it. I think the reason why Russian TV pulled the plug on this fi” >


  10. March 17, 2019 2:30 pm

    Besides the two links already mentioned to Suparna I’ve found one more article which shows that while the public is distracted by fantasy films about Michael Jackson, pedophiles and so-called “scientists” freely propagate their pro-pedophilia views in the media, including Thomas O’Carroll, a convicted pedophile who recently wrote the following in “Sexuality & Culture” December 2018, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 1230–1262| :

    Childhood ‘Innocence’ is Not Ideal: Virtue Ethics and Child–Adult Sex

    On March 2nd 2019 one more interesting event took place – Thomas O’Carroll was invited to the House of Lords (!) and was thanked there for donating money to a children’s book charity (!)

    2nd March 2019, 11:28 pm
    BRITAIN’S most notorious paedophile campaigner was treated to a plush champagne bash at the House of Lords.
    Twice-jailed Tom O’Carroll, 73, was among up to 60 guests who were thanked last December for donating money to a children’s book charity.

    Twice jailed Tom O’Carroll was invited to a luxurious champagne bash at the House of Lords
    He was chairman of the Paedophile Information Exchange, which fought in the 1970s and ’80s to legalise sex with kids.

    Speaking at his one-bedroom flat in Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, he bragged: “I was kind of a guest of honour. A few years ago I did give a pretty substantial amount. I was invited by one of the members of the Lords, who is patron or chairman.”
    Book Aid International, which provides books for children in sub-Saharan Africa, said it was unaware of O’Carroll’s past and has launched an investigation.
    The charity said he had given less than £500 in three instalments since 2015, which has been refunded.
    A spokesman for the House of Lords said: “Parliament takes its safeguarding responsibilities towards children, young people and vulnerable adults very seriously.
    Our safeguarding policy has been developed to ensure we provide a safe environment and fulfil our safeguarding responsibilities.
    “The event sponsored by Lord Boateng, on behalf of Book Aid International, met the rules regarding the use of banqueting facilities in the House of Lords.
    “Those who were invited to attend the event went through airport-style security on entry to the estate and were not left unsupervised.
    “As Book Aid International has made clear, no children were present at the event.

    “The organisation arranging an event and the member who sponsors it are responsible for who they invite to attend.”
    O’Carroll got two years’ jail in 1981 for conspiracy to corrupt public morals and 2½ years in 2006 for distributing indecent images.
    In 2015 it emerged he had joined anti-Press group Hacked Off.

    And surprise-surprise, on March 3rd 2019 Thomas O’Carroll published a revised version of his pedophilia book about Michael Jackson.

    Kindle Edition, 640 pages
    Published March 3rd 2019 by Dangerous Books Ltd

    Dangerous Books has been set up specifically as a shop window and distribution arm for Michael Jackson’s Dangerous Liaisons, by Carl Toms. All the information you need about this extraordinary and much praised book is on these pages — including extracts from key reviews — along with easy ordering through PayPal. Major credit cards are accepted.
    But the word “dangerous” in Dangerous Books is much more than just a reference to the title chosen by Carl Toms, or the name of an album by the late great entertainer. It means exactly what it says: this book really is dangerous. It proved too hot to handle for publishers Troubador who panicked and pulled the title from their lists after a massive campaign of hate and sabotage.

    The book again received glowing praise from a pedophilia apologist Professor James Kincaid and other so-called scientists:

    “The most engaging, informed, and generous-hearted book we have on the subject or are likely ever to have. I recommend this book strongly.”
    Professor James R Kincaid, University of Southern California

    I wrote about Professor Kincaid and his pro-pedophilia views in this post

    Even judging by the dates alone there can’t be any doubt that from the start of it “Leaving Neverland” was meant to be part of a much wider campaign for normalizing pedophilia – at the expense of smearing the reputation of an innocent man.


  11. March 17, 2019 8:47 am

    “You may be already aware The Russian State television has refused to air ‘Leaving Neverland’ and so has Gogglebox. Some positivity at last!” – Suparna Goswami

    Yes, Suparna, I’ve read about it. I think the reason why Russian TV pulled the plug on this film is not because they consider Michael Jackson innocent or for reasons of journalistic integrity.

    Being a huge and very sophisticated propaganda machine themselves they recognized in this film another type of propaganda – propaganda of pedophilia which is naturally a criminal offense here and no one would ever allow it on TV or anywhere. So as long as the press just writes about the film and does not describe the alleged offenses verbatim, it will be okay for our media to cover this subject, because portraying the poor Jackson as an example of western decaying morals may very well fall into their usual narrative.

    But though our media will be ready to throw Michael Jackson under the bus like everyone else, I am still happy that they see through the plans of those who made the film and know it for what it really is – pedophilia propaganda and will not allow it to happen.

    To show what Leaving Neverland really is just look up The Overton Window method which unfortunately works very well to destroy public morals:

    While we are fighting for the good name of Michael Jackson, pedophiles are well on the way to convince the public into accepting it. Some Americans realize what’s going on, but very few people understand how much damage this propaganda has already done:

    So regarding Russian TV this is just a case of one propagandist recognizing another propagandist in a way “it takes one to know one”. And though generally I am not a supporter, in this case I fully agree with them.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. susannerb permalink
    March 17, 2019 5:23 am

    This is a very good article by Stereo Williams asking a lot of good questions regarding this garbage film.

    I want to repeat this part:

    “In the aftermath of Leaving Neverland, I was surprised to see that so many others had no such questions — that this documentary was enough to convince them that we’d finally gotten the truth about Michael Jackson. A documentary that arrives on the heels of two men changing their stories, one superstar dead in the ground, and lawsuit appeals pending. We’re asked to believe everything, even with no clarification or corroboration in what’s being presented. I was shocked that this was all anyone needed. So many people seemed to retreat to the most naïve parts of their reasoning, while wielding sanctimony like a blazing sword — tearing into anyone who dared not jump to co-sign this project’s claims as a morally-defunct celebrity worshipper. Social media is often as politically performative as Capitol Hill and as reactively bloodthirsty as Game of Thrones.”

    And to this I want to add that especially renowned newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times, who are claiming to be objective and fact-based, didn’t want to ask these questions and were not interested in any clarification and fact-finding and truth-seeking, and avoided asking valid questions like the plague. I am still asking: WHY???

    Sorry to say, but these “objective papers” are losing a lot of integrity by this behavior among their readers now, and in the end those “fake news” shouters like a president Trump and his fans are given a powerful tool in their hands by the media themselves. They commit suicide, as Charles Thomson said it.


  13. March 16, 2019 4:42 pm

    “I can’t say how accurate it is, but you might find it interesting.” – Poly

    Yes, Poly, it is interesting. Marie Rousseau is looking into Safechuck’s timeline presented in the film and the same described in the complaint – and certainly nothing adds up, just as I told you. Marie also provides excellent photos and rare videos of that time, so the real story of Safechuck can be even illustrated this way. The source is the site in French but with Google help it is quite readable.
    It seems I also need to look at the real timeline to keep the promise.


  14. March 16, 2019 3:57 pm

    This is a must read from Stereo Williams:

    Stereo Williams
    Mar 14
    Correct Me If I’m Wrong…

    I have been a writer for most of my adult life. I’ve covered a cross-section of day-to-day entertainment; which can mean deep dives into music history, fervent dissection of socio-political issues — all in the name of what is most vaguely referred to as “pop culture commentary.”
    But I am not a journalist.
    To be clear, I’ve never pretended to be. But it’s never been more strikingly obvious as it has been for me over the past two weeks. I never would have guessed that it would be a documentary like Leaving Neverland that would make me face the idea that I’d become a hack.
    Despite my desire to offer a tempered-but-clear-eyed review of a documentary I found to be emotionally-charged but journalistically lacking, my initial take on Leaving Neverland was presented in a way that suggested I believed the film to be a damning final nail for the horrific allegations that have dogged Michael Jackson for the better part of 25 years. While harrowing to watch, I did not feel that this project was that — not after watching a screener in the week before it aired; nor do I now; having watched the Oprah special that followed its premiere on HBO and read commentary on …Neverland in the days since. I believe that the general public is conflating graphic testimony with detailed exposition; but most importantly, I am alarmed that commentators and journalists have been just as egregiously under-thought.

    The intense reactions to that documentary — which details allegations from James Safechuck and Wade Robson that they were molested by Michael Jackson — have left me confused and frustrated. Entertainment writers and commentators have offered steadfast belief in what this documentary alleges along with scathing indictments of Jackson and his fans. There are so many declarations, from pundits to longtime Jackson defender Corey Feldman, that they can no longer support Jackson in the wake of this particular documentary. To be clear, I have no vested interest in exonerating Michael Jackson and am not writing this in an attempt to save anyone’s legacy or to defend indefensible behavior. I believe my track record shows that I have been consistent in addressing the heinousness that sits alongside the talents of our most celebrated music legends from Chuck Berry to John Lennon to Dr. Dre. I have no qualms about doing the same with Michael Jackson.

    I read Dustin Siebert’s take on the documentary and realized he’d written more blatantly what I’d only alluded to. “But after enduring the slow, patience-testing four hours that is Leaving Neverland,” he wrote. “I feel no rage. I’m disturbed, but I’m also left with way more questions than the documentary answered.” But I found myself surprised that seemingly so few had any misgivings or questions about what they’d just watched.
    Because I certainly did.

    When I wrote about Leaving Neverland, I was convinced of only one thing: that we as a culture had to face the ridiculousness of our celebrity worship. We couldn’t go back to that willfully ignorant place we’d enjoyed bittersweetly since Michael Jackson’s 2009 death; once he died, the world collectively went into mourning, ignoring the fact that so many people had become disillusioned with him over the better part of 15 years. Since the initial 1993 allegations, superfans have devoted themselves to elevating Jackson-as-martyr — something he encouraged. We conveniently downplayed how inappropriate and strange his behavior with children had been to so many observers for so many years. I believe that we still have to face how we pretended it was normal when it was always wrong and possibly damaging. As I wrote:

    “There was never a time when the biggest star in the world jet-setting with what seemed like an endless line of young ‘traveling companions’ should have been endorsed or normalized. There was never a time when him admitting he slept in beds with them should have been defended. As so many fans rage against what they feel is defamation, there is a sad obliviousness to how so many allow their adoration to make them cheerleaders for behavior that would be the most crimson of red flags were it not for their fandom.”

    However, I was not convinced that this particular documentary was sufficient to be the final word on Michael Jackson and molestation. Leaving Neverland feels cloying and sensationalist, relying heavily on graphic anecdotes from Robson and Safechuck and the emotional toll related by their mothers and families. It’s affecting — but again, it’s insufficient. Director Dan Reed has stated that he took that approach because he wanted this project to be about abuse and the survivors of abuse; but that rings disingenuous when you consider this documentary was purchased because it’s about Michael Jacksonand the conversations that were going to be had once it aired were going to be about Michael Jackson. Reed has asserted that there is no “journalistic value” in interviewing other Jackson family members or Jackson associates because they wouldn’t be able to speak to the details that Safechuck and Robson have presented — and that’s a very valid explanation, on its face. But there would be significant journalistic value in talking to former Jackson employees or people who knew Safechuck and Robson at the time. Who else could corroborate, for instance, driving Jackson and Safechuck to a jewelry shop to purchase wedding rings (one of the film’s most disturbing moments is Safechuck describing a mock wedding to the star); or former girlfriends who could describe emotional or sexual problems the boys may have shown as adolescents/young adults? Was there no attempt to talk to anyone?
    Reed also dismisses the idea of interviewing anyone who had a “vested interest in smearing these two young men and discrediting them.” But that ignores all of the pertinent commentary that could’ve come from a host of individuals with no such investment.

    In contrast to the Bryan Singer allegations detailed by The Atlantic back in January (allegations that barely dented Bohemian Rhapsody’s Oscar push and didn’t lead to any Oprah sit-down with the director’s alleged victims), or the just-as-explosive Lifetime docuseries Surviving R. Kelly — this project, as many have pointed out, comes across as far less journalistic and thorough. There was no expertise of any kind presented in the four-hour …Neverland doc; no detectives, investigative reporters, child psychology experts, etc. appear in it. There are no professional or tangential associates of Jackson, no outside observers of anything over the periods of time in question. Everyone interviewed is either Robson and Safechuck or someone reacting to what they’ve been told by Robson and Safechuck. Oprah’s post-broadcast conversation with the two seemed to try and address this by including an abuse expert and abuse victims such as actor Anthony Edwards; but it was mostly soft questions in front of a sympathetic audience — and a lot of very general commentary about abuse that, while acknowledging the extraordinary specificity of this story of abuse victims, rarely faced how such extraordinary specificity may render any general comparisons inapplicable. The audience was filled with abuse survivors who no doubt empathized because they had suffered at the hands of abusers. And it was made very clear to anyone who didn’t already realize, a person can and will disassociate from that abuse, especially if it came from a person they loved, admired and/or respected. But considering the specifics of being abused by Michael Jackson, how does said abused person — particularly someone abused as a child — repress that and/or disassociate from that? Does it look the same? In the case of …Neverland, truths about disassociation and abuse are being applied even when the abuser is the most famous man in the world — who would subsequently become the most famous accused child molester in the world. Varying degrees of disassociation have been the standard explanation for why Wade Robson, in particular, suddenly changed his story on Michael Jackson after defending him for two decades. We often bury the most awful childhood experiences. Would that be harder with all the media coverage for the better part of 15 years? It’s as if we’re just to assume the likelihood that a person — actually, two people — can repress something that they’re being bombarded with constantly across popular culture. It feels like that kind of specified question hasn’t been answered or even asked.

    According to the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies:

    “At the time of a traumatic event, the mind makes many associations with the feelings, sights, sounds, smells, taste and touch connected with the trauma. Later, similar sensations may trigger a memory of the event. While some people first remember past traumatic events during therapy, most people begin having traumatic memories outside therapy. A variety of experiences can trigger the recall. Reading stories about other people’s trauma, watching television programs that depict traumatic events similar to the viewer’s past experience, experiencing a disturbing event in the present, or sitting down with family and reminiscing about a terrible shared episode – for some people, these kinds of experiences can open the floodgates of frightful and horrible memories.”

    It would seem, then, that as common as disassociation is, it’s just as common that outside stimuli should/would trigger an abuse survivor. When both Robson and Safechuck indicate that they only regained awareness/full acceptance of their childhood traumas around 2013, I found myself wondering how such repression could withstand being bombarded with constant outside stimuli — i.e. two media-heavy legal battles; constant reminders of Jackson and abuse in virtually every facet of said media; in the case of Robson, being in virtually the same field as your abuser and working with professionals (Justin Timberlake, Britney Spears, etc.), whose very careers evoke your abuser. It would seem that all of those things would likely be triggers for past trauma. But they weren’t for these men. I kept waiting for something to explain this in a more specific way than “it doesn’t always look how you think.” I am still waiting.

    The “After Neverland” special featured Oprah Winfrey asking Safechuck and Robson what many deemed were tough questions — and they were fairly probing. That the two men’s answers were so gray-hued and lacking is what gave me pause about this particular addendum to HBO’s Neverland saga. She asked Robson why he would want to produce a Michael Jackson tribute show in 2011 (Wade sent emails to Cirque du Soliel CCO, Jean-François Bouchard, seeking to participate in Michael Jackson: One), to which Wade responded that he was still blinded by his forever-benevolent view of Jackson (“I only saw him as love,” he asserts.) But I was hoping there would be a follow-up question addressing the awkward timing of his initial lawsuit and his molestation reveal; both of which happened shortly after this denied production job with the show. That lawsuit was filed in May 2013, one month before the world premiere of Michael Jackson: One at Mandalay Bay Casino in Las Vegas. This is as pertinent to the proceedings as why Robson would want to participate in the first place — as it addresses what could be interpreted as questionable motivations for filing that 2013 suit against the Jackson estate. If he only filed a lawsuit to force the singer’s companies to listen — as he stated in “After Neverland” — what does he expect now that the lawsuit is pending appeal? The whole world is listening to him now.

    Also in “After Neverland,” Robson continually refers to his training at the hands of Michael Jackson when Oprah attempts to understand how he felt about lying on behalf of Jackson. It’s an uncomfortable fact of this story that Robson, in particular, is culpable in committing perjury to help an abuser evade justice. While both Robson and Safechuck defended Jackson in 1993 when they were 11 and 15, respectively; only Robson took the witness stand in Jackson’s defense as an adult. He seems intent on ascribing this solely to his abuser’s psychological hold on him: (“As a soldier, I couldn’t think of anybody else…”); but I admit that I have trouble making such grand allowances for an adult who was complicit in a predator’s acquittal, victimization or no. Victims can hurt other victims, and Wade Robson most certainly has, by his own admission, with his actions. I can only see how it would behoove one involved person to easily dismiss that. When he declares it “beyond his control,” I find that to be wholly irresponsible, but an understandable disavowal considering what else it can call into question in terms of his character.

    There were inconsistencies in some of the men’s answers to Winfrey that neutered some of her probing questions in a way that it would have been uncomfortable to address in “After Neverland”s setting. In one of the documentary’s most quietly fraught sequences, Safechuck describes Jackson calling his mother in the wake of the 2005 trial, seeking to get James to testify on his behalf. Safechuck explains that he told his mother Jackson was an evil man — and his mother vividly recalled how her son wept and begged her “Please don’t tell anyone.” During “After Neverland,” when Oprah asks Safechuck “When did you realize it was abuse?,” he explains that it was only after he saw Robson come out with his story that he realized the horror of what he’d endured. Safechuck is clear that his reason for not testifying in that case wasn’t due to him understanding he’d been abused. “I didn’t think of it as good or bad. It was that old wiring of sort of — if you’re caught, your life will be over,” Safechuck explained, reiterating that he only declined to testify out of self-preservation. “To be thrown into that would be too much to handle.” But that seems to contradict the timeline of 2005 events he and his mother described in the doc, when he states that “I told my mom then, that…he wasn’t a good person.” His mother adds that James told her “Michael’s an evil man.” It’s a confusing bit that warrants some clarity. What could’ve made Michael “evil” in 2005 were it not the abuse you’d endured? If you were revealing this trauma to your mother then, how does that connect to you not realizing what you’d experienced until 8 years later? It’s a question that gnawed at me. And it appears that none of the principles involved with Leaving Neverland have offered anything to answer such questions. These questions lingered long after I watched this documentary days prior to its broadcast.

    In the aftermath of Leaving Neverland, I was surprised to see that so many others had no such questions — that this documentary was enough to convince them that we’d finally gotten the truth about Michael Jackson. A documentary that arrives on the heels of two men changing their stories, one superstar dead in the ground, and lawsuit appeals pending. We’re asked to believe everything, even with no clarification or corroboration in what’s being presented. I was shocked that this was all anyone needed. So many people seemed to retreat to the most naïve parts of their reasoning, while wielding sanctimony like a blazing sword — tearing into anyone who dared not jump to co-sign this project’s claims as a morally-defunct celebrity worshipper. Social media is often as politically performative as Capitol Hill and as reactively bloodthirsty as Game of Thrones.

    For all of my experience as “a cultural commentator,” I am not much of a journalist. I have never felt comfortable calling myself one. Journalists are relentless fact-finders who probe and prod; journalists aren’t afraid of seeking an uncomfortable truth. In the age of contemporary pop culture commentary, there are so many incentives to pander — not the least of which is the immediacy with which the general public can heap scorn upon what you write. For many years, I believed that my commentary was me speaking truth to power; in actuality, I’d long been preaching to the choir for easy “amens.” I am not a journalist, but I’d never considered myself a coward. At least not before last week. There is a lot of loud silence in the wake of Leaving Neverland, and I myself likely would not have written this had I not written something so spineless as my initial take. It may sound like an over-inflated sense of self-importance, but I lost sleep wrestling with the idea that my words helped fan the flames of internet hysteria.

    I am not ruminating on Michael Jackson’s guilt, but I am stating definitively that this particular project does not come close to confirming anything. Forget your preoccupation with a star’s legacy. Forget ideas about conspiracies designed to attack beloved Black figures. Such chatter has only become a din of misinformation and hyperbole; someone needs to be more thoughtful than that. Instead of making pronouncements, someone just needs to ask better questions. That’s what journalists do.

    I am not a journalist, but if all I am good for, as a writer, is churning out Woke Nigga™ rhetoric for white liberal consumption, then I have failed in every way that matters. Mastering the jargon and slogans was never my goal; they sit in service to larger ideas that will sometimes be messy and complicated in application. Many have consistently stated over the past few days that victimhood doesn’t always look the way you’d expect it to; well, standing up for victims won’t always look the way you expect it to, either. If you are of the mind that “regardless of whether these guys are right — I know he did something,” then I need for you, as Reed himself has intimated, to de-center Michael Jackson. Your need for cultural closure on a 25-year scandal may be blinding you to the fact that this particular saga isn’t going to end with a pedophile in handcuffs. Michael Jackson is dead and his legacy has already been tarnished. No — this story is going to most likely end with a lawsuit settlement that will no doubt look like a victory — now that the men who filed said lawsuit have the visibility and push of public opinion behind them. I don’t know how anyone’s idea of justice can include persons possibly exploiting abuse survivors and an entire movement to support victims, then getting a huge payday for it. That’s why questions can’t be shuttered for the sake of pseudo-empathy. Fighting for the oppressed should never require weaponized naiveté. I don’t know when that has ever helped anyone.

    Some will read this and be greatly disappointed in me for writing it. That’s unfortunate and I hate that we’ve come to this as our “all or nothing” reality. But I don’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded room — and I don’t feel guilty about asking questions when I’ve already been lied to.
    Thank you for reading.


  15. Poly permalink
    March 13, 2019 7:13 pm

    I can’t say how accurate it is, but you might find it interesting.


  16. March 12, 2019 1:20 pm

    One more thought-provoking article:

    Cracks in the Dam

    Mar 11

    Believe the victims.
    When Wade Robson and James Safechuck were children, they steadfastly claimed that Michael never touched them in a way that was ever inappropriate. However, as adults, the stories began to change, and they committed perjury under oath. One man perjured himself twice, just so that he could get around the statute of limitations. This is the reason why the lawsuit against Jackson’s estate was thrown out of court.

    The media continues this crusade of misinformation today. Recently with the Leaving Neverland documentary, the NYTimes and The Washington Post printed pieces that practically told the reader just exactly how you should feel after watching the documentary. It didn’t seem to disturb the American media that there was only one side being told. One journalist was so bold into saying that Michael Jackson “defended himself enough while he was alive”, therefore pushing the narrative that Jackson’s children, family, loved ones, and fans are no longer entitled to the truth. A truth, the media told us that they only they can tell. However, with the current political climate, it’s evident that the American public don’t feel that they can count on this same media to tell them the truth, regardless of political affiliation. Americans increasingly feel polarized and will get their information from sources that represent their beliefs. If you believe Jackson is guilty, then you’ll stay away from reports and details that clear him of wrong doing, or at least sources that raise serious questions about any allegations made.

    Michael Jackson made a lot of money for himself and millions for others. However, he was still a human being. He had his day in court, with the finding of not guilty, but unfortunately, the court of public opinion is a never-ending trial. In the court of public opinion, there are few rules, everyone is a judge, juror, and executioner, and the defendant is forever guilty on the internet.

    With the latest documentary airing on HBO, the director is asking to take you along on a ride through the life of the worlds’ biggest star and arguably the greatest entertainer of all time. The two young men, along with the director, took you through nearly an hour of how they met Jackson and what it was like with sleepovers, parties, and amusement parks. It seemed like a party every day for the children that Jackson let into his very private life, only trusting a few people, but being very generous with his home, his time, and often his bank account.

    But then, the ominous music plays, and the party is over. This world of games, non-stop laughter, and fun has come to a screeching halt, like a song coming to an end. Now, we are to believe what was once innocent and childlike, was just an elaborate game to procure children for his sexual desires.
    It’s disturbing to watch. You will squirm. You will look away. You will hold your children tight. You will beg them to always come to you if someone was audacious enough to approach your child inappropriately. It may even cause you to lose sleep as you are literally inundated with very graphic and detailed descriptions of how a predator traps its prey. However, there is a voice in the back of your mind, filled with doubt….

    …That’s when the wool is pulled away from your eyes. Or at least, it should be.
    Wade Robson wants you to believe that the King of Pop, a man already under intense scrutiny by local law enforcement and the FBI, once fondled him with just a “thin blanket” covering them, with his mother in the same room. He wants you to believe that a man, with hundreds of millions of dollars to lose, the adoration of millions of fans all around the world, along with his freedom, would be so brazen and bold to abuse him with his mother present, and anyone able to walk in on them at any time. He is asking you to believe that Michael could control himself for the most part, this crazed “boy lover”, while losing complete control other times, to the point where he recklessly abused a child in sight of an adult?

    I’m to believe a man, whose mother relentlessly pursued Michael to another continent to ensure her child would be a star, is telling the truth? Joy Robson claims that Michael’s companies are responsible for the abuse, but it was she that initiated contact with Michael, even lying about the first meeting being facilitated by Michael. It wasn’t. Target held the meeting. You may believe that is a small detail, but these things go to the veracity of what these people are claiming and to their credibility. The Robson’s know that they can’t sue Michael because he’s dead. So, the ever changing narrative needs to be that Michael’s companies were aware of the abuse and did nothing to stop it, even making allegations that they facilitated the abuse. This is so that he can get around the statute of limitations. Yes, you read that correctly. He had to change his narrative to fit the lawsuit so that it could go forward in court.

    Wade Robson is the same man that perjured himself in court to a judge, stating that he didn’t know Michael had an estate, just to get past the statute of limitations. Especially after it was proven to be a lie. It is easily proven that Wade made arrangements with the same estate he was unaware of in 2011, before any allegations just so he could work on a Michael tribute show? The same estate that he claimed he didn’t know existed.

    That guy? The same man that had to email his mother several times before the allegations to construct a timeline because he didn’t remember what happened? The emails that he didn’t want to show the court, and even tried to hide? The same person who would like us to believe that Norma Staikos, a personal assistant of Jackson, is more to blame for this alleged abuse than his own mother? The woman who knew her son was sleeping in the room with Jackson and immigrated to the U.S. on her own, because she felt that her son “went as far as he could go in Australia”?

    However, because the figure is Michael Jackson, an extremely sheltered man, with many eccentricities, the media buys it, hook, line, and sinker. No questions asked. Questions weren’t necessary to begin with.

    …People who lie about sexual assault get to ride and hide behind “#MeToo,” and “believe the victims” so that they escape having to answer for all the contradictions in their statements.
    We rightfully get to question the motives, attitudes, and actions of the abusers and accused, but in today’s atmosphere, we aren’t ever allowed to ever question the veracity of the victims. Even the appearance of trying to be fair will bring the wrath of those who believe all victims fall into the same category. The pendulum has swung the other way, from never believing victims and questioning their motive, to never questioning the motive of every victim and allowing them to tell their stories. If Stephon Clark were making his allegations today against the Catholic Church, there would be few that would believe the Cardinal, despite his fervent claims of innocence. Because the Catholic Church had been accused, rightfully so, of shuffling predators around from church to church, why would Mr. Clark’s claims be any different? But Mr. Clark’s claims were complete lies.

    …Stephen Cook came out and stated that he made a huge mistake based on a “faulty memory”. Cook was convinced that he was sexually abused, but he was confused about the identity of the actual perpetrator. However, he was firm in stating that the person was not the Cardinal.
    Bernardin forgave his accuser and even the psychotherapist who “implanted memories” into Cook’s mind.

    …Most people today would have easily bought his claims. The Cardinal would have had to resign before the sun went down and he would have been vilified to the end of time. Now that we know Mr. Clark wasn’t telling the truth, what would people have said about the Cardinal? I’m sorry we went too far? Or would the media have just ignored it and went on to the next story? Perhaps, maybe even taking the next claims brought before the media not too seriously. Therefore, actual abuse victims are victimized by liars over and over again.

    Where does this leave us? Believe all victims that come forward and make claims, just because they are victims? In Michael’s case, these aren’t children coming forward and making claims. These are grown men telling us a story of abuse from their childhood. Where do we draw the line?

    Full article:

    Liked by 1 person

  17. March 12, 2019 12:30 pm

    Probably the best answer to Robson has come from Aaron Carter who was also friends with Michael Jackson when he was a teenager. Very spontaneous and very angry. Strong language. Aaron says he has been offered 6 figures for an [anti-MJ] interview and he turned them all down and told them to go fuck themselves. You should see that video!

    3/11/2019 2:15 PM PDT
    Aaron Carter Says He Wants to Punch Wade Robson Over Michael Jackson Claims

    2:15 PM PT — Wade’s attorney says the tweet that has Aaron so pissed off … did NOT come from Wade. His lawyer tells us the Twitter account was a fake, and adds Wade has been targeted by “several fraudulent postings and hackings” since ‘Neverland’ aired.

    Aaron Carter wants to fist fight Wade Robson for the allegations he’s making about Michael Jackson in “Leaving Neverland.”

    Aaron was on “TMZ Live” Monday to defend MJ’s legacy. Aside from the accusations Wade made in the documentary — which Aaron passionately believes to be false — he’s pissed about a tweet that he says dragged him into the conversation.
    It came from an account purportedly belonging to Wade and strongly implies Aaron was either molested by MJ, or knew he was abusing other children.

    Aaron says nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to his own personal experience with Michael.
    The two of them used to hang out quite a bit back in the day when Aaron was a teen.

    Aaron tells us he too has slept in Michael’s bedroom, but assures us nothing inappropriate ever happened. He feels the ‘Neverland’ accusers are lying — especially Wade — because they had every opportunity to come forward while Michael was alive, but didn’t.

    In fact, both Wade and James Safechuck have previously denied Michael Jackson abused them as youngsters. Wade continued to support Michael well into adulthood as well, even testifying on his behalf in MJ’s 2005 criminal case.

    As Aaron puts it, they’re stomping on an icon’s grave … who doesn’t have a chance to defend himself now.


  18. March 11, 2019 3:48 pm

    And here is the latest from the BBC about Michael Jackson’s fans:

    Meet the fans who are standing up for Michael Jackson
    By Mark Savage
    BBC Music reporter
    11 March 2019 Entertainment & Arts

    “He was shy. He was also funny. He was also very sweet.”
    Anika Kotecha is remembering the Michael Jackson she knew. The one she visited at Neverland, and who used to phone her up to marvel at her trips to the supermarket.
    “He’d go, ‘You went to the shops? Oh wow, what was that like?’
    “And for me, I just went to pick up some bread and milk, but for him that’s amazing – because he can’t go and do that.
    “It’s quite sad as well, but he was just the nicest guy.”

    Kotecha says meeting the Man in the Mirror singer makes it hard for her to believe the rumours and accusations of child abuse that dogged him in life and in death.
    “It does put a slant on these things,” she says.
    “You compare it to the person you knew, and I feel stronger in my convictions because of that.”
    Kotecha is speaking to the BBC after the broadcast of Leaving Neverland – a four-hour TV documentary which laid out the case against Jackson in gruelling, graphic detail last week on Channel 4 and HBO.
    It focuses on two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, both in their late 30s, who allege the star befriended them as children, then sexually abused them for years.
    The Jackson family has already fired back at the film, calling it a “public lynching” and the “ultimate betrayal” – and they’re not the only ones to dispute the claims.

    Fans have congregated around the hashtags #MJInnocent and #MJFam, posting lengthy rebuttals to the documentary on YouTube, social media and specially-constructed websites.
    They’ve protested outside Channel 4’s headquarters; and even bought adverts on London buses, carrying the slogan: “Facts don’t lie, people do”.

    Dan Reed, who directed Leaving Neverland, told the BBC that he and Jackson’s accusers had also been targeted by Jackson’s fans.
    “There’s been a lot of horrible things said about me online and we’ve received a lot of emails, too,” he said a few days before the documentary was broadcast.
    “I’m amazed that people feel entitled to do that when they haven’t seen the film and don’t know anything about me and they know even less about Michael Jackson.”

    On the last count, at least, he is wrong.
    The fans behind the campaign include lawyers and journalists, who are forensically acquainted with Michael Jackson and the allegations against him.

    “We surface court statements, investigations, including from the FBI, and previous statements that clearly conflict with the accusations and information presented in the HBO documentary,” says Tiffany, a US fan who posts under the name @RideTheBoogie .
    “We felt very strongly we needed to be Michael’s voice,” says Kotecha, who, as an administrator of the website, helped organise the bus campaign.
    “Because, ironically for someone whose entire career was based on his voice, he no longer has a voice.”

    The movement to clear Jackson’s name has existed since he was first accused of molestation in 1993 ( the case was later settled out of court for $23m ), but it has become increasingly vocal since Leaving Neverland was announced in January.
    A main thread of their argument concerns the credibility of Robson and Safechuck, both of whom previously testified that Jackson never abused them. They now say they felt pressured into supporting the singer.
    Fans argue that Robson changed his story after being denied a role in a Jackson-themed Cirque Du Soleil production; and that he tried to sell a book detailing the abuse a year before he took his case to the courts.
    They also note that both Robson and Safechuck have been unsuccessful in their attempts to sue the Jackson estate – although both men’s cases are now on appeal.

    ‘Not one shred of evidence’

    “If their allegations were to be true, this would be an atrocity,” says Damien Shields, an Australian fan who has written a book on Jackson’s music.
    “These are very serious allegations of heinous crimes against innocent children. They [Robson and Safechuck] should be allowed to raise their voices and say what they want to say – but also, if you’re going to do that, you need to be prepared to be scrutinised.
    “And there is really nothing that is convincing when you look at the whole picture, to make you say, ‘without doubt I believe these people’.”
    Fans are also aggrieved that Leaving Neverland offers no right of reply to Jackson or his family.

    Reed argues that the film features footage of Michael’s denials but Shields says those clips are irrelevant.
    “During his life, Wade Robson and James Safechuck supported Michael Jackson. So it baffles me that [Dan Reed] says he’s included footage of Michael’s denials, when the specific allegations he’s made a four-hour film about, Michael never had a chance to reply to.”

    Going back further, fans highlight Jackson’s acquittal on child abuse charges in 2005 ; and direct sceptics to unsealed FBI reports on the star, dating from 1993-4 and 2004-5, which found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

    “Not one shred of evidence,” says Kotecha. “You’d have to be some kind of super-human to be able to hide even the slightest thing from the FBI.”
    “He was under a 10-year investigation by the FBI, he had two raids on his home, he was on a very public trial,” agrees Matt Blank, a spokesperson for the Michael Jackson World Network fan club.
    “All of this brought up no evidence of any abuse. So there’s a part of you that has to say, ‘With all of this scrutiny, why do we suddenly believe [these] two people… that have come forward and gone straight for the money pot?”

    What about Jackson’s own admission that he shared his bed with children? Doesn’t that give him cause for concern?
    “I come from a viewpoint [that] Michael lived a very different life than we could ever imagine,” Blank told BBC Radio 5 live. “And I think just as the world misunderstood him, he probably misunderstood the world as well, a little.
    “There is a big difference between what we deem as odd behaviour [and] committing a crime. You shouldn’t mix those two together, because that’s a dangerous territory.”

    Despite his misgivings, Blank says Jackson’s accusers “come across as very convincing” in Leaving Neverland. Kotecha also says she approached the documentary with an “open mind”.

    “I am interested in what they have to say,” she says, “because if they can challenge my beliefs, then I will look into it further.”
    And that’s something that stands out: Jackson’s fans are not, as Mr Shields puts it, “loopy conspiracy theorists,” but a group of people who’ve arrived at their position thoughtfully and sincerely, even if they find themselves on the wrong side of popular opinion.

    Mute Michael Jackson?

    Tiffany, who is herself a survivor of sexual abuse, stresses that her defence of Jackson is not mere idol worship.
    “The fact that I was abused helps me better understand people who are innocently accused, as well as the minds of those on the dark side,” she says.
    “It’s far easier for many to believe accusations about a man they don’t understand or relate to. And, hey, it’s more much more thrilling to read and spread gossip than dispel myths, isn’t it?
    “Missing from that equation is common sense and the review of justice system documents that contradict the accusations.
    “As a victim of sexual abuse, I not only have a platform to motivate and inspire fellow victims, but I am compelled to fact-check the stories and credibility of potential victims.”

    Nonetheless, defending Jackson has been a tough and, at times, lonely task.
    “It’s exhausting and it affects me,” says Shields. “I can’t speak for everybody, but it definitely is taking a toll.”

    And how does it change fans’ relationship to Jackson’s music?
    “I have to be honest, it’s damaging it,” says Shields. “It’s putting a dampener on the pure bliss and joy and magic and escapism that artwork is supposed to provide us.”

    Tiffany disagrees.
    “As fans, we’re used to the cadence of negative stories. Each passing wave grounds me to what I truly believe in.
    “While others suggest that we ‘mute Michael Jackson’, I’m instead compelled to turn MJ up. I’m going to play his music every chance I get, as loud as my speakers will handle. I’ll continue to fight for what I believe is true.
    “It is the least I can do for a man who means so much to me.”


  19. March 11, 2019 3:00 pm

    Charles Thomson just announced (March 10, 2019) on his Twitter @cethomson: “Here is the full, 17-minute audio/video of my interview with @lynchinnz on @NewstalkZB a couple of hours ago”: – Jolie

    Jolie, thank you for the link. Charles was at last given enough time to discuss not only the LN film but the media reaction to it. I’m tempted to make a transcript of it.

    Taj Jackson is also awesome – with each new interview he gets more and more confident and eloquent. If Michael were here he would be very proud of Taj. And each of his interviews provides us with new information – for example, from the one on March 7th I learned why Michael put those chimes near his bedroom. Taj says he remembers the times when there were no chimes and Michael was complaining that people would eavesdrop on him – so that was the reason! I absolutely believe that this was indeed the case.

    Taj Jackon’s another interview with John Ziegler is of a different kind. You don’t know who talks more there – Ziegler or Taj, but as a result it is their mutual critical analysis of Robson’s and Safechuck’s allegations. This one also needs a transcript.

    Razorfist made one more video about the film – he speaks so fast that it’s difficult for me to understand him, but they say that he has done it again.

    In short, so much information is pouring in from every direction that my analysis of the LN film will have to be postponed (sorry for that). There is simply no time to watch it. And things move so quickly that if I stay away for several days writing a post I’ll will find myself in the past century and will never catch up 🙂

    Now I am thinking of making just another review. And wish the days were 48 hours and not 24.

    And one more thing: this post has been updated with information about 1) Brandi’s interview with John Ziegler and 2) another interesting piece of news spotted by MJ fans – they’ve found that as soon as some of Robson/Safechuck’s lies become too obvious these pieces get cut out from the film. The version that was shown in the UK was shorter and didn’t contain the fragment where Taj Jackson found the whole Robson family lying on camera. The one he tweeted about:


  20. Jolie permalink
    March 10, 2019 7:19 pm

    Hi Helena,

    Charles Thomson just announced (March 10, 2019) on his Twitter @cethomson:

    “Here is the full, 17-minute audio/video of my interview with @lynchinnz on @NewstalkZB a couple of hours ago”:

    Just wanted to let you know. Thank you for all you do, Helena.




  21. March 10, 2019 9:08 am

    Jolie, thank you for the link to John Ziegler. By now I’ve listened to the first one only (with Brandi Jackson) here

    “I asked her if we could meet and possibly do an in-depth interview. The reason for my interest was that, separate from whether or not Michael Jackson was a sexual-abuser of children, I had found Leaving Neverland to be extremely deficient when it came to basic documentarian ethics, and that there appeared to be several gaping holes in Robson’s narrative.” – John Ziegler

    It is a very good interview that provides a context to that LN horror story. Some details of their conversation are a must to hear.

    Some focal points:
    – John Ziegler’s introduction to their conversation: approx. 2:40 – 9:00 of the interview

    VERY IMPORTANT When Brandi first spoke out she was contacted by “Good Morning, America” and “ABC” for an interview, but then both interviews were cancelled and the explanations given were “convoluted”. The explanations didn’t make any sense to Brandi: 12:15 – 14:30

    IMPORTANT Wade Robson had a crush on Brandi when making a commercial in 1991 and asked Michael to set them up together. Michael invited the Robsons family to Neverland together with Brandi and they all spent like 5-7 days there getting to know each other. At the end of their stay Wade asked her to be his girlfriend: 15:10 -17:00

    – When both of them were 18 Wade started having affairs with other women. Brandi: “Are you sleeping with all these women?” Wade: “No, it is just a business relationship”. She says she began to wonder because his behavior became significantly different: 19:00 – 21:45

    – The mutual contact who knew Brandi and Wade told her about his other affairs, she confronted him, he didn’t deny it and that was the end of their relationship 22:00 – 24:00

    – Knowing of a profound effect sex with a male has on another male Brandi would have picked up on any indications of that, but she didn’t see anything. Wade is 100% heterosexual and is extremely confident with women. Egocentric, a kind a of narcissist: 24:45 -28:00

    VERY IMPORTANT. Brandi recalls Robson’s mother calling her when Michael died, after they hadn’t spoken for several years. She was crying and wanted Brandi to contact her with Michael’s children. She said Katherine Jackson was not fit to raise them and somewhat suggested herself as a replacement. Wade also called and Brandi felt like he was manipulating her: “I’ve missed you a lot. Did you miss me?” She felt that the Robsons wanted to “stay in” with the Jacksons family even after Michael’s death: 32:45 -36:00

    – Wade’s career was on the downward spiral: 36:00 – 37:15

    – Michael used to ask Brandi about Wade: “Is he treating your well?” “Is he opening the door for you?”. Brandi didn’t tell her uncle about Wade’s behavior but wishes that she had: 37:15 – 39:00

    – Brandi: “Wade should be ashamed of himself”: 40:00 -41:30

    IMPORTANT. Brandi says that other people don’t know what Wade is capable of. She knows: 42:15

    VERY IMPORTANT. Watching the film and knowing Robson Brandi occasionally sees him trying not to laugh when he tells his story. For example, the story of him “standing on all four and his anus licked”. The look on Robson’s face tells her everything, though others may buy it: 43:00

    – the underwear story. Robson never did his laundry himself, his mother did. There was never a single trace, otherwise she would have noticed: 44:00 – 47:00

    – Joy Robson is doing an acting job too: 47:00 – 48:30

    – Michael was so polite with Joy that she thought he was in love with her: 48:00

    – John Z. “How can she happily speak about at in the beginning of the film if she knows in retrospect of a brutal 7-year long abuse of her son?” 49:00

    – There is no PR machine behind the Jacksons. They didn’t even want to believe it was happening, only Brandi was concerned as she knows Wade: 52:30
    – Brandi: “Wade is a liar. People should fact check and do research”: 53:10 – 54:10

    – Brandi about Michael hanging out with boys: 54:15 – 57:15

    – Wade would have become an extremely wealthy man and a hero if he had testified against Jackson in 2005. But he testified on his behalf. He asked MJ to let him get married at Neverland: 57:15 – 59:45

    – John Ziegler’s postword. “I am not defending Michael Jackson but Brandi blows Wade’s story – beginning with 1:01:45

    “In my opinion, if you simply listen to the interview with an open mind, Brandi’s credibility speaks for itself. There will still be people who will understandably still believe Robson’s version, but there is no doubting that Brandi’s narrative makes a whole lot more sense. But again, the primary question here is, why was her existence censured from Leaving Neverland and why hasn’t she been interviewed on network television about all of this?!

    Liked by 1 person

  22. March 10, 2019 8:06 am

    “Thank you for all your hard work We need to EDUCATE the world with the truth .” – Jadz Szuster

    My thankyou goes to everyone who supports the truth. In the Michael Jackson matter in the first place, but in everything else too.

    Truth will save the world.

    It is impossible for humans to know the truth in every sphere of life, so I see it as a connection between “truthers” in various spots here and there that will show the world the way it really is and not the illusion we have to live in and imposed on us.

    In fact the whole thing reminds me very much of the Matrix movie. At least it suprises me a lot how its makers managed to grasp the essence of what is going on now or will happen in the near future. I mean the battle between lies and truth which we already see with our own eyes and are actually part of. Again, not only in the MJ matters but in everything else. Interesting times we live in.


  23. Jadz Szuster permalink
    March 10, 2019 5:09 am

    Thank you for all your hard work We need to EDUCATE the world with the truth .


  24. Jolie permalink
    March 10, 2019 1:38 am

    Greetings dear sweet Helena,

    I have not posted in a very long time. But I was compelled to post about the following:

    I just listen to two interviews by John Ziegler – posted on Mediaite – an online article dated March 9, 2019. Two SoundCloud interviews are embedded. The first interview is with Brandi Jackson. The second interview is with Taj Jackson. John Ziegler is a very good interviewer and has done his home work. Very good overview…attempts to give context, especially about Wade Robson’s “performance” in “Leaving Neverland”. I hope you all will share it. Really needs to go viral:

    “Exclusive Interview: Michael Jackson’s Niece, Who Dated Leaving Neverland Star Wade Robson, Explains Why She’s Sure He’s Lying”




  25. Suparna Goswami permalink
    March 9, 2019 6:25 pm

    Thanks Helena. Yes we know who those people are and how they manipulate and control the media which in any case have always been against Michael. Otherwise these three men would not have had the courage to make a documentary without any evidence whatsoever. Wade knows that his case is too weak in the courts, and will be thrown out again and he has been desperate for money. He started a Robson family fund in Jan of this year and would have put his pay off money in it and no one will know about it.


  26. Helga permalink
    March 9, 2019 1:53 pm

    There’s a rumor that Weinstein, Geffen and Winfrey financed it all. I don’t know if there’s proof of it but it would explain an awful lot.

    Liked by 3 people

  27. March 9, 2019 1:34 pm

    “Some very powerful people seem to have paid the Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck duo, and of course the director Dan Reed of ‘Leaving Neverland’ to steer away people’s attention from the actual sexual predators of Hollywood.” ” – Suparna Goswami

    Absolutely. And it seems that we even know who these powerful people are 🙂

    “‘Leaving Neverland’ was a last minute entry to Sundance”

    I’ve read that the deadline for entering films into the festival program was November 2018, but they managed to do the last minute entry 1,5 months later almost on the eve of the festival opening. And decided that this new entry would open the festival changing all previous plans.

    Very powerful people.

    November 28th, 2018
    The nonprofit Sundance Institute announced today the showcase of new independent feature films selected across all categories for the 2019 Sundance Film Festival. The Festival hosts screenings in Park City, Salt Lake City and at Sundance Mountain Resort, from January 24 – February 3, 2019.
    For the 2019 Festival, 112 feature-length films have been selected, representing 33 countries and 45 first-time filmmakers.

    Leaving Neverland was added to the program on January 9th, 2019.

    Jan 9, 2019 4:00 pm

    The Sundance Film Festival has announced two final additions to this year’s program, including the world premiere of Dan Reed’s four-hour-long “Leaving Neverland,” which focuses on the continued claims of sexual abuse and child molestation against Michael Jackson, told through the stories of a pair of alleged victims. Per the documentary’s official synopsis, “At the height of his stardom Michael Jackson began long-running relationships with two boys, aged 7 and 10, and their families. Now in their 30s, they tell the story of how they were sexually abused by Jackson, and how they came to terms with it years later.”While the official synopses do not list the names of the participants, an official statement from the Estate of Michael Jackson claims that they are Wade Robson and James Safechuck, both of whom have spoken out against the deceased performer in the past.

    Liked by 2 people

  28. Suparna Goswami permalink
    March 8, 2019 7:34 pm

    Some very powerful people seem to have paid the Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck duo, and of course the director Dan Reed of ‘Leaving Neverland’, to steer away people’s attention from the actual sexual predators of Hollywood.
    ‘Leaving Neverland’ was a last minute entry to Sundance, and even though there were multiple screenings of the film on Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse, all eyes were on ‘Leaving Neverland’. What a strategic ploy!

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: