Skip to content

John Ziegler’s Podcast and True Journalism about ‘Leaving Neverland’

March 19, 2019

Here is another review of the social media on the ever-shrinking ‘Leaving Neverland’ movie by Dan Reed.

Why it is shrinking is because as soon as Michael Jackson fans spot another inconsistency and easily disproven lie Dan Reed cuts out the respective episode and the movie gets shorter and shorter, so what was originally 4 hours in the US is already 3 hours 15 min or less in other countries.

Jonathan Moffett (and Razorfist) say the following about it:

Here is an example how manipulative “Leaving Neverland” was in how it was presented & edited, leaving real FACTS out with only distorted truths presented out of context. This is UNETHICAL Dan Reed!  Full video here:

To know the latest news about the Leaving Neverland movie you need to follow Twitter where it is reported at a cosmic speed, so my intention to make a review about Twitter reactions to it had to be given up as the torrent of news there is too quick to grasp it all.

Fortunately, on March 17th John Ziegler made an amazing podcast called Fraud and Fakes with a review of the most significant events for the past week and a diagnosis of the deplorable condition of the mainstream news media that failed to notice blatant Robson/Safechuck’s lies and director Dan Reed’s open propaganda.

Below you will find the rough transcript of the ‘Leaving Neverland’ part of his podcast which will explain a couple of things to those people who still think that they can get their facts off a movie.

It will also contain an occasional tweet from MJ fans here and there.

So here is John Ziegler, the host of Free Speech podcast, speaking on March 17, 2019:

John Ziegler:

3:40 The story I’ve been embroiled in for the couple of weeks is the controversy surrounding the HBO movie “Leaving Neverland” where two guys accuse Michael Jackson of horrific and extensive child sex abuse many, many, many years after it’d supposedly happened and they had supported Michael in many ways including testifying on his behalf.

Last week we did not one, but two interviews with key members of the Jackson family. One is with Brandi Jackson, Michael Jackson’s niece who dated Wade Robson for about 8 years during their entire teenage years. The other is Taj Jackson, Michael Jackson’s nephew who spent thousands and thousands of hours with Michael Jackson, knew Wade Robson and has a whole lot of other information about why the movie is a complete fraud, fake and phoney.  And that’s pretty much where I am now.

4:50 Like other people I watched it and was horrified by what I saw and was impacted emotionally, but the emotions from it wore off very quickly.

It is an interesting comparison to see how I reacted to it and how my wife did. My wife in a lot of these stories has been ahead of me in figuring out that certain stories are false or a fraud. She is a school teacher and she deals with a lot of kids at the age when these accusations tend to occur. With the film “Leaving Neverland” she bought it totally. The emotions of it made her very, very, very convinced that the stories were real. I quickly realized – no, Wade Robson is lying. If Wade Robson is telling the truth about Michael Jackson, then we might throw out the entire judicial system, because the evidence that he is not telling the truth is many mountains, not just one mountain. He is a complete fraud.

7:55 Wade Robson is so obviously lying about Michael Jackson, that if his story is allowed to stand, the rules will be created so that you can never, ever, ever question a high-profile accusation of child sex abuse, no matter how discredited, no matter how nonsensical, no matter how many years later, no matter how contradicted by their own words and actions – it can never happen.

8:30 For a cynic I am being naïve at times, but even the people who are promoting his story, including those who’ve interviewed him, including Oprah and her friend Gale King (essentially the same people, as there is no way one is going to contradict the other), I have a sense that even they don’t really believe Wade Robson and here is why. One of the main things getting lost is that if they are telling the truth, especially Wade Robson, there should be immense anger at him.

Where is the anger at him?

9:30 Let’s pretend he is telling the truth. His story is that in 2005 he engaged in a conspiracy to help Michael Jackson get acquitted in a trial where the accuser was a cancer survivor allegedly, supposedly abused by Michael Jackson. He prevented that cancer survivor from getting a fair trial because he perjured himself blatantly. Where is the anger over that? Where are the prosecutors in that case furious with Wade Robson for what he did?

10:25 The reason why there is no anger is because I don’t think that they really believe it. Deep down they don’t really believe it. But Robson is useful, it is a good story, it is a narrative they like, it’s a hit. I think there might be other things going on why Oprah is suddenly on the entire MJ bandwagon.

10:50 But back to my wife. So my wife usually has pretty good instincts on all this, but on Wade Robson she was way off at first, and I think it shows how emotionally manipulative that movie is, because even my wife bought it. And it took me days to finally bring her down to earth and I did eventually convince her that Wade Robson is lying. (Sometimes winning the argument is worse than losing the argument when you are married, at least in my experience). But even my wife took several days before she finally came down to earth.

11:45 One of the reasons why we did the Brandi Jackson last week is because in my opinion Brandi blows apart Wade Robson’s story better than anybody, because she was with him romantically at the very time he claims to have been sexually abused by Michael Jackson. And I have to say that the reaction to that interview has very much substantiated my belief in her story.

From the substantive standpoint the reaction has been exactly as I expected and hoped for. Lots of people have listened to it, it’s been widely disseminated, you can find it on Youtube or just can Google it, so from the substantive point of view I was thrilled. She was amazing, people got it, people were open-minded and said, “OK, come on, let’s keep this real. There is no way that Wade Robson is telling the truth, there is no way that Dan Reed has any credibility when he leaves Brandi completely out of the film, doesn’t even mention her because she didn’t know that she existed.” So that part has been gratifying and I expected it because I could tell how credible Brandi was and how powerful her story was.

13:05 The part though that was disappointing for me – the grizzled cynic who is still naive – I honestly thought that if we got out her story that is certainly read by certain mainstream media outlets, I thought once the mainstream media became aware of her story that somebody significant was going to interview her within the mainstream news media. But even I was surprised and disappointed that that did not happen. Let me give you some insights on what was going behind the scenes.

14:10 I know for a fact that Good Morning America, which she says cancelled her interview before the movie came out, under highly suspect and convoluted reasoning, I know that they were repitched in an interview with Brandi and they showed no interest., which is bizarre not even because of the substance of her interview but also because it allows people to talk about Wade Robson cheating on her with Britney Spears to the point where he broke up the famous relationship between Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake. I thought that that alone, they are not going to be able to resist that point because this has been rumored for years and this is the most significant substantiation of that rumor that you are going to get, right from Brandi Jackson who has reasons to know why that is true – from Wade Robson’s own mouth.

15:15 So the fact that no one picked on that and Good Morning America didn’t either, made me think that there is something else going on here. And I wrote a column  about what the censorship of Brandi Jackson’s story tells us about the news media in general. And that is that it is flat out totally broken. Fundamentally broken.  And it is really fundamentally broken when it comes to the issues of accusations of sexual abuse, especially child sex abuse, where people’s brains just explode.  The Brandi Jackson situation proved to me that there has now been a new rule that’s been created and this is a very, very dangerous rule.

16: 00 And that is once someone is deemed to be sanctified as a child sex abuse victim, especially sanctified by Oprah Winfrey, once they are deemed by the media to be sanctified a child sex abuse victim like Wade Robson, then from this point you are not allowed to directly contradict the story of the child sex abuse victim. You are just not allowed. Brandi has direct evidence, testimony, her story is incredibly credible and it is obviously relevant – it doesn’t matter. Sorry, you are allowed to defend Michael Jackson in general, which is so mind-blowingly frustrating. So you are allowed to say he wouldn’t do it, but you are not allowed to discredit people who say that he did do this – and he is dead.

Now, that’s “fair”, that makes a lot of “sense”. And that to me was one of the revelations over Brandi being censored in the mainstream news media.

17:20 But it might not be just that. It might go deeper than that. Because there was another situation involving TMZ. And TMZ have been awful on this. And I am going to get into what they did to Paris Jackson and her alleged suicide yesterday (Paris Jackson is Michael Jackson’s daughter). One of the outlets that I went on Twitter and challenged TMZ and Harvey Levine who runs TMZ – I challenged them to interview Brandi Jackson. If there is an outlet that is created in the mindset that they might be willing to pick it on it would be TMZ. First of all TMZ has a very strong Black audience and they defend all sorts of Black entertainers, and you would think that defending Michael Jackson and allowing Brandi Jackson to do this is something they would be into, plus they would love the Britney Spears/Timberlake element, so I went on Twitter and I challenged them.

18:40 And someone from TMZ, a producer contacted me about them interviewing Brandi Jackson. “We would do it by face time, like on the phone, like a ten minute interview and take out two minutes and put it on the website and maybe talk about it on the show”. And I’m like, No freaking way.

There is no way I’m going to recommend to Brandi Jackson to do an interview with a producer and have it edited and talked about by people where she cannot defend herself or explain herself. No way. I said, I want Brandi Jackson in studio with Harvey Levine and he can find out for himself why he is wrong about this issue.

19:35 What’s really interesting about the Harvey Levine situation is that when Wade Robson told his story back in 2013 on the Today show, Harvey didn’t buy it! That tells me that something has fundamentally changed. The number one thing that fundamentally changed in 2013 is MeToo. Pre MeToo Harvey Levine was willing to say, “Wait a minute, this story doesn’t make a lot of sense.” And what’s interesting about that is Wade Robson’s story now is far less credible than it was then.

Why? Because his lawsuit required discovery where we learned about all these emails that he’d been sending  and where he is constructing his story and the judge realized that within those emails was proof that he had perjured himself in an effort to get around the statute of limitations to file his lawsuit, which was thrown out! As was his testimony in that lawsuit.  That all happened after the Today show interview. And Harvey Levine is a lawyer and normally these kind of things would matter to him, so he’s gone from effectively being anti-Robson to being very pro-Robson with MeToo in between, although there might be something even more sinister to that.

21:15 So TMZ said they would repitch this to see if their producers are willing to interview Brandi in studio. Fine. Then they got back to me, “No, sorry, we are not going to do that. We’ll do the face time interview,” and I said, “Don’t expect us to get back to you,” because this is ridiculous.

There is no way I’d recommend Brandi Jackson’s story to be told that way, because you are letting yourself to be manipulated, especially when the outlet has already shown that they are not on your side and not to be trusted.

22:00 What was really interesting about this – the next day the director of ‘Leaving Neverland’, Dan Reed  who appears to me a real dirt bag in every possible way, and that’s being as generous as possible, so one of the interviews that Brandi does do – she’s done a bunch of radio interviews, no mainstream TV, but some radio interviews, and I am not sure she fully understood the outlet.

The interview was with an Australian media outlet and apparently they were very rude to her and then they had Dan Reed to respond to her. Dan Reed is incredibly unnerved by the fact that his movie is torn apart from the substantive point – not by the mainstream media, but by people who actually looked at the facts. Every little detail of this movie, the timeline, the things he allowed to be said that are factually not true and are impossible, based on what we know – for instance, Jackson’s schedule and where he was, and things that don’t make any sense as far as the order in which they happened.

23:40 So Reed, what does he do? He attacks Brandi. By clearing showing that he had not even listened to the interview with her, didn’t know the basics of her story, he effectively claimed that she was having sex with Wade Robson at 12 years old, which she specifically said that it was not the case – she was dating him in a puppy love situation at 12 when he was allegedly being abused. And then Reed retweeted the story of the outlet where Reed is “slamming” (that was the word that was used), “Reed, director of the film SLAMS Brandi Jackson” and he retweets it!

Dude, you are bragging about slamming the story of a person you have never spoken to, clearly even didn’t even know about before your movie came out, who completely discredits your star accuser, and you do so not in a substantive way about the relevance of her story, but effectively trying to claim that she is a slut having sex with your star at the age of 12!

This guy seems to be panicked, he seems unnerved.  He also seems clueless.

25:10 Popularity and truth are often directly opposed, but I’m going against the grain here, folks. I’m not on the popular side of the story. My tweet at Dan Reed, mocking him for doing this, was retweeted hundreds and hundreds of times. And I’m not sure his original tweet gets twelve retweets.

I mean, there is no big fanbase on behalf of this movie.  I don’t think that people really believe it, at least in their hearts and souls. They may pretend that they do, because this is the politically correct thing to do.

26:05 Reed is a jackass. From the factual standpoint he’s been shown not done any research. His whole movie was about manipulating you emotionally which is why all the drone shots of Neverland, and that syrupy music and allowing his accusers to speak unfettered, incredibly slow talking. It is four-hours and is a movie production – this is not a documentary.

26:45 Back to TMZ. Yesterday TMZ dramatically reported that Paris Jackson, the daughter of Michael Jackson, has gone to the hospital because of an attempted suicide and this made huge news. I have no idea what the truth is with regard to [Paris] Jackson, and I am not sure TMZ has any idea what the truth is, but very soon after that report she tweeted at TMZ, “You’re fucking liars” or something like that. That’s a pretty emphatic response from someone who has supposedly just tried to commit suicide. That being said I do believe something happened with Paris Jackson. There is an indication that something happened, what I don’t know. Maybe this will be an opportunity for Paris to tell her story and clear the air, for she has been criticized for effectively staying silent.

[I disagree, let us leave the children alone, it is hard for them the way it is].

John Ziegler:

28:30 There are so many examples how this movie in the last week has been discredited, I hesitate to even go into any of it, because as soon as I do, a leaf stuck out – that’s how bad it is. I mean just yesterday Mark Geragos who is Michael Jackson’s original attorney with regard to the allegations way back then, he tweeted out that he had just been alerted that a quote of his, a clip of his in the movie is completely, totally, taken a hundred per cent out of context, where he is not talking about who and what Dan Reed is implying about.  He was talking about a ton of bricks to bring on these people basically saying “we are going to destroy them”– well, that’s all bullshit. He was not talking about the accusers.

John Ziegler:

29:45 This is one small example of how this movie was made. It’s propaganda. It’s not remotely a documentary. It didn’t remotely care about the truth.

And I’m not even a Michael Jackson fan. I presumed Michael Jackson was guilty before the 2005 trial. The trial made me question it because there was so little evidence and I thought the not guilty verdict was correct. To these days I have suspicions, but the more I learn about all this – almost everything people think about this case is bull crap.

Frankly, the Leaving Neverland movie has done more to convince me that Michael Jackson is innocent than anything else that happened in the last 20-25 years.

30:55 And to that end I had a conversation with Brad Sundberg. And Brad Sundberg was the technical director for Michael Jackson on several of his albums for a ten-year period in the late 80s –the early 90s. And they also did a lot of work at Neverland. I had an extensive conversation with him yesterday and he has been outspoken. Her personality is –  he is not an angry guy or a big fighter but he cares about the truth and he is obviously very credible. And the bottom line is, he says that he was in studio with Michael Jackson at least 300 times in his life working on these various albums. And out of those 300- maybe 400 times he was in the studio with Michael Jackson he says that there was a child or a kid with him a handful of times, maybe six or seven times. And of those times where there was a child or a kid with him, he thinks that Wade Robson was there at most twice.

32:25 This is important because Robson makes the claim that he was sexually abused during the studio sessions, which Sundburg says is impossible based on the way the studio sessions were set up and the situation that was surrounding the studio. There was a lot of people, and this is not something that you could easily pull off, not to mention that if it were your MO (modus operandi) it would be happening a hell of a lot more. One of Robson’s biggest problems is that he didn’t even meet with Jackson regardless of abuse that many times in his life! He claimed in the movie that he had been sexually abused over a hundred times which sounds an awful lot, but the point is that there is no evidence that Robson even met with Michael Jackson even close to a hundred times.

John Ziegler:

33:45 And what proves that is a lot of video tapes. There is a video tape of Robson and his mom standing outside a record store when he was 12 years old waiting for one of Michael Jackson’s albums to be released. Now let’s do the maths on this. He is in the midst of being sexually abused hundreds of times by Michael Jackson, but he has to stand in line to get his album? (laughs)  I’m pretty sure that if that had been happening, he would have probably gotten an advance copy of the album. It doesn’t make any sense.

34:20 And speaking of his mom. This is where we have the consciousness of guilt. They always say that the cover-up is worse than the crime. The crime here is a lie that the mom, Robson and sister provided to Dan Reed in “Leaving Neverland”. This is where I am now completely convinced that they’ve got to be lying because this stuff could not be happening if they were telling the truth.

[Here are just a few touches from Twitter on the Robsons family]:

John Ziegler:

34:55 In 2011 Joy Robson did an interview on a radio station here in Los Angeles. And in this interview she says a lot of things that are directly in contradiction to her son’s current narrative.

In 2011 Robson hadn’t been allegedly aware yet (laughs) that he was sexually abused by Michael Jackson. He wasn’t aware of it until May 2012, so it just magically started to happen 30 years later, that he suddenly realized that sex abuse was bad and that Michael Jackson did that. The reality is that it was the statute of limitations  and reasons of his  lawsuit, but I digress.

So in this interview Joy Robson says a bunch of things that are problematic. One is – she acknowledges that Wade Robson and Michael Jackson didn’t really spend much time together. That’s number one. Number two, she totally substantiates Brandi Jackson’s view of Wade as someone who is effectively a man whore, that he sleeps with everything, and chases women all over the place and it is consistent with Brandi’s story of him having cheated on her with numerous people.  She also seems to indicate that they didn’t come to this country until Wade was nine years old which is a problem because Wade says that the abuse starts at seven years old.

36:25 Now here is why this is all important. In a rational world all that would make people question the story  in a huge way, but guess what happened? I tweeted out a link to that video on Youtube and said, “This is interesting. Wade Robson’s mom, 2011, just apparently around the time when Wade thinks that he is going to get the job for the Michael Jackson Las Vegas show.” Guess what happens within a day, within a day of me tweeting the link to that video?

Let’s be clear. The Youtube account for this video hasn’t posted any videos in years. Their twitter account has been inactive in years.  All of a sudden, within 24 hours, maybe less – PUFF… GONE… Gone from Youtube.

But it gets worse than that. I’ve got to tell you – I’ve been amazed by the Michael Jackson fans. Michael Jackson fans get a very bad rap, including Dan Reed who compares them to ISIS. And this part that really infuriates me because anyone who fights against this narrative is somehow called a cult member and automatically discredited. Dan Reed actually compared the Michael Jackson fans to ISIS. I didn’t find that at all. These people are first of all, fervent and passionate in their desire to find and prove the truth and men, do they bring their receipts. In the last week all I had to do was tweet, “Hey, anyone got this?” and within minutes I’m bombarded by multiple people with that document, or that video and it’s amazing.

38:30 So when I tweeted, “Hey, guess what, the Joy Robson video is gone. Anybody saved it?” and within less than a half hour it is reposted on Youtube by multiple Michael Jackson fans who had saved it. WOW, these people are for real! This is awesome.

And then guess what happens? The same Youtube user, who has been inactive for years, not active on Twitter for years, is suddenly making copyright infringement allegations against those people who were reposting the video.

39:05 Now what does that tell you? That tells you that we have a conspiracy to cover up, that’s what that is – that is a conspiracy to cover up. I urged people to repost the third time not using the entire interview so that it can be used under what’s called “fair use”. To my knowledge that has not been taken down yet. If it has, it should be fought because Youtube doesn’t have the right to take that down, this is clearly a news story and to use part of that video to discredit a major news story is more than legitimate.

39:40 And what’s even not that important is the substance of it. The substance of it is interesting and I think it contradicts Wade’s story, but the taking down of the video in such a dramatic fashion, meaning the timing, and even going to the lengths of doing a lot of work to track down the reposted stupid interview of 2011 and making copyright infringement allegations against those people who posted it – that takes time and effort. That tells me that this is organized, it’s a conspiracy, and it’s a cover-up. That’s what it is.

40:25 And Wade Robson is the most obvious liar I’ve ever seen. And there is a zillion reasons why. Even after his magic date of May 2012 he was still doing interviews – one was in July 2012 where he was glowingly talking about Michael Jackson. [this is inaccurate as far as I know, the interview was in July 2011]

40:55 I’m sorry, but here are some rules for you, folks. If you are going to be taken seriously as a child abuse victim the first thing to do would be to tell a parent. How about a friend, how about a journal, how about something? When they go on trial, maybe not testify on their behalf, okay? That will be a good thing. Or maybe when they die, maybe not put out a statement saying that he is the greatest human that ever lived. Or maybe not write a chapter in the book saying the same thing. Maybe those are the things you shouldn’t do if you want to be taken seriously.

But not when you come up with that coconut [?]  theory that you didn’t know – when you were sleeping with Britney Spears and lots of other celebrities – and you didn’t know what sex is and that man-child sex is bad, and once when that magic moment happens maybe you stop doing interviews, praising the guy who did that to you. These are just some helpful tips, if you want to be taken seriously.

This is one of the most obvious cases of a blatant lie that I’ve ever seen.

42:00 As far as his partner, James Safechuck, he is not that easy to disprove, but frankly, I actually think that if it wasn’t for Wade Robson – if it was just Safechuck –  Safechuck’s story would seem to be far less credible than it seems to be, this simply because Safechuck is benefitting from the utterly absurd Robson’s story. In comparison it seems just a little less crazy instead of totally nuts.

John Ziegler:

42:40 I went through this last week with Taj Jackson, but Safechuck’s story blows apart this way – Safechuck claims that in 2005 he didn’t testify because Michael Jackson angrily called him, upset that he heard that Safechuck was not going to testify on his behalf. First of all this doesn’t sound like Michael Jackson would do – why would he need to call him directly, why couldn’t he find a crony to do it?

But more importantly than that, we know that the story is absurd from the timeline perspective. In March of that year the judge declared James Safechuck to be off limits in the trial. He could not testify, so why is James Safechuck telling “Leaving Neverland” that during the trial, which goes into June of that year, Jackson was still angrily calling him and their last conversation cut off their contact because Safechuck isn’t going to testify? It doesn’t make any damn sense.

And Safechuck’s only claim is that he didn’t tell anyone about Michael Jackson in a negative fashion and he only says to his mom that Michael Jackson is a bad man and that’s why he is not going to testify. No, that’s not why he is not going to testify – it is because the judge says he is not eligible to testify!

43:50 And now we have a domino effect here. The domino effect is – so he is lying about why he didn’t testify, which then brings obviously into great question his statement as to why Michael Jackson is a bad man. Which takes us into 2009 when Michael Jackson died when the mom (and I urge you to take a look at it if you are interested in the truth) who does some horrendous acting, claims that when Michael Jackson dies, she is so happy that she is doing a dance.

Now the first problem with that statement other than the acting is horrific, she claims she is in bed and she wakes up and hears that he is dead – well, Michael Jackson died in the afternoon here in Los Angeles. But more importantly,  why is she dancing over the death of the guy she thought of as her own son, based on one comment her son allegedly made in 2005. And her own son says he didn’t realize he was abused until he saw Robson on the Today show when? In 2013!

How does it make sense? And to further substantiate that, his cousin Tony Safechuck tweets in 2013 that the whole story about Michael Jackson is bull crap. Literally, that’s what he tweeted. And they didn’t bother to tell their cousin Tony? In all these years? And he still thinks that Michael Jackson is awesome?

Marie Rousseau‏ @ml_roussea 12 мар.

Wow! Interesting how they adjusted their timeline accordingly when they realized there were inconsistencies in their lawsuit. Now Safechuck claims that they had that first dinner in Hayvenburst AFTER the Bad tour in Australia. No mention of Thanksgiving. Well done Jimmy!

John Ziegler:

45:40 Come on, people. This is about money.

They are suing – and that part of the movie bothers me most – just on a global perspective, there is nothing about this movie that qualifies it for being made. Jackson is dead, neither of these guys testified against him, one of them testified on his behalf at a trial, was the first defense witness, neither said anything about Michael Jackson while he was alive, or when he died – and they are both suing in a lawsuit that has been thrown out multiple times and the judge threw out Robson’s own testimony! It doesn’t get the first base for a story to be made into a national so-called documentary sanctified by Oprah Winfrey and embraced by all the rest of the news media.

John Ziegler:

46:40 So the bottom line is this. I am 1000% convinced that Robson is lying. I am about 95% convinced that Safechuck is lying.

Unfortunately, I am about 90% sure that they are never going to be widely exposed as liars, because the media is on a lockdown on this. And it’s hard for me to imagine what’s going to happen [to change it] – lawsuits against HBO, or against them. A court of law is the only place where this is going to be properly judicated because you need more than a tweet to be able to combat it. You need a court of law and frankly, I think the thing that Jackson Estate is going to do is – if I were the Jackson Estate I would say, “We are going to drop all objections to a trial in this case. Robson and Safechuck, let’s bring it on. Let’s do this in court. Let’s put this in front of the jury. And let’s see whether or not you can really prove that you were abused by Michael Jackson.”

48:00 Because I think, frankly, if that ever occurs they would shit themselves. Especially now that it’s got so much attention, I think they would shit themselves. Because I think their entire strategy here was to get a settlement.  There’ve been settlements in the past, and the Estate does not have that huge incentive. I think they overplayed their hand and now there is not going to be a settlement, there can’t be a settlement now unless somebody is really an imbecile.

If I were the Jackson Estate – stop objecting.  I don’t know whether it is possible to do because of the statute of limitations. Let’s be very clear about this issue.

Everything about their stories is about getting around the statute of limitations. This is why this bull crap story “We didn’t realize we were sexually abused until 2012 and 2013”. That’s about the statute of limitations. That’s what it is.

The statute of limitations in California is 15 years. They made the allegations way too late, so now they need a loophole. There is even a reference to this loophole in Robson’s own lawsuit, they actually reference that this [loophole] allows him to get under the statute of limitations in California, because it says that if you didn’t realize that you had been abused that the clock didn’t start yet.

49:40 What a load of crap. I mean, Come on. There is zero chance that any human being wouldn’t understand that they haven’t been sexually abused. He is not claiming repressed memories. This is a guy, who is very sexually promiscuous, and based upon the interview with Brandi there is zero indication that he suffered any kind of sexual repression, or damage to his psyche – it is all bull crap. It’s all bull crap that has been bought into by people who know better but who are afraid because of the political correctness in the post MeToo era.

John Ziegler:

50:30 I mentioned that Michael Jackson fans have been amazing. I’ve been struck by the difference they have reacted to the way Penn State fans reacted. There is a lot of reasons why.  I think the number one reason is because Jackson has been facing these kind of allegations for so long his fans have been like fire-tested.… I can understand why the difference is, but the difference has been stark.

I don’t know where I go from here on this, but I am definitely invested in seeing Robson and Safechuck exposed as liars as they are. So if there is anything I can do I’ll be there. I’m just not optimistic about it.

British journalist Charles Thomson also made his contribution and spoke about the atrocious media coverage of Dan Reed’s show Leaving Neverland.

And here is Thomson’s another phenomenal interview with Chris Lynch from New Zealand:

Anda Noel‏ @andanoel

Important, indeed. It marks the moment where journalism went into a coma, me too movement being stolen by impostors and people replacing judges with tv show hosts, basically abandoning reason. Dream world!

And here is the condensed version of major credibility issues of Robson and Safechuck, also by Charles Thomson:

More true journalism comes from Emmy-award nominated filmmaker Larry Nimmer who posted a one hour rebuttal documentary to YouTube in connection with “Leaving Neverland.”

For those who can’t see it on Youtube due to some viewing limitations, Larry Nimmer posted his revised new documentary on his Facebook account and also Vimeo.

Larry Nimmer

Here is my revised new documentary, “Michael Jackson: A Case for Innocence”. Was he innocent or guilty? Let me know what you think. ThIs is an updated video from my older documentary, with details about the new 2019 accusers.

And finally here is the latest 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™
https://www.mjvibe.com/statement-from-the-estate-of-michael-jackson-4/

And here is the last-minute addition to the post.

This is a video made by @RobAger (Collative Learning) who points to the evidence of suspicious editing in the Leaving Neverland movie and multiple takes done while filming it. Robson and Safechuck haven’t been filmed in candid continuous interviews – a breakdown of the footage reveals that their claims are spliced together from multiple takes of their interview dialogue.

The different angles at which Robson and Safechuck were filmed were not one or two, but possibly a dozen. This is proof that the interviews were made in parts and on multiple occasions, especially the episodes where they described their “sex abuse”, after which the best parts were picked out to make the picture as convincing as possible.

And this in turn suggests that “Leaving Neverland” is not a documentary, but a carefully crafted feature film, a propaganda piece meant to create the maximal emotional impact on the audience with the goal of Michael Jackson’s character assassination, and where Robson and Safechuck do nothing but an acting performance.

Leaving Neverland – evidence of multiple interview takes

A wonderful picture by Crista had to be added too. The text is hilarious:

“And when I saw that Chandler kid getting 20 million $ for lying, while I told the truth and got nothing, I just FELT SO MOLESTED…”

Christa's picture of Robson and Reed

 

 

12 Comments leave one →
  1. March 19, 2019 12:02 pm

    I could never accept the results of the murray or the AEG trials

    Like

  2. susannerb permalink*
    March 19, 2019 4:04 pm

    John Ziegler really gets to the heart of it.
    I think exactly the same that in reality people like Oprah, Gale King and others in the media don’t believe Robson and Safechuck themselves, but are on the bandwagon for certain reasons. And the reasons for that explained by Ziegler are very plausible: That a new rule has been created which doesn’t allow anybody in the media to doubt or contradict accusations of a “sanctified victim”. And this not only applies to the US, I also can see it here in Europe. This has become such a strong rule that the media stick together and act as one, the same way for example as doctors may stick together when one of them is accused of malpractice. And this “political correctness” is adhered to in parts, as I believe, because of “politically uncorrect” people like Trump who they have to fight against. But it will be no good to do it just to oppose, because truth gets lost this way, and suddenly the wrong people are on the side of truth. When truth is not guide number 1, then I don’t know… everything is lost. I don’t know how better to explain what I mean. But pretending to believe something just because it must be politically correct is the worst way to fight “fake news”.

    But of course that’s not only about a rule, it goes beyond that – there’s a conspiracy behind it which becomes obvious when we observe everything that happens these days, including disappearing accounts and videos…

    As to Dan Reed, I would say that his reactions to the dissection of his mockumentary show that he is already cornered.

    Like

  3. March 19, 2019 4:41 pm

    “And the reasons for that explained by Ziegler are very plausible: That a new rule has been created which doesn’t allow anybody in the media to doubt or contradict accusations of a “sanctified victim”.” – Susannerb

    Susanne, I also agree with John Ziegler, but only partially because the problem is that some victims are “sanctified” and some are not.

    For example, the boys from those Bryan Singer’s pool parties we’ve seen photos of and where I saw minors with my own eyes, and some of whom accuse him now of sexual abuse are not “sanctified”. Why so?

    So though the general formula may be correct, something is still missing from the equation.

    As to Oprah, Gayle King and others in the media not believing Robson and Safechuck themselves, I have no doubt about it at all. John Ziegler makes a very strong point here – if they believed they would be furious with Robson as a perjuror.

    Like

  4. March 19, 2019 5:47 pm

    Brandi Jackson’s new interview – “He was like from another planet”.

    Brandi Jackson Speaks Out Against Leaving Neverland & Oprah on Hollywood Unlocked [UNCENSORED]

    Like

  5. susannerb permalink*
    March 20, 2019 3:04 am

    Here is another family defending Michael:

    Roslyn Witz Cohen family

    Roslyn Witz Cohen:
    “My family met Michael Jackson at Sun City resort in 1997 and we remained friends with him up until his very tragic and untimely death. My sons were 12 and 10 years old at the time. During those years Michael spent many times at our house and we went to Neverland and in all those years I can honestly say that Michael never ever spent time alone with my two sons.
    Everything that Grace Rwaramba has said is absolutely true. There were always so many people at Neverland that it would have been absolutely impossible for Michael to have “lured” boys to his room without anyone noticing it. Every room in the main house was always open to the guests and we never saw Michael’s bedroom door closed. Michael had nothing to hide. He was open and transparent.
    My husband and I were included in every arrangement. There was never even a hint of a suggestion of him wanting to spend time alone with my sons. They never slept in his bedroom at Neverland. We all slept in the guest cottages. As responsible parents had he suggested anything that we felt uncomfortable with we would have packed our bags and gone home immediately.
    Michael never moved on to “younger boys” as claimed by Wade Robson. If he did why are they not making the same disgusting allegations? Why didn’t the director speak to them? He knows they exist and where to find them. Michael was friends with families and their children from all over the world and everyone knows that including the director!
    The reason the director did not speak to them is because they will all tell the truth which is Michael is 100% innocent of every allegation levelled against him so instead he chose two perjurers desperate for money in order to make this so-called documentary.
    I believe that the reason Michael did not want to remain friends with Wade Robson or James Safechuck anymore is probably because they asked him for money at some stage and he did not give in to their requests so hence they took their revenge after he died. All Michael ever wanted to do was to help children which he did. To label him a paedophile is just beyond belief. He was truly the kindest and most honest person I have ever met.
    What Wade Robson testified about Michael in the court trial when he said Michael never did anything inappropriate to him is the truth and nothing but the truth. Wade Robson’s bitterness from not getting funding from the estate for a project he wanted to do turned him into a compulsive liar for the sake of money.
    He is a perjurer and now people believe his lies. I shudder to think what this documentary has done to Prince, Paris and Blanket. Now they have to live with the lies about their father. What kind of world are we living in where people are prepared to destroy innocent children for fame and fortune?
    My question is why did these two liars wait until Michael died to make false accusations against him? They had plenty of time to lay a charge against him before he died. My family and I will fight for Michael’s innocence in every way we can until the day we die because his innocence is worth fighting for.
    I see that these two perjurers claimed that they reason they did this documentary was so that this does not happen to other boys in the future. What nonsense! In my opinion all they have done is open up a door for anyone to accuse a celebrity of molesting them in order to get money out of them.
    Nowadays when you admit to being molested, whether it is true or not, you become a hero to the public. I am quite sure that in the near future there will be many allegations coming out of boys being molested by celebrities as it is a very easy way to make a quick buck and get a moment of fame. My family could have done the same for fame and fortune but we are honest people.
    Michael taught me many things but one of the most important things he taught me is don’t believe what you read in the tabloids until you see it for yourself and I know the absolute truth and I saw it for myself that Michael Jackson was not a paedophile!
    We miss Michael every single day of our lives and are thankful and grateful for the times that we spent with him. We had the best times of our lives with Michael. We are all devastated by the disgusting lies in this documentary as we know the truth.
    What I found really disturbing in the documentary is the two mothers who really didn’t seem to be angry about what their sons allege Michael did to them. If my sons had been molested I would have no fond memories of the molester at all no matter how famous, wealthy and kind he was to my family.
    I would only have hate and resentment regardless of how kind and generous the molester was to my family and I certainly wouldn’t keep any mementoes from him. I would want to see him rot in jail for the rest of his life and no amount of money in the world would make me back down if I knew for sure my sons had been molested, as per the first false allegation where money was taken by the father, and we all know how he ended up.
    I would be fuming and angry and crying hysterically during the interview and have absolutely nothing nice to say about the molester yet these mothers spoke very fondly about Michael and certainly didn’t seem upset in my view. Even more disturbing is that Wade Robson at the age of 22 did not realise he had been “molested.” This so-called documentary is just downright disgusting and anyone who believes these lies is just plain stupid!”

    Like

  6. March 20, 2019 12:38 pm

    Now Dan Reed explains that the multiple takes done in his Leaving Neverland movie were because Safechuck forgot where he kept those rings and Reed had to return to film that scene again (several months later, as far as I understand).

    Well, considering that he provides no proof that it was bought by MJ at all and belonged to Safechuck (and not to his mother, for example), they could take any of her jewelry and film it then and there. The effect would have been exactly the same – no one is able to check it anyway .

    Twitter says about it:

    In a French interview the creepy psycho “director” says at the time of 1st interview James had “forgotten” where he had put the rings & that once he found them after filming, he called him & they filmed the ring scene.

    Safechuck can’t recall where the rings are for 17 months, doesn’t recognize abuse until he sees The Today Show, but has a perfect recollection of every single salacious sexual moment and detail in #LeavingNeverland when Dan Reed’s camera is rolling?

    Rob Ager who made an excellent analysis of “Leaving Neverland” answered some question from his critics:

    In response to the more frequent disagreements in the comment section here …

    Yes, a lot of documentaries have interviews that are filmed with multiple takes and very brief shots of the interviewees … and it’s arguably a deception in those films too – it makes the interviewees seem less credible. However, most documentaries actually involve evidence as well as interviews. In a case like this, where the “victims” already lack credibility on account of their own previous court testimonies and TV interviews, it was essential to get interview footage that was as honest and raw as possible. Multiple takes with selective editing was a very poor choice. It has resulted in the interviews having a scripted and acted appearance.

    A few people saying that the director has already stated that the interviews were filmed over 2 or 3 days … good. And I’m glad to bring more attention to that particular aspect of the production as a lot of people would miss the implication of multiple takes – the effort to try and get a strong acting performance that’s actually dishonestly spliced together to appear like a natural flow of dialogue.

    Regarding the people going on about the body language stuff, I did say in the video I’ll be making a separate video on that so please feel free to respond that video when I post it.

    Regarding the people asking if I’ve met any sexual abuse survivors, yes I have. I worked 17 years in the social care field and interacted with thousands of people in that line of work … probation, homeless, learning difficulties, mental health, and yes … I met and interacted with dozens of pedophiles and sex abuse victims so I have a personal experience take on both the victims and their abusers.

    Regarding the folks who think that Jackson sleeping in the same bedroom as child visitors amounts to proof of sexual abuse. That’s witch-hunt logic. A lot of people, adults and kids, sleep in the same bed or bedroom under various circumstances and it’s not a foregone conclusion that sexual interaction has occurred. Yes, it does cast suspicion on Jackson and without that particular facet of his life there would be very little grounds for suspicion, but sexual intent is not the only possible motive. Jackson clearly had a child-like mentality in a lot of ways so it is perfectly logical that he enjoyed sleep overs with visitors to compensate for his loneliness and lack of family at the time. Yes, there is a possibility of sexual molestation, but possibility doesn’t equal proof. And you need proof to convict in a court of law unless you believe in witch hunts.

    Regarding the folks who say that there have been tons of accusers … there have been a handful and it all kicked off with the discredited Jordy Chandler case. As Razorfist has aptly pointed out,Jackson made the mistake of settling the civil case out of court (without admission) so that he could defend the criminal case (the one that could actually lead to jail time). He defended and was acquitted on all charges, but the pay out given on the civil case gave the green light for other snakes in the grass to come out seeking multi-million payouts. From what I can tell, that has what has been happening on and off since.

    “You just can’t handle him being a pedo because you like his music”. Yes, there are some who would defend Jackson even if proof were found of sexual abuse just as there are some who will keep calling him an abuser despite lack of evidence. Like most people, I fit into neither camp. I loved Kevin Spacey as an actor, Rolf Harris was a great cartoonist and Bill Cosby I found hilarious … but I’m not trying to defend them.

    Thanks for your thoughts folks.

    Like

  7. Jason permalink
    March 20, 2019 4:46 pm

    Do you know Rudi Dolezal, this man who said MJ was ped-le .

    Like

  8. March 20, 2019 5:25 pm

    “Do you know Rudi Dolezal, this man who said MJ was ped-le .” – Jason

    Lovely Jason, get your quotes right. This Rudi Dolezal says that he believes them and adds that Dan Reed did “brilliant work”.

    “I believe almost every word. It’s brilliant work.”

    I disagree. Dan Reed’s work is certainly NOT brilliant, otherwise he wouldn’t have to constantly explain himself and cut his own film.

    And Rudi Dolezal also claims that Michael had to wear prosthetic nose, and only on days when he was performing.

    “The procedure was so time consuming that Jackson would only put on the nose on days when he was performing.

    Obviously the one who said it and those who printed it think their readers are complete idiots because apart from this being a nasty lie, wearing a prosthetic nose during performing is useless, unnecessary and very, very risky. It would be the same as Rudi wearing his spectacles when spinning.

    Michael was not an idiot, while Rudi apparently is.

    Like

  9. Lesley permalink
    March 20, 2019 6:31 pm

    Thank you for collating all this evidence. I have been so frustrated and angered by this whole filthy episode and the fact that noone in the mainstream media has given Michael jackson’s family or fans a platform to fight back. Only online does sanity appear to have prevailed. Keep up the good work 🙂

    Like

  10. March 21, 2019 7:24 am

    Rudi Dolezal is an Autrian filmmaker who has absolutely no clue who Michael Jackson is (probably the same kind as Dan Reed). He and Hannes Rossacher once made another of these numerous “documentaries” about Michael after his death, which was aired on German TV. It was so stupid and ignorant of facts that it was completely laughable. I wrote them a letter back then and told them that their film was complete fiction and confronted them with facts via their allegations.
    It’s not worth even mention this name in connection with Michael Jackson because Dolezal is completely unillumined and not interested in facts about MJ.

    Like

  11. Suparna Goswami permalink
    March 25, 2019 4:17 am

    Helena, to add to my last comment on the connecting dots between Miramax, HBO and Sundance, this is the link from LinkedIn which is public up until now: ( Keri Putnam):
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/keri-putnam-b683716

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. jackson.ch

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: