Skip to content

“Leaving Neverland” transcript. The 1st half hour of LIES AND DISTORTION

March 22, 2019

If you are attentive enough when watching this film and if you compare it with the two guys’ lawsuits, you will realize that it is not only Robson, Safechuck and their relatives who lie there, but also director Dan Reed who is complicit, because he makes their lies sound even more sinister than they actually are.

You can’t help making this conclusion when you see the free and willful way he edits the footage and changes the timeline of the events to the point of no recognition.

Of course these lies could be initially presented to Dan Reed in their wrong succession, but a real documentary filmmaker should still do proper research, at least as regards the timeline of the events he wants to present in his story.

So what you will see in this series of posts is not only the analysis of the two guys’ lies, but also the role of the film director in making their story even worse than his two main characters actually tell it.

Below is the partial transcript of the first half hour of the film with some of its segments compared with the court documents and thus setting the timeline straight. In my opinion even if the events are falsely described they should still come in the right order, and not turn into a separate weird fantasy of the film director.

HBO documentary film

00:43 Safechuck: When I was with him he was happy. (MJ and Jimmy are shown on stage smiling) He was at the peak of his creativity, his success. Everybody wanted to be with Michael. He was larger than life – and then he likes you (close up photo of Safechuck as a kid, music)

1:15 Robson’s voiceover (photos of him as a kid, music) He was one of the kindest, one of the most gentle, loving, caring people I knew. He tremendously helped me with my career, creativity, all those sort of things.

And he also sexually abused me (pause). For seven years.

(Footage of Michael Jackson smiling and looking straight into the camera, music)

Title: LEAVING NEVERLAND

2:00 (home video of the Robsons’ one-storey house in Australia. Children are sitting around a table with a birthday cake on it).

2:15 Robson: I’m Wade Robson (smiling, in a gentle voice). I was born in Brisbane, Australia (footage of him and other children at a Christmas party, music). I’m the third of three kids. My dad – he worked in construction for a while and then he got into what was like the fruit business (photos of dad).

2:30 Robson: So when I was young he had a couple of fruit shops (photo of Joy and Dennis together). And my mother used to work with him with those businesses.

2:44 Joy Robson: I’m Joy Robson, mother of Wade Robson (footage of the family in the garden). We were middle class Australian family, we lived on 3 acres. We had horses and goats and a dog named Sally (footage of children and animals, music). Shane was nine and a half years older than Wade (family photo) and his was well into elementary school when Wade was born.

3:15 Shane Robson: It was a three-bedroom single-storey house. We had a pool where we had like pool parties (footage of them playing in the pool, music). Pretty good memories from that place.

3:30 Joy Robson: Chantal was very close with him. Being three years apart they played together a lot (photos, music)

3:45 Chantal Robson: Wade was always a very sensitive boy. He played basketball as a little kid, but if he had a choice of doing anything, he would read a book, listen to music or dance (photo) versus going outside playing football with his friends (photo, music).

4:05 Joy Robson: He was the youngest in the area, so he had nobody to play with. He and I were very close (photo), we spent a lot of time together.

4:12 (footage of making Thriller) Joy Robson: I remember one day coming home with the video of making of Thriller. Someone has told me it would be a collector’s item (footage of Michael in the monster make-up, MJ’s music). I really wasn’t a fan of his, but I did like some of his music.

4:38 Robson (to Thriller music): Once I saw that tape everything changed for me. The music – I couldn’t help but move to it, it set me on fire. It made everything tingle and it was so exciting (Thriller footage). I remember just watching the tape over and over again, pausing, rewinding, trying over and over again to really perfect (photo of Robson in “Bad” outfit) the complexities of Michael’s movements (MJ singing).

5:22 Robson: I slowly but surely started plastering my walls with images of Michael 2 They literally became like the wallpaper. So going to sleep, waking up in Michael Jackson land.

(drone footage of Safechuck’s home, intense music)

5:50 Newscaster: “Jackson’s world tour coincided with the release of his latest album entitled “Bad.” Sales are good. Half a million copies were sold the day it went on the market. Not since “Thriller” five years ago has the record industry been so focused on a single album.”

6:05 Joy Robson: He had just turned five (photo of Robson in “Bad” outfit), and people kept telling me, “He is really good, you should do something with him”. A friend of mine came to me and said, “You know, Michael Jackson is here on a Bad tour.” I had thought about buying tickets, but I thought he was so young. She said, “You should go, there is a dance competition, you should enter him, the first prize is to meet Michael Jackson.”

6:35 (drone scene of a big city, invigorating music) Joy Robson: The competition was like a week before the concert and it was held in that Target store. He had a little hat and an outfit my hairdresser had made for him (photo). 36

7:00 Robson: I was too young – it was like 7 or 8 and up. And I was 5 at the time. So they said, “He can’t compete because of his age, but we will let him perform as a special guest” (footage of Robson as a kid).

7:15 Joy Robson: When he got on stage, just everything changed. He wasn’t that shy little boy on stage. Everyone was screaming for him and at the end of it, the store manager who was the judge said, “I want to get out of here alive, so I’m going to declare Wade Robson the winner.”(footage of everyone clapping, quiet music) 37

7:42 Joy Robson: Michael Jackson’s people were there to interview and asked 6 him, if he could speak to Michael what would he say?

7: 50 Robson as a little kid: “I’m going to ask him to come over for dinner”. “Why would you want him to come over for dinner? You are going to see him dance?”  “Yeah”.

8:15 Robson’s voiceover (music): You know, this complete impossibility, this being from another world –Michael – we are going to meet now. I was excited beyond measure.

8:35 Joy Robson (looking inspired, music): I remember getting this clot that it was in my heart, it went into all my extremities. It was an amazing feeling. Something magical is going to happen when you get that feeling.

(music intensifies, a wide panorama of a big city)9:10 Safechuck (smiling): I am James Safechuck (drone footage of his house). I grew up in a little town called Simi Valley. I was a pretty happy and pretty outgoing performer, I guess. My father worked at a rubbish company (photo of father and son), a family rubbish company that my grandfather started. My mom had a hair-styling business (photo of mother and son) and I remember being in a beauty salon as a kid. I hang out there while she was working.

9:50 Stephanie Safechuck: My name is Stephanie Safechuck, I am Jimmy’s mother. When I married Jimmy’s father (wedding picture) he had two children that came with the marriage. At the time my husband had vasectomy and I didn’t think I could have any children (the photo of two of them) but three or four years into the marriage I really wanted a baby (another photo), so my husband had it reversed for me which back then guaranteed nothing (photo with a baby). I was so fortunate to have a baby, I remember having him and being overwhelmed and just crying over his crib, that he’s always alright. He is my love (her photo with the kid, music).

10:40 Safechuck: I have an older brother and an older sister. They are much older. They also left home early, so I was alone (music)

10:50 Stephanie Safechuck: (drone over Simi Valley) It was actually a friend of ours – her daughter was in commercials – and she ran into me and my husband in a grocery store and she said, “You’ve got to get him in commercials (photo of young Safechuck). He is so adorable” and gave my husband the agent’s card, so I called the agent and when she met him she said, “He’s money in the bank, I’ll take him”. So he did very well right away.

11:25 December 1986 (a fragment from the Pepsi commercial)

Safechuck: I met Michael on the set of the Pepsi commercial. I don’t remember being a huge fan of his at the time. I was probably more into transformers (smiles). This kid wonders around backstage (the commercial fragment) and then he discovers the dressing room and me going there and I see the jackets, and the glasses and the hat and I am trying it on and then Michael walks in and says, “Looking for me?” (MJ’s music) They were trying to get my reaction on camera. So the first time I see him is actually the shot that they use in the commercial (a fragment from the commercial).

12:30 Safechuck (looking worried): He invited me into his trailer ((the photo of mother and son).

12:35 Stephanie Safechuck: This was exciting for Jimmy and I didn’t want to be in his way.  I wanted Jimmy to have fun and have a good day. So I let him go to Michael’s trailer with Michael’s hair-styling, makeup artist Karen Faye. And I stayed outside. What she said to me was,” He’s like a nine-year old boy.” So that made me feel comfortable (music)

13:05 Safechuck’s voiceover (photo of MJ and Jimmy, music): How would you explain Michael Jackson? He is larger than life. There’s no stars like that now (another photo). Everybody wanted to meet Michael and be with Michael. He was quiet and he laughed a lot at me. And he’s giggly. To the stand-ins (we became kind of buddies) I said, “We are the luckiest boys in the world.” (smiles and looks aside)

It’s time we interrupted their smooth narration.

The above luck was actually a very brief moment with Michael Jackson that Jimmy Safechuck had during that December 1986 commercial. There were no rehearsals with MJ as he just opened the door and they captured Jimmy’s first reaction. Then he went to Michael’s trailer and that was it.

Then the long months of January and February 1987 passed by and there was still no contact with Michael Jackson. To remind Michael of himself Safechuck started writing him letters. The first letter was not answered, but on March 10, 1987 Michael did send him a polite reply. He explained that had been working on a new video and had been busy, and said it was nice to hear from Jimmy again (so Jimmy wrote to Michael at least twice).

Michael invited Jimmy to come and see him on the set “sometime” and if Michael had free time Jimmy could come and visit him at his house.

There was no special invitation, no nothing – it was just a polite reply.

We know all of it from Safechuck’s complaint which is also totally false, but if you really look into it you can still get some grains of truth there. And what we get is that it was Jimmy who sought contact with Michael and not Michael.

The lawsuit says:

Several months after the Pepsi commercial was shot, Decedent wrote a letter to Plaintiff on Doe 2’s stationery dated March 10, 1987. It stated:

Dear Jimmy,

Thank you for your letter. It was nice hearing from you again! I’ve been working on a new video for my album and have been really busy.

It was fun working with you on the Pepsi commercial! Maybe we can work together again. I’d like to have you come and visit me on the set sometime or when I have some free time you can come to my house.

Keep sending me letters! I love to hear from you!

Speak with you soon, [Decedent’s signature]”

The Decedent also enclosed photographs from the Pepsi commercial that they shot together.

As you can easily guess Dan Reed says nothing about it in his film. Instead he drops Safechuck at this point and goes over to Robson, producing the impression that while we follow Robson’s childhood, Michael’s friendship with Jimmy is flourishing.  However our aim is to stay with Jimmy to see what’s going on there, so we will drop Robson for a time being and fast forward to the follow-up Safechuck segment.

(drone footage of Safechuck’s home in Simi Valley, intense music)

21:05 Stephanie Safechuck: One day the phone rang and I picked it up. “Hi, this is Michael. I’m calling from Australia.  I was in Jimmy’s commercial.” I thought, how touching! He doesn’t think it is his commercial, he thinks it is Jimmy’s! (photo of Safechuck). So I put him on the phone and I could hear Jimmy say, “People tell me at school that you are weird.” Michael said, “Don’t listen to what anybody says. You know me, you know I’m not weird” And that started the relationship.

A great conversation. However as regards the timeline it is a very big lie. First of all, it produces the impression that Jimmy “knows Michael” and by this moment they are buddies enough for Jimmy to talk to Michael about his “weirdness”.

And secondly, the “one-day-the-phone-rang” wording is exceptionally misleading. Put immediately after the March letter from Michael Jackson, it looks like the call came soon after that. However it absolutely did not.

The schedule of Michael Jackson’s Bad tour says that Michael’s first concert in Australia was … on November 13th, 1987.

And that call was the first contact with MJ the Safechucks themselves mention after the March letter. Now do your maths and you will come to a conclusion that between the March letter and the telephone conversation with Australia at least 8 months passed.

So now you know why Mrs. Safechuck worded it so vaguely. This vagueness is not just a slip of her memory and not a chance occurrence as you might have initially thought – it is a deliberate cover-up of the fact that there was no contact between MJ and Jimmy for at least 8 months.

Right, Michael Jackson did not even attempt to contact Jimmy for full 8 months.

Okay, but who contacted whom after the long separation of the two big friends?

You won’t believe it but Safechuck’s own complaint suggests that it was the Safechuck family who called Michael Jackson in Australia, and not vice versa. The call was made on Thanksgiving Day, November 26th, which was the day Michael celebrated with his crew in Australia.

But before you read the respective piece from Safechuck’s lawsuit there is one more note to make.

Same as the film, Safechuck’s complaint also messes up with the dates, so when you read it you won’t be able to make head or tail of what happened when. And this is done for a reason – the idea is to create the impression of a continuous “relationship” and Michael displaying an “interest” in the boy.

However there was no interest and no continuous relationship, and to be able to understand it you constantly have to solve the time riddles in Safechuck’s complaint. Here is just one sentence from its point 10 as an example of such riddles – it is worded so slyly that you won’t be able to decipher it without first conducting a proper investigation.

10. Shortly after their first visit to the Hayvenhurst house, on Thankgiving Day, Plaintiff was on the telephone with Decedent.

First of all the phrase ”Plaintiff was on the phone with Decedent” surely stands for Jimmy calling Michael and not the other way about, otherwise they would have told you a long and colorful tale about how “Michael called Jimmy.”

Another riddle is their remark that the call on Thanksgiving day came “shortly after their first visit to the Havenhurst house”. So there was a visit to Michael’s home after all, and it took place shortly before Michael went to Australia and Jimmy called him there.

So the riddle points to a period between Thanksgiving day in Australia and the time when Michael was still in the US and could invite Jimmy to Havenhurst before his departure.

Let’s look up Michael’s schedule of the Bad tour and search for a moment that could fit the above description.

And yes, we do find such a period – it is a month-long break between the two legs of Michael’s tour. He came home to Havenhurst after his last concert in Japan on October 12th and stayed there until he left for Australia where he gave his first concert on November 13th.

Shortly after that was Thanksgiving day (November 26th), so the Safechucks’ visit to Havenhurst must have been sometime before Michael left.

The most suitable period that would fit the timeline is early November 1987. This was most probably the moment when Michael invited the family to his home in Havenhurst, just as he promised Jimmy in that March letter of his:

  • “I’d like to have you come and visit me on the set sometime or when I have some free time you can come to my house.”

Surely, Jimmy answered Michael’s letter and then waited 8 long months for Michael to have free time and invite him to his home.

This was the real timeline of the events, but if you watch the film or read the lawsuit you will see a completely distorted picture. The complaint says:

9. After receiving Decedent’s letter, Plaintiff and his family were invited to dinner by Decedent to Decedent’s home on Hayvenhurst Avenue in Encino, California (“Hayvenhurst house”).

The above makes me speechless. They dare claim that the invitation to dinner came after Michael’s letter in March! Some people have the nerve…

The invitation was made by Decedent through Jolie Levine, Decedent’s then secretary/personal assistant. Ms. Levine later became Decedent’s production assistant on the “BAD” Tour, and his production coordinator on the “BAD” album.

Plaintiffs’s parents accompanied him to Decedent’s Hayvenhurst house for the dinner. After eating, all four of them watched the film Batteries Not Included in a small home theater in Decedent’s Hayvenhurst house. During the visit, when Decedent was alone with Plaintiff, Decedent gave Plaintiff presents – a globe and $700. Plaintiff’s parents were not aware that Decedent had given their son money at the time, and when they discovered it later, they asked Decedent not to give Plaintiff money. In response to their request, Decedent giggled and said that he could not help himself.

Bad as the above timeline is, Dan Reed’s film makes it even worse. As usual with the Safechucks, their story about the first visit to Havenhurst starts with “then his secretary called”. But then was when?

“Then” was in November 1987, eight months after Michael’s letter in March, and almost a year after Safechuck first met Michael when doing the Pepsi commercial in December 1986.

Safechuck speaks about that event as something routine and nothing extraordinary – just like another of those allegedly numerous events in his “intense” friendship with Michael Jackson, though in reality he as a boy was most probably counting every day of that long 8-month period while he waited.

23:16 Safechuck: And then his secretary or somebody called (quiet music) and asked if we would like to go to dinner at the Havenhurst house.

(magical music, a long drone overview of Havenhurst) 

23:44 Safechuck: Going to Havenhurst felt magical, the house is beautiful (drone over the house), they have a recording studio there and I think we saw his brothers and said Hi. We had dinner and watched “Batteries Not Included” (picture of the film poster). He gets movies before they come out, so he has a little movie theater there (drone footage of Havenhurst at night, music). I remember seeing his dance floor for the first time, kind of a magical thing to see Michael in it, at his private dance floor (Safechuck looks pensive)

24:24 Stephanie Safechuck: We were so excited – this was big for us. Nobody can befriend him – he has to befriend people. He is unapproachable. So for him to want to be our friend was “Oh my God, how lucky are we!” (photo of her and her husband together)

24:45 Safechuck (music): Mom and dad, I think they were in awe and just star struck. It is like this. (photo of MJ and Jimmy). And then at the same time he’s becoming a real person. He is not like this two-dimensional icon. He gives you focused attention. And I think at that age (speaks very slowly) you want to be important and you want to be noticed and loved, so it is a powerful attraction.

25:27 Safechuck (violin staccato, photo of MJ): We went into the closet and looked at the stuff and he told me I could get a jacket. I picked the Thriller jacket of course, and I took it home and wore it to the grocery store (photo of Jimmy in a gray suit, not in a Thriller jacket) and as I was leaving he gave me like an envelope full of cash, several hundred dollars – which at the time was a lot. It is still a lot (smiles).

(drone footage over Simi Valley)

Okay. The first thing to do after reading the above is correct Mrs. Safechuck – Michael was approachable and the Safechuck family is the best example of it. They approached him again and again until Michael found free time for them and invited them to his home.

Secondly, it was the first time they saw Michael Jackson in almost a year and it is absolutely clear that Michael had no intention whatsoever to have any “special relationship” with Jimmy. Vice versa, it was Jimmy and his family who besieged him.

Thirdly, there was nothing special about that visit – they had dinner and watched a Steven Spielberg movie, and Michael gave him a jacket (he gave away his things to everyone) and also some money – most probably to compensate for the family’s transport expenses or just as a gift. And then he must have said to them, “Good-bye, nice to have seen you, have a nice day.”

However all was not that easy with the Safechucks, and when Michael left for Australia it was this family who called him on Thanksgiving day. The Safechucks are polite people, so now they wanted to invite Michael to make a return visit, this time to their home.

The court documents say about this nice invitation:

10. Shortly after their first visit to the Hayvenhurst house, on Thankgiving Day, Plaintiff was on the telephone with Decedent. Plaintiff’s parents suggested that he invited Decedent to come over to their home. Decedent said yes, and Plaintiff and his parents drove over to the Hayvenhurst house to pick up Decedent and bring him back to their home. On multiple occasions after the first visit to the Hayvenhurst house, either Plaintiff and his family, or Plaintiff on his own, would go over to see Decedent at the Hayvenhurst house.

Wait a minute, how could they pick him up at Havenhurst if they imply in the same paragraph that Michael was in Australia at the time? Of course that was impossible, and this is just another of Safechuck’s manipulation with the timeline which they hoped no one would ever notice.

Of course the earliest the return visit could be made was after the Australia tour ended.

Well, the schedule of Michael’s tour gives us the possible date for such a visit. Thanksgiving was on November 26th, Michael’s last concert in Brisbane was on November 28th so he came back to the US soon after that, and the earliest he could make a return visit to Safechucks’ home was early December (or later).

And now look at the fantastic somersaults done by these people in Dan Reed’s film. Do you know what they say in the film?

They simply say that he called them “the next day”.

See how “continuous” and “intense” their relationship was according to their false narration? All events seem to come one after another, deliberately pressed together in time and this is done with the goal to create the impression that the lovely boy was an irresistible attraction to MJ.

But in reality all we have is a brief meeting at a commercial, then Michael’s one reply to Jimmy’s several letters, then the promise he kept by inviting them to dinner at Havenhurst, and then a call from the family to Michael on Thanksgiving day. And that is all.

(drone footage over Simi Valley)

26:05 Stephanie Safechuck (intense music): He had a phone number and he called the next day and he was going by himself. And I couldn’t believe him – how could this man be by himself?

26:18 Safechuck: And so my parents offered to go and pick him up (drone footage of their house by night). We got in the car and we drove to the Havenhurst house, and there is always like reporters and fans, so we had to sneak him out. Michael was darkened with me in the back. Some people gave chase and we had to like “lose them.” I think my father was excited to like lose them. He had to drive fast or something.

 (photo of Michael in red pajamas sitting on the floor) 

26:50 Stephanie Safechuck (music): And he came to our house and went through Jimmy’s closets, through everything, he acted like a little boy.

27:00 Safechuck: We would watch movies and eat pop corn. He loved pop corn (photo of MJ with a football ball)

Michael would come to the house a lot Michael and I would take walks around the neighborhood just talking (photo of MJ, music) just talking and walking. It would be at night time of course, so that he could sort of hide (drone over Simi Valley). Soon somebody noticed and newspapers would be there.

~

All of it is very nice of course.  Only remember that it wasn’t “grooming” as they will tell you, but a polite return visit to Safechuck’s home, made at the invitation of the family.

And it was only the second time Jimmy met Michael in a year (after their brief interaction during the commercial). And if there were indeed several visits to Safechuck’s home during that time, this was indeed the period when they more or less became friends.

And the initiative was with the Safechucks, not Michael. It was Michael’s naivety and willingness to see what a normal family life of ordinary people was like. Mrs. Safechuck greeted him with homemade cookies and in the evenings MJ and Jimmy would walk together along the streets of Simi Valley. And everything was very nice and proper.

And then came Christmas time. As a Jehovah Witness Michael did not celebrate Christmas, but Safechuck and his family did. However Jimmy was probably ill at Christmas as his home video shows him sitting in bed at the time.

Whatever Jimmy’s condition was there can’t be any doubt that Michael sent Christmas gifts to Jimmy and his mom and dad, especially because the mom was so hospitable to him when he had earlier visited their house. Another present to the family was that Michael sent to their house a film crew who made a short video of Jimmy Safechuck dancing.

And all of it would be okay, if Dan Reed had shown these events in their proper order. But no, his incredible film places Christmas first and everything else later. And if it weren’t for a Christmas tree in one of the shots we would have never noticed this other manipulation with the timeline.

To grasp the goal of this deliberate time shift we need to go back to mark 21:40 of the movie.

21:40 Stephanie Safechuck: So Michael is still in Australia and asked him if he could send a crew to film Jimmy (video of Jimmy sitting in bed). So a crew came and Jimmy didn’t have any posters of Michael, so they put Michael’s posters all through Jimmy’s bedroom when they filmed it. It was exciting for all family.

22:07 Jimmy in the video (sitting in bed): “And I was thrilled like WOW, because it’s hard to believe that I can so much […] Michael Jackson when people just dream about him. Nice stuff, it’s really neat.”

22:25 Safechuck: I sat on the bed and put all my memorabilia there and they just interviewed me. And then I did a little dance performance (video of him dancing with another boy). Now that I look at it, it’s almost like an audition for him (gravely). He sends this film crew out (video of him dancing beside a Christmas tree). 

23:00 Stephanie Safechuck: They didn’t explain. I just figured – he is far away, this is part how he can be with people, and he made it clear that he was very lonely, he didn’t have any friends.

23:16 Safechuck: And then his secretary or somebody called (quiet music) and asked if we would like to go to dinner at the Havenhurst house.

(music, drone footage of Havenhurst) 

Oh, this is when we come to that “secretary called them” point again. So the Havenhurst dinner was in November, but the video was made around Christmas time, however for some reason Dan Reed distorted the timeline and did it in the reverse order, placing Christmas first and everything else after it.

The question is Why?

His big idea is to show that Michael was so “infatuated” with Jimmy that when he went to Australia and felt “lonely” there he sent a special crew to film his “special friend” and then enjoy the video of him while on tour.

Personally, I think that the idea to make this trick came to them when they saw that Jimmy was in bed (possibly ill). Dan Reed’s film is nothing but a chain of manipulations to force the viewer to believe the false narration, so the video of Jimmy in bed came in very handy just for the beginning of the film, because everything that comes after that will be perceived by the viewer in a much more sinister light (a visit to Havenhurst, a jacket as a gift, money to Jimmy, etc.)

Please shake off the illusion and remember the correct timeline and correct events:

  • First came their brief interaction during the commercial (December 1986)
  • Then Jimmy wrote letters to Michael
  • Michael answered them in March 1987 and said that maybe they would work together again and if he had free time Jimmy could come to this home
  • Jimmy waited for the invitation for 8 long months
  • Michael kept his promise when he was free between the two legs of the tour (early November 1987)
  • The family called him in Australia on Thanksgiving day and suggested a return visit
  • Michael made a return visit (in early December) and then possibly several others visits to their home
  • He sent a film crew to their home at Christmas time to make a video of Jimmy dancing.

This is how “intense” it was.

Why did Michael send a crew to make a video of Jimmy dancing? Most probably to keep his other promise to Jimmy to “maybe work together sometime” and certainly because the Safechucks wanted a career for Jimmy with the help of Michael Jackson.

And now this wonderful lady tells us that “they didn’t explain” why the crew came and she had no idea? Just think how meaningful all these seemingly unimportant details are and how masterfully Dan Reed is constructing the story of “abuse” just out of thin air. And we haven’t even come close to its main part yet.

27:30 Safechuck: (drone over Havenhurst) I think I went to Havenhurst a few times, the more I would visit the more I would get longer time with him. I bought him some toys, he gave me some gifts (photo of MJ and Jimmy jumping). It’s more like hanging over with a friend, that’s more your age, so it seems natural.

28:00 Stephanie Safechuck: (photo of MJ, Jimmy and his mom, MJ has a piercing look to his eyes)

I came to feel like he was one of my sons, by how he behaved. I loved him (her photo in the kitchen) He would spend the night, I’d wash his clothes. At the time I was thinking – should we get him into commercials? I prayed to the Lord that if this is good for Jimmy, open the doors for him and let this happen. And if it’s not, don’t let it happen. of course the door was open so quickly. And then when Michael came to our side I told him about how I prayed before it happened, and Michael tells me, ”I prayed too. I prayed that I could have a friend and then I met Jimmy”. Well, to me the two prayers came together and that was a friendship that was meant to be.

Above is exactly the explanation why that film crew was sent – she was thinking of getting Jimmy into commercials, and please don’t tell me that she never mentioned it to Michael Jackson. So that video allowed Michael to see Jimmy’s potential and the way he could use the boy’s dance skills in his own videos, concerts and commercials.

As regards Jimmy’s other visits to Havenhurst, there were two more and both are described in Safechuck’s lawsuit. The second visit was at Christmas time too, when Michael took Jimmy for a ride over the city and passed out $100 bills to homeless people, surely as Christmas presents:

11. On the second occasion that Plaintiff went to the Hayvenhurst house, Plaintiff was dropped off by his parents. Plaintiff’s parents went to dinner while Plaintiff stayed with Decedent. Plaintiff and Decedent drove off in Decedent’s Mercedes and passed out $100 bills to homeless people. Decedent said to one homeless man, “You do know how much this is,” and then landed him a $100 bill.

And the third one was in January 1988, right after Jermaine and his wife Margaret Macdonaldo moved to Havenhurst where, as she recalled, Jermaine began working in the studio.

12. The third time Plaintiff visited the Hayvenhurst house he was accompanied by his parents and they took a tour of Decedent’s recording studio which was located there. Three of Decedent’s brothers were in the studio working, including Jermaine Jackson, and they all exchanged a quick hello.

Another notable event described in Safechuck’s complaint is a detail which most probably echoed in Dan Reed’s film in the form of the so-called “wedding ceremony” and a certain ring allegedly belonging to Safechuck.

The lawsuit says that when Michael visited Safehucks’ home he and Jimmy went to a jewelry shop. And considering that all those visits revolved around Christmas, it is easy to assume that Michael bought some jewelry there as a gift to Jimmy’s mother.

The thing is that at the time there wasn’t even any talk about any molestation, even in Safechuck’s complaint, so there is no way the jewelry could be bought for Jimmy – which leaves us with only one alternative to it, that the jewelry was meant for his mother. And see what stories this grateful woman is now telling us about Michael!

Here is the part of the lawsuit about their visit to a jewelry shop, preceded by all that talk about “regular phone calls”:

14. Decedent began telephoning Plaintiff at home on a frequent and regular basis. Their relationship had grown to a point where Decedent had become part of Plaintiff’s family. Decedent would call Plaintiff at home when he was alone or lonely, and Plaintiff’s family would drive over to the Hayvenhurst house and pick up the Decedent and bring him back to Plaintiff’s home in Simi Valley. One time Plaintiff and Decedent went to the park in Simi Valley. They shot some video footage there that ended up in the closing credits of one of Decedent’s documentaries. On another occasion, Plaintiff and Decedent went to the Zales jewelry store in Simi Valley.

Then came the  year 1988.

In January that year Pepsi invited Michael and Jimmy to their annual convention. Mind you that this was an official event and all the arrangements for that visit (as per their respective contracts with Pepsi) were naturally made by Pepsi and not Michael Jackson.

Dan Reed has the following to tell us about it:

29:03 (the plane is landing, photo of Michael on the plane, photo of Jimmy on the plane)

Safechuck: I went to Hawaii with Michael for the Pepsi convention (jolly music, drone over Hawaii beach). The trip felt like an adventure. We went out there to an amusement park for the night and everybody was there, and everybody played.

29:34 Stephanie Safechuck: We were treated very nicely there. We had a helicopter ride which was nice (drone footage of Hawaii).

Safechuck: And I remember there were dolphins there (photo of MJ, mom and Jimmy walking about the Hilton hotel). We were from a small town, so this is bigger than I think anybody’s expectations (more Hilton photos) 

29:58 Stephanie Safechuck: I wanted them to have fun and I wanted my son to be happy and have a good time (photo of MJ at the Hilton), so I stayed my distance there in Hawaii during the day.

This is how she stayed her distance from Michael Jackson during that visit – picture by Alan Light

Safechuck: The hotel was beautiful of course (photo of all three standing on the balcony) and I remember really wanting to stay in the room with him and my mom wouldn’t allow it at the time.

30:20 Stephanie Safechuck: I didn’t think it was appropriate for my son to go sleep with him (photo of MJ sitting on the bed). I know he was a kind man and he was doing everything to make our trip there as good as it could be, but it didn’t feel right. You don’t allow anyone to sleep with somebody else you don’t really know. Jimmy was ”Please, mom, please,  you know” because he loved Michael (photo of MJ). But no, I wouldn’t let him and made sure I had my meals with them and Jimmy slept with me. That’s how it was the first trip (quiet music)

30:57 (footage of the ocean, piano playing)

By this point the film has already groomed you into thinking that the “relationship” progressed to such a degree that even a possibility of “sleepovers” was discussed.

No, my dear ones, it wasn’t anything like that. First of all, as you remember, it wasn’t Michael’s initiative to go there and take Jimmy at all – both were invited to Hawaii as both took part in that commercial.

As to the idea of staying in Michael’s room it arose under somewhat dramatic circumstances. They rented a helicopter for an air trip, but in 5-10 minutes Jimmy got airsick and the helicopter landed. Michael offered his suite for the Safechucks to stay there, but his mother refused. And that was all.

Safechuck’s lawsuit says about it:

17. While they were in Hawaii, Decedent rented a helicopter to take Plaintiff and his mother on a tour. Plaintiff got airsick 5-10 minutes after take-off, so they had to land. Decedent asked Plaintiff to stay in his room when they got back to the hotel, but Plaintiff’s mother said no. Decedent had also rented out an amusement park for everyone to visit. Plaintiff met Michael J. Fox at the convention, and for the entire time he was treated on a V.I.P. basis.

Then came the trip back from Hawaii.

Safechuck talks of the mock interview of Michael and at some point presents it as “infatuation” and as alleged evidence that he was turning into a “special friend” of Michael Jackson.

Well, see for yourself. Below is the transcript of what I could make of that mock interview. Michael mostly speaks about work and out of politeness calls his commercial with Jimmy his “best” because as Michael explains, “it has heart”.

Incidentally, we learn from Michael what aircraft they were flying – it was DC- 10 with a standard seating of 270 passengers. So it was nothing special and just a regular flight.

31:04 Safechuck (music): I remember the plane being quite empty, and I did this mock interview with him, he said I can ask him anything I wanted (photo of MJ and Jimmy on the plane).

31:15 Michael Jackson’s voice:  “We are in the air on our way from Hawaii. Thousands of feet [.. ], DC-10. I had a wonderful time with Jimmy.”

31:25 Safechuck: I was just playing reporter. And he never gave interviews, so it was kind of like, “sure, you can interview me”

Jimmy: “How did you like Hawaii?”

MJ: “The best thing about Hawaii? Being with you.”

Jimmy: ”What about performing and the stuff you like?”

MJ: “I love performing. It is the greatest thing in the world, because I feel at home on stage, I could live on stage, I am the most happiest when I am on stage, and when I am with Jimmy Safechuck. The Pepsi commercial you and I am in, is the best commercial. Because it has heart. Every time I see it, it makes me smile. And I want us to be friends for a long, forever. Good bye, signing off.

32:30 Safechuck (music): And it’s (pause) hard to listen to (pause). You can hear like the infatuation and how much I was attracted to him and also his (pause), his attraction to you, like making you feel special (music).

~

No, it is absolutely not hard to listen. It is a nice mock interview where Michael is partially serious and partially playing up to Jimmy, telling him how memorable the trip was due to his presence and calling their joint commercial the best because it has heart. In fact, it is the most innocent interview anyone can imagine.

And if you have a different impression of it, my diagnosis is that you are already groomed by Dan Reed’s weird film and now you know what grooming really is.

~

UPDATE

Readers prompt me that in that mock interview Michael spoke not only about Jimmy, but his whole family, and that Dan Reed edited it to make it sound like Michael was specifically singling out Jimmy. The full interview is not available to us, but a closer look at Safechuck’s complaint revealed that Safechuck mentioned the family himself though his variant is also obviously edited to single out only the “best” parts to fit his narrative.

Jimmy: “Any new plans?”

MJ: “Smooth Criminal, short film, new Pepsi commercial, best Pepsi commercial was the one with Jimmy because he had ‘heart,’ best thing about Hawaii was spending time with Jimmy, love his family and want to spend time with them.” 

Safechuck's complaint about mock interview 2

 

51 Comments leave one →
  1. rider permalink
    March 22, 2019 11:34 pm

    Holy shit, I never noticed that the film crew visit happened around Christmas. And they invert it as something that happened before they even met him in person in November!

    Also, do you think that maybe the first Hayvenhurst visit happened somewhere between November 13 and November 26, rather than early November? Specifically between his concerts in Melbourne and Sydney or between Sydney and Brisbane? Because if the first phone call came when Michael was in Australia (so not earlier than November 13) it doesn’t make sense that the visit happened before that.

    Like

  2. March 23, 2019 4:49 am

    “do you think that maybe the first Hayvenhurst visit happened somewhere between November 13 and November 26, rather than early November? Specifically between his concerts in Melbourne and Sydney or between Sydney and Brisbane? Because if the first phone call came when Michael was in Australia (so not earlier than November 13) it doesn’t make sense that the visit happened before that.” – rider

    You mean that Michael went to the US from Australia between his concerts to be able to invite the Safechucks to his home? No, I don’t think so.
    What I think is that the Safechucks and Dan Reed distorted all dates and the whole timeline for vile purposes of their own. They are simply trying to paint the picture of a continuous friendship out of the little scraps and few meetings with Michael they had. None of what they say makes sense, but they also never expected anyone to analyse what they say.

    P.S. Rider, I now realize that your question could arise because I mistakenly used “shortly after” instead of “shortly before” which changed the meaning into its opposite. Now I’ve corrected it. Sorry for the mistake and my lame English.

    Like

  3. susannerb permalink*
    March 23, 2019 4:58 am

    This video confirms what we already had anticipated: That they overdid it with their graphic details in the film so that for at least some viewers in the end the accusations come across as not believable.
    As well as the fact that the whole presentation doesn’t add up. This viewer proves common sense when he asks: Do you expect me to believe that???
    I think there are quite a number of people who think the same way.

    Like

  4. March 23, 2019 7:44 am

    The mock interview on the plane was edited in the ‘doc’. You can find the full interview online where Michael clearly says the best part of Hawaii was being with “jimmy and jimmy’s FAMILY and I can’t wait to see THEM again.” But once again, by editing out Michael’s inclusion of the whole family, it makes it sound like he is specifically singling out James Safechuck. Oprah jumped on this too, saying how it would make Jimmy feel so special to hear that from Michael, yet she also failed to listen to the full interview wherein she would see Michael was referring to the Safechuck family as a whole, and not just James.

    Like

  5. March 23, 2019 9:27 am

    They came back with the usual lies [link deleted]
    But one thing worries me. Oprah’s interview with James and Wade are posted on their channel, which makes me imagine that many people can access that garbage because of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIiq4Jnmam8

    The truth is that I would like to know who is responsible for these pages. By the way that email that proves the knowledge of this site and had Wade that might have influenced their testimony in any way is very disturbing.

    Like

  6. March 23, 2019 9:29 am

    “You can find the full interview online where Michael clearly says the best part of Hawaii was being with “jimmy and jimmy’s FAMILY and I can’t wait to see THEM again.” – Power

    Wonderful information. Could you provide the link please? And the transcript of it, if possible?

    Like

  7. March 23, 2019 9:46 am

    “But one thing worries me. Oprah’s interview with James and Wade are posted on their channel, which makes me imagine that many people can access that garbage” – Alisson Costa

    People have too much access to this garbage anyway, so this is not something to really worry about. A much more disturbing factor was mentioned by one of the commenters:

    “So how is it that every other full Oprah interview with Wade/James/Dan gets taken down from youtube but the one posted by the largest anti MJ site stays up? whats the deal with that one?”

    “I would like to know who is responsible for these pages”

    In the broad sense of the word it is a pedophilia lobby which has been consistently working against Jackson. As to concrete personalities who write there it could be anyone – even someone like convicted pedophile Thomas O’Carroll who is extremely prolific and active in every way. And the various contributers to their site -from Ray or Even Chandler (?) in the early years of that site to characters like Desiree Hill, whose glorious review of Thomas O’Carroll’s work is provided in his book about MJ.
    In fact there are too many of them to even try and make a guess. And these people are certainly powerful as they can post full Oprah’s interview on their channel, and she doesn’t mind it.

    Like

  8. March 23, 2019 9:58 am

    Alisson Costa, I’ll remove your link to the site of MJ haters – same as they never give links to this site, but will post their full text for everyone to know what they say (some points are valid, some are stretching the truth, some are lies):

    Wade and James Fan Myths – Busted
    21st March 2019
    The FBI investigated Michael Jackson for ten years and found nothing
    This is totally false.
    The FBI:
    • DID NOT follow MJ, ever;
    • DID NOT tap his phone;
    • DID NOT put surveillance on MJ;
    • DID NOT search his residence (neither Hayvenhurst, Century City, the Hideout nor Neverland);
    • DID NOT open an investigation into molestation against him; and
    • DID NOT do anything that they would normally do in a federal case.
    The FBI never, ever investigated Michael Jackson for child molestation.
    The FBI was not involved in investigating MJ. The FBI merely assisted local law enforcement with resources when requested. So they helped interview people outside local law enforcement’s jurisdiction, or analyze a video or computer for local law enforcement as they had proper technology available.
    There was never an “FBI investigation”, it was always the FBI helping local police departments on specific tasks requested of them. Even on the FBI website they say:
    The “FBI didn’t investigate Jackson, the files now available show the FBI working with other agencies.”

    On the page containing the actual FBI files they say:
    Between 1993 and 1994 and separately between 2004 and 2005, Jackson was investigated by California law enforcement agencies for possible child molestation. He was acquitted of all such charges. The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to these agencies during the cases.
    Even with this disclaimer by the FBI fans still insist that somehow the files prove something. The Jacksons too are spreading misinformation about the FBI files. Taj Jackson, someone who has recently made somewhat of a crusade against “lies”, repeats this falsehood in interviews:

    When asked if he found any of the child molestation accusations to be true, the vocal nephew of the pop legend spoke in Jackson’s defense as the allegations being false and went on to reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated the Thriller singer for 10 years….
    When Truthers say “they inspected all of MJ’s computers and every page has NOTHING written on it,” this is also false. The relevant FBI file with a page dedicated to each computer is missing 3 pages – page 4, 5 and 6. There are another 120 pages redacted from this file. That is not to say MJ had child porn on his computers – he would have been arrested for that if there was – but it is impossible to say whether there was anything shady on his computers or not as we cannot view the complete, unredacted file.

    There wasn’t much information in those files anyway
    Of the 679 pages in the FBI’s Michael Jackson file, only 333 were released, and of those released 196 related to extortion threats against Michael Jackson and others in 1992; 8 pages related to a videotape which only related to Michael Jackson because the title was “Michael Jackson’s Neverland Favourites, an All Boy Video Anthology”; and 18 pages related to a request made of the FBI’s Critical Incident Response Group to provide advice and assistance to local authorities concerning the Arviso investigation in 2004.
    That leaves 111 pages directly related to MJ, and most of those are heavily redacted so as to become meaningless or contain public information. If anything, the remaining pages raise more questions rather than absolving MJ. For instance, in this file is a handwritten note which reads:

    “P/R called from Toronto Canada. She and her husband work in Children’s Services.
    On Sat 3-7-92 they took train from Chicago to Grand canyon. Train
    continued to CA. They had a compartment in car that Jackson had
    four compartments.
    Jackson had a male juvenile 12/13 with him along with adult staff. Boy was ID’d as Michaels “cousin”.
    Jackson was very possessive of boy. At night, P/R heard questionable noises through wall.
    She was concerned enough to notify the conductor of her suspicions.”
    Remember this is in 1992, before allegations of pedophilia about MJ became public.

    The FBI had nothing but a passing interest in Michael Jackson, and preferred to leave investigations of him to local law enforcement. To bring up the FBI files as proof that he wasn’t a pedophile or a child molester is absurd.

    Wade changed his website
    Fans claim Wade changed his Hawaii Community Foundation website because Amanda said in Leaving Neverland that she had very little knowledge of child sexual abuse but the website said otherwise.

    This is false.
    The old version of the website stated:
    The Robson Family Fund at the Hawaii Community Foundation was established in 2019 by Wade and Amanda Robson. Wade Robson, a survivor of child sexual abuse, along with Amanda Robson, his wife, mother of their child and also a survivor of child abuse, wanted to create a powerful way to contribute towards the healing from and prevention of child abuse.
    Note the difference between child sexual abuse and child abuse.

    The new version is:
    The Robson Child Abuse Healing And Prevention Fund is a Donor Advised Fund at the Hawaii Community Foundation dedicated to supporting the healing and prevention of child abuse, nationwide. It was established in 2019 by Wade and Amanda Robson with a personal donation.
    Whatever reason the website was changed it wasn’t because of any discrepancy between what was said in the documentary and what appeared on their charity website.

    James couldn’t testify at the 2005 trial
    Fans suggest that because testimony from prosecution witnesses related to any alleged abuse of James was barred from the trial, then that means James could not have testified at the trial at all. They use this as proof that James lied about being contacted to testify.
    Let’s look at what James said in his claim:
    In 2005, DECEDENT contacted Plaintiff, and asked him to testify on his behalf in the criminal trial against DECEDENT in Santa Barbara for criminal sexual abuse. Plaintiff was approximately 27 years old at the time. DECEDENT started out the telephone call by saying that he wanted to help Plaintiff with his music and directing. He then asked Plaintiff to testify at trial on his behalf. When Plaintiff said no to the request, DECEDENT got angry and threatened him.
    Note that this is in 2005. Details of prior sexual abuse of boys was known to Jackson’s legal team in December 2004 and the trial commenced on February 28, 2005, so this claim is easily verifiable. Further adding credibility to James’ story, he does not appear on the pretrial witness list. James went on to claim:

    DECEDENT’s lawyers, together with Evvy Tavasci, DECEDENT’s executive personal secretary and an employee of MJJ PRODUCTIONS, contacted Plaintiff and told him that he needed to testify and deny anything that the cooks at Neverland said that they saw happen between Plaintiff and DECEDENT. Plaintiff told them that he did not want any further involvement with DECEDENT.
    This is also verifiable and would have occurred before the following event took place, when evidence was planned to be presented about the alleged abuse of James.
    On March 28, 2005 the court discussed 1108 evidence which would be admitted (1108 evidence is prior bad acts evidence which could establish a pattern of behaviour of the accused). The discussion starts around page 61 but here are the pertinent parts related to James (Jimmy):

    THE COURT: The arguments presented by both sides here were very good arguments, and they’re arguments bringing up the law and the factors that I’ve been working with trying to reach a decision in this matter, which is of such great importance in this case for both sides.
    The arguments didn’t really bring up new material, but they definitely emphasized the concerns that I’ve had. You know, the weighing of the case as I’ve heard it, the remoteness of the alleged charges that would come under 1108. But ultimately the decision I’ve reached, and which I’ll now announce, is that I am going to permit the testimony with regard to the sexual offenses, and the alleged pattern of grooming activities, which is 1101 material, leading up to the sexual offenses against Jason Francia, Wade Robeson, Macaulay Culkin, Jordan Chandler, and Brett Barnes.
    The witnesses that would be permitted to testify under this order would be Jason Francia, Blanca Francia, Charlie Michaels, Phillip LeMarque, Adrienne McManus, Ralph Chacon, June Chandler, Bob Jones, and Charmayne Sternberg. The evidence of alleged grooming of the other children will not be permitted. Evidence as to Jimmy Safechuck and Jonathan Spence will not be permitted. The witnesses that would be precluded under this ruling would be Jolie Levine and Mary Coller. And there was only one part of Bob Jones’ testimony that I would consider admissible, that relating to the one physical act that he observed. And some of the testimony of Blanca Francia and June Chandler and Charmayne Sternberg would not be admissible. But I think if you can see the way I’ve divided that up, the grooming testimony is limited to those cases where there’s actual physical sexual conduct that’s been observed by somebody. That really is where I’ve drawn the line. And just to give you an example, Mr. Jones’ observations over a long period of time were conclusionary and opinions that I wouldn’t allow based on what he didn’t see.

    The judge rules on two important matters here. He tells us what evidence will not be permitted about James Safechuck by the prosecution witnesses. He names the two witnesses who are barred (Jolie Levine and Mary Coller).

    This ruling does not preclude James Safechuck from testifying for the defence about other matters, such as Jackson’s character or to rebut evidence about abuse of Wade or Brett – remember James spent time with both of them and would be able to confirm “nothing happened”.
    James continues:

    After the call with DECEDENT’s lawyers and Ms. Tavasci, DECEDENT called Plaintiff again. This call was towards the end of the criminal trial. DECEDENT told Plaintiff that that he “was sorry for not being there for [the Plaintiff].” The words that DECEDENT used and the tone of his voice appeared to Plaintiff to be rehearsed, as if the call were being tape recorded. Plaintiff feared that this was a possibility, as he knew from the past that DECEDENT often taped telephone calls on a regular basis. Plaintiff wanted to get off the telephone call as quickly as possible, as the very sound of DECEDENT’s voice made him very uncomfortable and put him into a panic mode. DECEDENT continued to pressure Plaintiff to testify and told him that Gavin Arviso (the victim in the criminal prosecution) was just trying to get money. Plaintiff told DECEDENT not to call or try to talk to him ever again, and then ended the call.

    Some fans believe that James said that Jackson’s lawyers called him towards the end of the criminal trial. As you can see that is untrue, he claims Jackson acted alone. Why Jackson would make this call is uncertain, but it’s possible he was using the request to testify as a ruse to call James to gauge his loyalty. Even if Jackson was calling James to probe his willingness to testify as a character witness there would have been no impediment. James was not barred from testifying.

    Like

  9. March 23, 2019 3:57 pm

    Interesting information about the link between the Leaving Neverland film and Marvin Putnam, who was the lead attorney for AEG Live during the 2013 trial. It turns out that his wife is the Executive Director of the Sundance Festival. He confirms that his wife works in the entertainment business.

    World is indeed a small place, at least around Michael Jackson – wherever you look, it is the same people again and again.

    Like

  10. Poly permalink
    March 24, 2019 2:15 pm

    what “Power” pointed out is in james civil complaint..
    Watch this video (24:54) if the pic doesnt show up here…

    https://bit.ly/2FwEf76

    Like

  11. March 24, 2019 2:44 pm

    Here is a debate on French TV everyone must see – with English subtitles:

    Dan Reed has a very hard time with the people in the studio as most of them, including the host, know the facts.
    Besides many interesting details in the debate one thing stood out to me – the psychologist says that real victims sometimes project the allegations onto a wrong person, covering up for the right one. I actually spoke about the same in an old post about Robson’s childhood in Australia and some cases of child sex abuse reported about the employees at the Johnny Young Talent group.

    Why would a victim accuse an innocent person and cover up for his real offender? In case the abuse was inside the family, covering up for the parent may be a reason. In case it was outside the family, money is a very good reason, as filing a lawsuit against the one who cannot pay is useless, while MJ Estate has hundreds of millions and is a much more luring target.

    If there is such a psychological projection, it is very easy for a victim to lie about an innocent person – he describes abuse all the time having in his mind the real abuser and therefore can easily affect all the emotions that came with it.

    When I was writing that post I thought that Robson could indeed be abused by someone different, but now that I watch the film he seems to me nothing but a cold manipulator who sometimes even has to stifle a laugh when he describes his “abuse”.

    Like

  12. March 24, 2019 3:36 pm

    “what “Power” pointed out is in james civil complaint.. Watch this video (24:54) if the pic doesnt show up here…” Poly
    https://bit.ly/2FwEf76

    Oh, now I see. I looked through that complaint so many times and still didn’t recall that it was there.
    Poly, thank you very much. I’ve shortened the link a bit, hope it works.

    Like

  13. March 24, 2019 3:44 pm

    It’s horrible when the general atmosphere around us is such that it is impossible to tell the truth directly and people are intimidated to a point when they have to speak the Aesopian language.

    Like Diana Ross, for example.

    Diana Ross Defended Michael Jackson By Quoting One Of Her Supremes Songs
    MATT PRIGGE 03.23.19

    Defending Michael Jackson in the wake of the documentary Finding Neverland hasn’t gone well for those who’ve done it. One day after Barbra Streisand made controversial comments about his accusers — and then later apologized for her words — Diana Ross has, as per Vulture, thrown her hat into the ring, tweeting out a defense of her longtime friend, colleague, and co-star in the 1978 movie The Wiz.

    “This is what’s on my heart this morning. I believe and trust that Michael Jackson was and is A magnificent incredible force to me and to many others,” the legendary singer tweeted, before quoting one of her most famous Supremes songs with the words, “STOP IN THE NAME OF LOVE.”

    Ross offered no further explanations, and later in the day cryptically tweeted a reference to another soul superstar, Stevie Wonder, writing “Here the dream” while linking to a YouTube clip of Wonder’s “Love’s in Need of Love Today.”

    Jackson, who died in 2009, has been accused by Wade Robson and James Safechuck of sexual misconduct when they were young. Their claims were documented at length in Finding Neverland, which has found many turning on the memory, and the work, of the late King of Pop.
    https://uproxx.com/music/diana-ross-defended-michael-jackson/

    Like

  14. March 24, 2019 5:21 pm

    What I don’t understand is why the word Truth should be in inverted commas in this headline:

    Michael Jackson’s Estate Fights Back Against “Leaving Neverland” Documentary, Provides 24-Page Document Full Of “Truths” That Challenges Accusers’ Story
    RaquelHarris March 23, 2019

    Michael Jackson’s estate claims the recent HBO documentary “Leaving Neverland” is full of lies and is attempting to share its truth with new documents.
    Earlier this month, HBO released its controversial documentary series “Leaving Neverland” which details the history of sexual abuse that two men, #JamesSafechuck and #WadeRobson, allegedly endured as children from the late singer #MichaelJackson. Before and after the United States debut of the series, Jackson’s estate spoke about the project, claiming it to be a money grab. The family has also appeared in interviews to fight Jackson’s accusers.
    Now the family is taking it a step further and telling their side of the story with their truths.

    The Jackson family provided Billboard with a 24-page working PowerPoint document, titled “Leaving Neverland and the Truth,” that questions the accusers’ memories and the filmmakers’ motives in detail. The estate also attached recent news clips in which the singer’s defense attorney called the accusations “hogwash.” The document goes into detail about the documentary being bias, inconsistent, and notes that the footage that was featured was misused.

    One of the examples the estate mentioned was when Robson says Jackson invited him to sleep in his bed, but “in his deposition,” the material states, “he makes clear that he and his sister were the ones who initiated the idea, and that Michael insisted they ask their parents.” The film also portrays Jackson wishing Robson a happy birthday in a video “suggesting a creepy, predatory manner,” when he recorded numerous similar greetings around the same time, the estate says.

    While the estate claims many details in the film are flawed, the estate notes media outlets have not respected or expressed its grievances with the film, Billboard reports. “Much of this information is available online, and we have sent various pieces to the media, but no one has really been interested in reporting on it [or] digging further than the documentary,” the estate rep told Billboard.
    The document is not available to the public.

    http://balleralert.com/profiles/blogs/michael-jackson-estate-fights-back-against-leaving-neverland-documentary-provides-24-page-document-full-of-truths-that-challenges-accusers-story/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    Like

  15. March 24, 2019 5:48 pm

    Just some tweets:

    Paula
    While the public is preoccupied with Michael Jackson. Harvey Weinstein’s legal suit has started, a documentary from some of the 75 women accusing him Has been released to almost no media attention, no interviews with the accusers, nowhere near as much publicity.why? #Untouchable

    Leaving Neverland Facts
    ‏Instead of asking every celebrity in interviews what they think of #LeavingNeverland, how about asking if they believe that someone found innocent by a jury should be convicted by a film w/no corroboration or proof, just the word of 2 admitted liars seeking millions?

    Taj Jackson
    ‏Hope everyone is aware that your two “male victims” and their families are desperately trying to erase things off the internet that contradict their own words from the movie.
    Luckily the MJ fam have been saving these receipts and keep posting them up.
    Facts don’t lie, People do.

    life ain’t so bad at all
    ‏I think he has becoming a great deal of inspiration for me. I knew nothing about him before LN, but I’m very glad I did my research instead of blindly believing the media

    Like

  16. March 24, 2019 5:51 pm

    Please spread the news about Leaving Neverland: Take Two (Full Documentary HD) | Michael Jackson 2019

    MJUnreleasedMix
    March 20, 2019
    Leaving Neverland: Take Two is a one-part documentary exploring the other side of the Michael Jackson allegations by revisiting the stories of two different accusers and their families. Through drone-shots and piano music, the film crafts a portrait of extortion, exploring the complicated feelings that led Michael Jackson through settlements, court cases and ultimately his death. Based on the ‘Pirates In Neverland’ podcast by Reason Bound/TheMJCast, hosted by Ryan Michaels and Charles Thomson.

    Like

  17. Suparna Goswami permalink
    March 25, 2019 2:00 am

    Thanks Helena for your hard work! Transcribing is one of the hardest jobs EVER! Do not know how you manage to do so much of it! Not sure if you have watched this interesting video on the connections between Miramax andSundance and even the AEG trial! Keri Putnam, is the executive director of Sundance and us also the wife of Marvin Putnam, AEG’s lawyer. Keri Putnam also worked as an executive at both HBO and Miramax! This is the link to this interesting video:

    Like

  18. Jason permalink
    March 25, 2019 12:06 pm

    Hello ! Have you known about Jim Clemente ?
    Can you explain about him ?

    Like

  19. Tash permalink
    March 25, 2019 1:02 pm

    @Helena are you in support of MJ innocence or not

    Like

  20. March 25, 2019 1:32 pm

    “@Helena are you in support of MJ innocence or not” – Tash

    I am in support of the truth. And the truth is that Michael Jackson was innocent. I’ve been investigating the allegations about him for ten years now.
    So I do know.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Jason permalink
    March 25, 2019 1:50 pm

    @ Helena What do you think about Jim Clemente ? Former FBI agent he said the FBI didn’t investigate MJ ? I need to know. Sorry to ask for second.

    Like

  22. March 25, 2019 2:04 pm

    “Not sure if you have watched this interesting video on the connections between Miramax andSundance and even the AEG trial! Keri Putnam, is the executive director of Sundance and us also the wife of Marvin Putnam, AEG’s lawyer. Keri Putnam also worked as an executive at both HBO and Miramax! – Suparna Goswami

    Suparna, I’ve heard about it but hadn’t seen the video until you sent it (thank you). Yes, it is very interesting information, though I have my own ideas about it.

    1) What the book “Operator” about David Geffen has taught me is that in Hollywood they alternate between fighting each other and then forming alliances with the former foes against a common “enemy”.
    This seems to be the case now. Harvey Wienstein in interested in diverting attention from the film about himsef and his trial, but so is Bryan Singer who was also recently hit by several (alleged) victims complaints, about which you hear even less. So the attack against Michael Jackson may be a joint effort as the whole of Hollywood is interesting in diverting attention from themselves.

    2) You probably remember that I consider AEG Live directly responsible for Michael Jackson’s death, and especially their Randy Phillips. So I have no tender feelings towards them at all. But as regards the co-occurrence of Wade Robson’s allegations and the start of the AEG trial, even at that time I could not fully believe that they were behind Robson’s allegations. To think so would also mean to think that AEG Live are complete fools if they made themselves so easy a target. But they are not, so for them it would be too blatant an approach. Now it looks to me like a third party took advantage of the situation and coached Robson right for the beginning of the trial.

    3) Marvin Putnam did promise ugly things if the AEG case went to a trial – and they did make it ugly because they portrayed Michael Jackson as a drug addict though he absolutely wasn’t. But at the same time during the trial there wasn’t a single mention of any “molestation” allegations against MJ. It was never discussed. If anyone thinks otherwise, they are wrong. At the time we studied all the transcripts and the matter was never even raised.

    4) Everyone should realize that Marvin Putnam and his wife could be easily contacted and involved in the Leaving Neverland scam after the AEG trial, exactly by that third party who is behind Robson’s allegations. And this third party can now be in a new alliance – with Harvey Weinstein, for example.

    Of course I cannot rule out AEG’s involvement in Robson’s case, but from what I read about AEG Live, their boss is stingy and would be unlikely to throw away money on supporting Robson and Safechuck in their litigation against the MJ Estate for 6 years. Nor will they pay for the appellate proceedings. I simply see no motive here.

    However when we come to the “third party” I have in mind, the motive is obvious – same as he wanted to ruin Michael during his lifetime, he still wants to ruin his Estate now, taking every penny they have.

    Every penny. Everything. Hence the initial sum of $1,62 billion reportedly claimed by Robson at the beginning. It was exactly everything that was earned by the Estate. The idea was (and still is) to make them bankrupt. And the IRS case has also come in very handy there.

    But the following tweet is correct too:

    While the public is preoccupied with Michael Jackson. Harvey Weinstein’s legal suit has started, a documentary from some of the 75 women accusing him Has been released to almost no media attention, no interviews with the accusers, nowhere near as much publicity.why? #Untouchable

    Liked by 1 person

  23. March 25, 2019 2:20 pm

    “What do you think about Jim Clemente ? Former FBI agent he said the FBI didn’t investigate MJ ? I need to know.” – Jason

    You need to know? And I need to watch it before forming an opinion about it. When they are through with their performance I probably will have a look though I am extremely pressed for time now.
    I remember watching other programs with Jim Clementi, but as far as I remember he wasn’t involved in any of those cases and just shared his general views.

    Like

  24. March 25, 2019 2:59 pm

    Some new tweets:

    Samar @TheMJAP

    “They don’t want money.”

    They filed a multi-million dollar civil suit.

    “They want to help victims.”

    They filed it under seal.

    (About Safechuck) Xicalees
    ‏If I were being sued for $420000 I’d start remembering shit that didn’t happen too #facts

    Tyfficult
    IT’S NOT ABOUT MONEY, IT’S ABOUT JUSTICE EVEN THOOUGH I PUBLICLY DEFENDED MICHAEL JACKSON DURING A CRIMINAL TRIAL IN WHICH THAT JUSTICE COULD’VE BEEN GOTTEN

    ithl123
    Oprah has lied for 30 yrs about the sex abuse that she suffered! I won’t research the claims. This article is enough for me. The media says it, so it must be true!
    I mean, fair is fair.. this is exactly what you did to Michael Jackson, right @Oprah?

    MJJJusticeProject
    Vincent Paterson, best known for helping #MichaelJackson develop the Smooth Criminal choreography has HAD ENOUGH with #WadeRobson

    I am repulsed by the number of people jumping on the bandwagon to nail Michael Jackson to the cross. I spent close to 17 years with MJ, through many projects and much intimate time on and off the sets. I never saw a hint of anything evil or even an inkling of this kind of perversion directed towards any child… or anyone to be perfectly clear. I find it horrifying to raise all of this now that he is gone. If one of the accusers was motivated to “tell all” because of his own relationship with his son, why the need to put this in front of the world? Would it not have been better for the son to have dealt with all of this in a family environment? His son will now be dealing with this for a very long time. Sorry… for me MJ INNOCENT

    John Ziegler
    ‏Jim Clemente, whom I know well, is a total fraud.

    Like

  25. March 25, 2019 4:17 pm

    There’s one little thing about Charles Thomson’s bit in the podcast that was used as the audio for Leaving Neverland: Take Two, that I didn’t like, and it was only at the end. He said how Michael had an “unhealthy” relationship and fascination with childhood, and said “how can he have still said children are innocent when children are the ones who fucked him over?” As well as saying “someone should have made sure he was never around children again after 1993, because while his earlier doing so can be seen in the vein of being in a bubble, after ’93, it was inexcusable.”

    I understand the logic Thomson is drawing on, saying “well, society frowns on adults sleeping with children anyways, it should never be done. And he should have known better, and just stopped after the Chandler case.” But, if Michael was asked to do that, it would effectively meant not being himself anymore; to shed his innocence and become jaded and cynical about the world, just like so many celebrities. Michael simply would no longer be Michael, and everything about him would have irrevocably changed into something not so lovely. All as part of simply conforming to what society wants, fitting in with the crowd, not making waves, another cog in the machine.

    If anything, it was society that needed to change, not Michael.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. March 25, 2019 4:45 pm

    “He said how Michael had an “unhealthy” relationship and fascination with childhood, and said “how can he have still said children are innocent when children are the ones who fucked him over?” – luv4hutch

    Charles Thomson is a very rational person and speaks like one. Michael Jackson was less rational and driven more by feeling, trust and belief in the goodness of human nature. And in general Michael was right – small children are indeed innocent unless they are spoiled by their parents and their minds are corrupted by the world around them.

    As well as saying “someone should have made sure he was never around children again after 1993, because while his earlier doing so can be seen in the vein of being in a bubble, after ’93, it was inexcusable.”

    But Michael did make sure that he was never around children after 1993, except the members of his family and his closest old friends. Gavin Arvizo was an exception. When Arvizo asked to stay in Michael’s room Michael had a long discussion with Frank Cascio whether he should allow him or not. Frank was strongly against it, while Michael couldn’t say no to a cancer survivor. In the end they agreed that Frank would be there in the same room with Michael, as well as Michael’s children – and see what it led to.

    The fact is that after 1993 Michael more talked about those sleepovers than actually had them. And he had to talk because they constantly asked him in each and every interview.

    “But, if Michael was asked to do that, it would effectively meant not being himself anymore; to shed his innocence and become jaded and cynical about the world, just like so many celebrities.”

    Absolutely true.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. March 25, 2019 4:57 pm

    Here is one more excellent video by Rob Ager – relevant and insightful. It is like a manual on telling genuine victims from fake ones.
    The only thing I would add to his analysis is that from the videos I’ve seen of genuine victims talking, they never make their descriptions graphic.
    When you see them talk it looks like they try to tell about their abuse avoiding the sexual details proper. That part is clearly the most difficult one for them to describe, and if they can they try not to.

    Leaving Neverland – Robson & Safechuck vs real abuse victims

    Like

  28. March 25, 2019 6:41 pm

    Here is a recent article in Billboard, so sweet about Robson and Safechuck that it is totally nauseous. The problem of proving their lies with facts is skipped as an unnecessary stage, and they immediately fast forward to the empathy with the poor sufferers, squeezing it from readers like juice from those lemons.

    However the real goal of the article is to give all three of them a chance to correct the discrepancies found by the critics. And all of it is done in so sympathetic and syrupy manner… dear me, I don’t even know whether to cry or laugh. The photos are great though and remind you of star actors celebrated for their best roles.

    Billboard: Wade Robson and James Safechuck on Surviving Michael Jackson and Creating LN

    It wasn’t supposed to be this big. When British documentarian Dan Reed read about the sexual abuse charges that Wade Robson and James Safechuck had brought against the Michael Jackson estate in 2013 and 2014, he thought he might have a story to tell. He never expected to spark a global reckoning with one of the brightest, and perhaps most blinding, stars in the pop music galaxy — and with the broader realities of child sexual abuse.

    Reed’s four-hour documentary, Leaving Neverland, which centers on Robson’s and Safechuck’s accounts of being sexually abused by Jackson throughout their childhood years, premiered on HBO in two parts in early March, accruing a combined 8.5 million viewers across HBO platforms domestically and has since been sold to air in 130 territories worldwide. For some viewers — including the Jackson estate, which is suing HBO for breach of contract (in reference to a nondisparagement agreement between the estate and the network from 1992) — the film’s near-exclusive focus on Robson and Safechuck makes it a one-sided effort to damn the dead. But for many others, it is a painfully convincing expose of the emotional damage both embodied and allegedly perpetrated by the King of Pop.

    Oprah Winfrey, for one, believes Jackson’s accusers. In After Neverland, a special that HBO aired immediately following the documentary’s premiere, she interviewed Robson, 36, and Safechuck, 41, before an audience largely comprising sexual abuse survivors and asked the two men to explain how Jackson “groomed” them — and their families — by inviting them all to Neverland Ranch, where the boys slept in his bedroom. (The mothers’ acquiescence on this point has become a predictable lightning rod.) Robson and Safechuck also described the mixture of shame, guilt, fear and love that compelled them to deny the abuse for years, with Robson even testifying on Jackson’s behalf in a 2005 child molestation trial. And they insisted that their goal in making the film was less to incriminate Jackson than to connect with survivors by telling their truth.

    Interviewed together a few days before the HBO premiere, Robson, Safechuck and Reed explain that Reed initially pitched the men individually — their earlier legal cases against Jackson barred them from communicating with each other — on a modest, intimate project: a 48-minute documentary sponsored by the United Kingdom’s Channel 4. This was before the #MeToo movement made allegations of sexual misconduct international news, so they didn’t know if anyone would see the movie, let alone care. But after filming the first round of interviews, Reed felt the story deserved a wider platform. He brought a reel of material to HBO. It got bigger from there.

    In person, Robson, a prodigiously talented dancer-choreographer who has worked extensively with Britney Spears and *NSYNC, is the more polished public figure. But Safechuck, an arty kid-turned-tech geek, is successful in his own right as the director of technology at an interactive ad agency. Both are funny and earnest. Reed, 54, is dry yet charismatic — he comes across as slightly protective of the two men.

    The three speak less about abuse than about creation: the grueling, precarious process of filming and decisions about structure and tone. They also explore more deeply one of the doc’s main themes — the role Jackson played in Robson’s and Safechuck’s professional lives — and discuss an issue beyond its purview: both men’s ongoing efforts to extricate themselves from Jackson’s spell. That process might mirror viewers’ own.

    Once Robson, Safechuck and their lawyers agreed to the film, Reed conducted days of interviews during which he urged the men to tell their stories as if they were back in the moment.

    Reed: At one point, we had a conversation about not trying to “package” your experience, just “speak” your experience. Don’t worry about packaging it or wrapping it in context or interpretation. And also — if you’re still thinking about something or it’s a work in progress, it doesn’t matter.

    Robson: I had by that point already spent a lot of time in therapy. In a way, in therapy you’re trying to do just the opposite — to package it all. You’re trying to understand the context of everything. So then, stepping into this, Dan says, “All of that’s amazing, but drop it all. I just want you to tell me the story, moment by moment, as it happened when you were 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.” That took a moment for me to surrender to. It’s so much more vulnerable.

    Reed: And I think that once you get there, once you begin to tell your story without the packaging, then you become much more present. And as you go through your experience chronologically, you get this incredible sense of almost being able to re-experience what happened to you. That comes across on camera in a very unique way. So that’s very precious — the telling of history in an intimate voice.

    Robson: And that’s what happened. That first interview with Dan was three days, eight hours a day straight of interviews, with that direction from Dan to remove the commentary, stay present in the story. I was just completely wiped at the end of each day, because I really felt like I relived 30 years of my life in those three days. It was unbelievable.

    Safechuck: You [To Robson.] had said before that you had a kind of cathartic release. For me, it was more… nerves. Like, I think the triggers came back to me. But even then, you have to let that happen. Don’t try to cover it. But those triggers don’t feel good. So it was painful.

    The film’s modest beginnings, which Reed describes as “just a couple of people stumbling around in the dark,” allowed for greater intimacy — and also caused some anxiety.

    Reed: The film feels intimate because it was intimate. There was none of the kind of paraphernalia and operational razzmatazz that surrounds a lot of films of this scale. It was just me and my assistant producer Marguerite [Gaudin] lugging cases up…

    Robson: Bringing all their own gear —

    Reed: — and setting up and stuff falling over and just the day-to-day physical struggle of production. Particularly with James’ interview, we had terrible problems with extraneous noise and leaf blowers and airplanes and a hedge trimmer and a neighbor. We shot it in an Airbnb, which I picked because I really liked the décor and because they weren’t comfortable with filming at their homes.

    Safechuck: At that point, we were still like, “Stay away!” [Laughs.]

    Reed: It’s a midcentury house in the Valley, and what I didn’t realize was that the owners were living in the pool house. At some point, the dad comes out and starts repairing the shed. So I’m like, “You know what? We’re doing an interview.” And he’s like, “You didn’t tell us.” So I sorted it out with them; I gave them extra money. But all these absurd things just kept happening.
    And then with Wade, my camera broke, and he had to redo — well, he didn’t have to — I asked him if he would very kindly, on the second day, describe once more for me some of the sexual abuse.

    Robson: I had to go into it again.

    Reed: And you can imagine how I felt asking him — telling him — “Um, there has been a slight technical problem, Wade…” And he very graciously did it again.

    After filming Robson’s and Safechuck’s interviews, Reed realized that their families were crucial to their stories and asked if he could interview their mothers. Both men were hesitant, in part because they anticipated the criticism that the women would receive.


    James Safechuck photographed on Feb. 28, 2019 in New York.
    Flora Hanitijo

    Safechuck: I had the sense people were going to be looking to blame someone. [Jackson] wasn’t around to take any blame. So it’s going to fall on her. And my dad had just passed not that long before [the interview], so my mom was alone — I’m not going to serve up my mom. So I tried to be as neutral as I could. Like, “You don’t have to do it. I don’t know what you’re going to get out of it. Really, nothing. Like, you’re going to get a lot of hate. So — it’s your choice.”
    But I also didn’t want her to do it and put up a strength that wasn’t there. Because the camera’s going to see through that. You have to be OK with not being liked or understood. You can’t try to convince them. So, [you have to ask], is she willing to be weak?

    Reed: Does she have the strength to be weak?

    Safechuck: Dan was like, “Let me just talk with her.” And then she really connected with him. Like, “OK, yeah, I get it. I like him.” Then she opened up to it.

    Robson: I was nervous about having my mother be involved. One, I had a similar feeling that it wasn’t going to look good for her. Also due to my own set of confused feelings toward her, at that time. And also a concern of not knowing where she was in her own processing and understanding and healing. I didn’t feel confident that she was going to be in a place to be extremely raw and vulnerable. I thought maybe she was going to be a bit protective. But I couldn’t control that, and I understood that wherever she was at was where she was at. And that’s part of the story.

    Reed: It was quite a long time with Joy [Robson’s mother]. The most important thing for me was never to push. Because then she would be recalcitrant. She would be recoiling. And I didn’t want that. And I think it was the #MeToo movement, and the rise of that, that finally convinced your mum to hit the green button.

    While the testimonials are the heart of the film, they are intercut with beautiful aerial footage of Neverland and Los Angeles, set to a dramatic orchestral score.
    Reed: The aerial shots are important because you need to breathe. There’s this relentless, grueling journey into these men’s experiences and that of their families, and you have to give people space to recover and to kind of reset before you go back into it. Also, I wanted to give it the dimension of a fairytale — that sense of a story unfolding on a bigger stage, with this very lush score that draws you into this fairytale that then goes horribly wrong. So we decided just to shoot tons and tons of drone [footage], including over Neverland, which was fun, because the Neverland estate — the estate manager didn’t really like that and called the sheriff on us, and we had to kind of scoot.

    Safechuck: It’s interesting because when you’re at Neverland, that’s the music that’s playing over the loudspeakers.

    Robson: There’s always music playing everywhere outside at Neverland. That was the score of the actual experience.

    Safechuck: There’s speakers all throughout, in the flower beds —

    Robson: Rocks.

    Safechuck: Rocks that are speakers. Wherever you go, there’s music playing, and it’s that kind of music. So maybe you [To Reed.] didn’t realize what you were doing, but that’s what it was actually like.

    In the film, Robson and Safechuck describe the pain and jealousy they felt when Jackson trained his attention on other boys. Those feelings could have resurfaced when they watched the doc and saw for the first time how similar their experiences with Jackson were — but the men felt a range of other emotions instead.

    Robson: I don’t remember any feelings of jealousy toward James and his experience. I remember feeling lots of shock. I mean, I had an instinct that there were going to be a lot of parallels in our stories. But to the degree that there are? That was mind-blowing.

    Safechuck: Yeah, I wasn’t jealous. Because when we met as kids, I was being replaced by someone else, so my jealousy was with someone else. And by the time I saw the picture, I’d been through therapy, so I never had those competitive feelings with Wade. So it was more — it more felt good, like, “I’m not alone.”
    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the sex stuff was the same. But that was surprising. I didn’t know any of the details, so I was kind of anxious to hear, what was Wade’s story? And I didn’t learn until I watched the picture. Even then, still, it was more like, “Oh, good, somebody else went through exactly what I went through.”

    Robson: One of the amazing things that we’ve learned in the last month is that I believe the first time we ever met when we were kids was on the set of Michael’s “Jam” music video. I was dancing in the video and James was there with Michael, but we ended up having an interaction — a really nice, friendly interaction and connection. We’ve realized we were in similar positions at that point in relation to Michael — there was a new boy there, and we were both kind of on the outskirts of Michael’s attention and love.

    Safechuck: Yeah, it was like, there was this other boy there. And then Wade was instantly nice to me. So in that moment, I was like, “Oh, good, somebody’s being nice to me right now.” I needed that. That was a terrible weekend. So it was just this moment of happiness when we were able to just be kids.

    Despite the talents they displayed as children in dance and acting, respectively (Robson met Jackson when, at age 5, he danced onstage with him; Safechuck co-starred in a Pepsi commercial with Jackson, at age 8), both men say that Jackson decided that filmmaking should be the focus of their discipline and dreams.

    Safechuck: As we were growing up, he was pitching the same stuff to both of us — the same spiel of, “Get ready. Because in the future? Me and you are going to change the world. So get ready. Study. Be the best. Study.” He’d call every once in a while and go, “Are you preparing? You better get ready!”
    Robson: [Laughs.] It was abstract. “We’re going to rule the world together. We’re going to change the film industry.” The spiel that he started giving me when I was 7 was, “You’re going to be a filmmaker at the level of, bigger than [Steven] Spielberg: This is your destiny.” It was from the lips of God for me, from Michael. That was the prophecy. And nothing mattered until that happened. I ended up experiencing a lot of external success as a dancer and then choreographer and then stage director really young. But none of it mattered to me until I was a director bigger than Spielberg.

    Safechuck: I was in a band when I was in my early 20s. And I got in the band, really, because I was like, “We’ll be successful, right?” You know how you think when you’re in your early 20s. “And then I’ll make our music videos. And then I’ll be a filmmaker.” So I didn’t get in the band to be a rock star. It was like, “The music will be a bridge into film.”
    But later, you wonder, “Was this even my dream?” Because, really, I didn’t think he was pitching “director” to everybody. I thought that was me. Then you learn it’s not even specific to you, and you’re like, “Oh, my God, was that even something that I wanted?”

    Long after their childhood interactions with Jackson, he continued to shape Robson’s and Safechuck’s professional lives.

    Robson: Six days after my son was born, I got the job to direct this feature film. And, oh, my God, here it is: The prophecy is happening, right? But the prophecy started happening at the same time that this being, my boy, had come into existence who was about to kick the door open on, “You can’t keep up this façade anymore.” I was a couple of months into preproduction on this feature film when I completely fell apart and had to remove myself from the film. And then it was, “My life is over.” I couldn’t fulfill the prophecy.

    Safechuck: Yeah, and that was the goal of everything, right?

    Robson: This was everything. This was why we left Australia. This is why my father died — killed himself. This was everything. And you failed. What’s the point of anything anymore?
    Everything fell apart. Dance, music, film — everything ended for me. “Oh, my God, it’s all Michael. Michael’s the reason I started dancing. I can’t ever dance again. If it’s all Michael, it’s all abuse.” We disappeared and moved to Hawaii, to start life again. Having no idea what I was going to do with the rest of my life.
    Dance kept trying to come knock on the door, and I kept running from it. But then, just over a year-and-a-half ago, I woke up one morning, and there dance was in my heart again. And all of this kind of child-like curiosity about it and a willingness to accept that, before my relationship with dance and art became tainted by Michael and abuse, it was mine. It actually never was his. And that’s where I got confused. Understandably. But it was mine before he took it from me. So how can I get that back? And that’s the journey I’ve been on since then. I’m traveling around the world teaching. And I’m having more fun — I’m in the midst of a love affair with dance that I’ve never experienced before. And every time I dance now, I push another piece of Michael out of my body.

    Safechuck: I was just lucky to find something that I got really passionate about — I’m the director of innovation and technology at a digital advertising company — and I just fell in love with programming, with the mixture of art and tech. And it was mine. It was my passion. It wasn’t tied to anything else.
    But the strange thing is, the same dedication and persistence that Michael ingrains in you — you still use that. But how do you go, “OK, I’ll keep that, because that is a good thing,” and not feel shame or guilt for keeping that? That’s really difficult. Because it’s wrapped up in all this abuse.

    Robson: That has been the process — this decoupling, this unmeshing of all the bad from some of the good. Because at first, what happened with me is you throw the baby out with the bath water. It’s all disgusting. It’s all horrible. Everything was a lie. And a lot of it was. But if we can take new perspectives on certain experiences, we can find new ways to use them, in a positive way.
    Leaving Neverland begins with Robson describing Jackson as “one of the kindest, most gentle, loving, caring people I knew. He helped me tremendously … with my career, with my creativity. And he also sexually abused me for seven years.” It ends with a shot of Robson burning Jackson’s records.

    Dan Reed photographed on Feb. 28, 2019 in New York.
    Flora Hanitijo

    Robson: Those images of me burning things are from very early on in my healing process — within the first two to three months. I’m not saying that to discredit the validity of that now. But it just paints a picture as to how many different stages there are in this process. I think those two things that you [To Reed.] referenced show the complexities and the contrasts of the healing journey.
    The burning of those things was what I needed to do at that early stage. And I remember, as I was doing that, I was looking at the fire and I started speaking to Michael. I said, “Michael, I’m going to take these disgusting, horrible things that you did to me — I’m going to take your manipulation and your lies and your perversion — and I’m going to turn it into something good. I have no idea how. And I have no idea what that means. But somehow, I’m going to turn this into something good.”
    And so then it’s really incredible — I had never quite actually put that together until now, that those images are at the end of this film.

    Safechuck: Oh. Shit.

    Robson: That feels like something good. Out of the bad.

    Safechuck: You know what else is strange?

    Robson: [Jokingly.] No, James. Tell me.

    Safechuck: He put this dream in us to make a film that would change the world, right?

    Robson: Wow, yeah. Here you go, Michael.

    Reed: You did what he told you to do after all.
    https://t.co/cbWkubO93y

    Some comments on the above:
    • Reed must have gotten wind of the continuity errors that have been called out.
    • Yep!! He’s been changing up stuff all month. He’s trying to correct the discrepancies.
    • Lol you know he’s reading his Twitter mentions. He even tries to justify his 86369964689 drone shots
    • Someone enlighten me…. Do victims usually do press tours, photoshoots and interviews? And why is dickhead always accompanying them?
    • Yes absolutely! Totally normal behavior for people who have been abused. How dare anyone question these poor victims
    • Why does the Billboard article showcase a professional photoshoot where they got these frauds looking like U2 . . . It’s only about the fame for these whoremongers
    • Why do they need to be in billboard they are not artists..is this a joke
    • How come other victims of celebrities are not given this type of platform..this is going too far
    • Because a single drawing speaks much more than words…

    • That photo shoot is no different that this

    • They just forgot a little detail…

    Like

  29. March 26, 2019 9:18 am

    Helena, the great video you posted above (Leaving Neverland: Take Two) was taken down for copyright reasons. See here:

    It’s no coincidence that so many LN rebuttal videos as well as whole Twitter accounts are deleted!

    Liked by 1 person

  30. MosquitoSmasher permalink
    March 26, 2019 10:44 am

    While we do have Diana Ross using common sense and logic and having no doubts at all about Michael because of some one sided work of fiction that stars two proven liars and perjurers, Paul McCartney has switched sides sadly, very very sadly. At first it was just some articles and now there’s a actual voice clip where he basically says he never knew of this dark side and that he finds it sad. Yes I know he is probably still not too happy about that catalog but he did always defend him, also after he died he called him a man/boy child, never trying to shed any doubt on his innocence. Now solely based on this filth he jumped to these conclusions. What a disappointment that guy.

    Like

  31. Suparna Goswami permalink
    March 26, 2019 2:42 pm

    Thanks Helena. Yes I agree with you that it is just not Harvey Weinstein. It is probably a collective effort by the powerful predators in Hollywood to hijack the me too # movement and direct it to Michael.
    The video shows how Keri Putnam is the connector between Sundance, HBO and Miramax, as she held powerful positions in each of these organisations. I looked her up on Linked In and one can see her role and period served in each of these organisations. It looks odd when you see it, and confirms that this is indeed a ploy to slander Michael.

    Like

  32. March 26, 2019 2:50 pm

    “It’s no coincidence that so many LN rebuttal videos as well as whole Twitter accounts are deleted!” – susannerb

    Susanne, I’ve also just read on MJJcommunity forum that the video by Collative Learning (Rob Ager) was blocked in the UK. They say:
    “Channel 4 has already blocked this video in the UK. When you are in the UK and want to watch it you can find a instruction how you can find the uploaders Webside in a new video on his channel.” They mean this one:

    And at the very same time Oprah’s after-film show is uploaded by Michael Jackson haters’ site and she doesn’t mind the copyright infringement or anything. WOW

    You know, seeing so many distortions in covering this situation around MJ and even censorship to minimize people’s chances to learn the truth is an amazing eye-opening process. I really never thought that most of western media would expose its lack of objectivity in so open a way. Frankly, I never had any illusions but simply thought that they were cleverer.
    It doesn’t make the media in my country any better, but the zeal of US and UK media to brainwash people with lies about MJ while hushing up the real problem shows that they rival each other.

    The truth is neither here nor there, but is a totally separate path.

    To a certain extent I welcome the process as it is a very clear way to separate lies and truth. And it shows the true worth of very many people very effectively and very quickly. Their courage, their integrity, their dignity, their human value – everything that’s really important in life. Suddenly someone you held in high regard turns out to be stupid and cowardly trash that would bend to any lie, and someone you could never expect to stand firmly by the truth turn out to be honest, brave and upright people. An amazing sight.

    Like

  33. March 26, 2019 4:13 pm

    “It is probably a collective effort by the powerful predators in Hollywood to hijack the me too # movement and direct it to Michael.” – Suparna Goswami

    Suparna, it is surely a collective effort to hijack the metoo movement, divert attention from real predators in Hollywood and probably even impose a pedophilia discourse on the public. It is a multi-purpose game.

    Those who masterminded it don’t lose anything no matter what the outcome is – if people believe that MJ was an abuser, it’s fine as their main goal will be fulfilled. But if people disbelieve Robson and Safechuck, it will be fine too for those who masterminded the project.

    Why? Because then they will ask – how come you disbelieve these two guys and believe Bryan Singer’s accusers, for example? Why do you think that Robson and Safechuck lie and Singer’s accusers tell the truth? How can you tell the difference and why these double-standards? Especially since one of Bryan Singer’s accusers describes exactly the same scene which is described by Robson (the one in the recording studio)?

    This scene is so specific that it could not be invented by both of them simultaneously. It is clear that one of them used the other guy’s story. So it is either Bryan Singer’s accuser or Wade Robson. But since Wade Robson included this story only recently and never mentioned it before, it is Robson who stole it from Bryan Singer’s accuser and not the other way about.

    This scam goes much, much deeper than any of us can imagine.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Daniel Cederborg permalink
    March 27, 2019 4:46 pm

    Dan Reed says it clear that it’s all about the money: https://youtu.be/s_kuVffY22E

    Like

  35. eugenia permalink
    March 29, 2019 11:54 am

    Hi Helena,

    Have you thought about contacting TJ to contribute to his rebuttal documentary? After 10 years of extensive research you are extremely knowledgeable about all aspects of past and current allegations and it would seem fit to me for you to be somehow a part of this.

    The last thing the word needs is another 1-hour homage depicting Michael yet again as a loving virgin kinda guy. No matter how well documented his caring personality is, he can no longer defend himself with just personality traits. Its time to debunk every misconception and lie these people have been feeding the mainstream media with, with the actual facts. From the Chandlers and the settlement to
    the maid and her soiled underwear all the way to Robson and Safechuck.

    I have been following your excellent work basically since the early stages of this blog. I am 22 now and this recent campaign against Michael pains me the most – maybe due to the fact that I’m now old enough to realise what’s happening be part of this – I just can’t fathom how these people took advantage of Michael’s good heart in such way. It’s utterly disgusting.
    – eugenia

    Like

  36. eugenia permalink
    March 29, 2019 1:19 pm

    I’m sorry I meant *Taj’s* documentary – eugenia

    Like

  37. Suparna Goswami permalink
    March 29, 2019 8:24 pm

    Hi Helena
    Almost a miracle! ‘The Mirror’ and ‘The Sun’ have started reporting the absurdities in Dan Reed’s sick film! Karma’s wheels seem to be turning fast against Dan and his crew.
    https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/wade-robsons-michael-jackson-sex-14201396 ; https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8745654/wade-robson-disproved-by-mum-michael-jackson-biographer/

    Like

  38. susannerb permalink*
    March 30, 2019 5:12 am

    eugenia:
    You are very right that Michael cannot be defended anymore with personality traits. That doesn’t help. The only thing that can help is exposing the backgrounds of the accusers and their lies, which means we don’t need to talk about Michael, but about the accusers and how they construct their stories.
    It’s amazing that you started to follow us almost 10 years ago as a teenager and now as an adult. Thank you very much for sticking with us.

    Suparna:
    Yes, but so far it is reduced to these two tabloids, and it’s because Mike Smallcombe has some connections to them. At least we can hope that it spreads from there to other news outlets. The old fake stories also usually spread from tabloids into the mainstream media, so perhaps this time it goes the same way.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. March 31, 2019 5:14 am

    “Almost a miracle! ‘The Mirror’ and ‘The Sun’ have started reporting the absurdities in Dan Reed’s sick film! Karma’s wheels seem to be turning fast against Dan and his crew.” – Sparna Goswami

    Indeed, almost a miracle. And it’s funny that it is The Mirror and The Sun who begin reporting the truth. Don’t know why they are doing it – because they stand up for the truth or realize that truth can bring more profit than lies, but in any case it is a very welcome process of healing.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. March 31, 2019 6:11 am

    “Have you thought about contacting TJ to contribute to his rebuttal documentary?” – eugenia

    You know, from Taj Jackson’s interviews I get the impression that he and Brandi Jackson are on the right track and will not defend Michael only by personality traits. It seems to me that Taj is doing his research and MJ’s supporters provide him with masses and masses of information even without me.

    I also have a feeling that now a whole new generation of truthers is out there to do the work very few of us started 10 years ago. Very knowledgeable and very vocal young people who can be fully trusted with doing further research and making the truth about MJ finally known. So when I “retire” (and have time for my 300+ roses at last) there is no doubt that the job of Michael’s vindication will be in good hands.

    And in the meantime I’ll try to focus on digging up something new about Michael’s detractors and those who may stand behind this major Leaving Neverland scam. This recent campaign against Michael also pains me, but surprisingly, also gives me calm. For some reason I’m sure that they have dug a pit they will fall into themselves.

    By the way, the Heavens are on our side and know where the truth is. This is a mystery face that appeared on the BBC Scotland weather forecast on March 27th 🙂

    “Viewers spot a mystery face in the clouds. A surprise guest has made an appearance in the BBC Scotland weather forecast”.

    Like

  41. Suparna Goswami permalink
    April 1, 2019 2:47 pm

    Mike Smallcombe seems to be have a huge role in this. Many thanks to him.

    Like

  42. louissy permalink
    April 8, 2019 1:15 pm

    Hey dear Helen can you please tell me more if you of course know about what the documentary was in 2004 about Chandler allegations/
    and if i understood right your from Russia i am from Ukraine so ,maybe we will speak russian?

    Like

  43. April 8, 2019 4:09 pm

    “if i understood right your from Russia i am from Ukraine so ,maybe we will speak russian?”- louissy

    Louissy, of course we can, only others won’t be able to understand us, and this will be inconvenient and not too polite. But let me send my big hello to you and Ukraine!

    “can you please tell me more if you of course know about what the documentary was in 2004 about Chandler allegations”

    I’m afraid I don’t know what documentary about Chandler allegations you are talking about. As far as I know there were two parts of Peretti’s film with the participation of Diane Dimond and Victor Gutierrez, but it wasn’t a documentary, but fiction again – same as Dan Reed’s.

    Like

  44. louissy permalink
    April 9, 2019 4:26 am

    Agree it’s stupidly ✨ thanks ❤️ I just watched it’s even not funny how during his trial everyone made docs about him I counted at least 4 it’s “amazing” just how they jump in these allegations and wanted their piece of fame

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. Wann hat James Safechuck realisiert, dass er ein angebliches Missbrauchsopfer ist? | all4michael
  2. Joe Vogel: Was Sie über die neue Michael Jackson Dokumentation wissen sollten | all4michael
  3. Die Wade Robson Unterstellungen (Zusammenfassung) | all4michael
  4. Langjährige Weggefährten Michael Jacksons äußern sich zu “Leaving Neverland” | all4michael
  5. Michael Jackson ist nicht euer #MeToo Minstrel | all4michael
  6. Safechuck spricht von sexuellem Missbrauch im ikonischen Neverland Bahnhof, der zu diesem Zeitpunkt nicht einmal existiert hat | all4michael
  7. My very complex opinion on Leaving Neverland after watching it twice (kinda) – A People Watcher

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: