“Leaving Neverland” transcript. The 1st half hour of LIES AND DISTORTION
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.
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.”
Trackbacks
- My very complex opinion on Leaving Neverland after watching it twice (kinda)
- My very complex opinion on Leaving Neverland after watching it twice (kinda) – That Nosey Life
- My very complex opinion on Leaving Neverland after watching it twice (kinda) – A People Watcher
- Safechuck spricht von sexuellem Missbrauch im ikonischen Neverland Bahnhof, der zu diesem Zeitpunkt nicht einmal existiert hat | all4michael
- Michael Jackson ist nicht euer #MeToo Minstrel | all4michael
- Langjährige Weggefährten Michael Jacksons äußern sich zu “Leaving Neverland” | all4michael
- Die Wade Robson Unterstellungen (Zusammenfassung) | all4michael
- Joe Vogel: Was Sie über die neue Michael Jackson Dokumentation wissen sollten | all4michael
- Wann hat James Safechuck realisiert, dass er ein angebliches Missbrauchsopfer ist? | all4michael
It is because you believe words instead of facts in the same way people are taken away by a thriller without noticing its most ridiculous absurdities.
LikeLike
They could claim anything they want – which they actually do and no one minds it.
But in reality when MJ and Safechuck were making a commercial at the end of 86 Safechuck saw Michael only once, when MJ suddenly appeared on the set for a brief moment (Safechuck described it himself). And then they met again when he entered Michael’s van with his monther standing at its door together with Karen Faye. And that was all, with no Christmas or any other celebrations, and even no friendship and with very little communication between them.
LikeLike
Hi, Helena. Something that’s been bothering me – we know Safechuck claims to have met Michael in late ’86 – early ’87. Could they claim that the Christmas footage is from ’86? I know that it doesn’t fit with their narrative, either – MJ wasn’t in Asutralia at that time. But an argument could be made that Stephanie is confused/misremembering etc. This is the only way I see, that they can still salvage their “creepy audition” spin.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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!
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
Mike Smallcombe seems to be have a huge role in this. Many thanks to him.
LikeLike
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 🙂
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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/
LikeLike
I’m sorry I meant *Taj’s* documentary – eugenia
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
Dan Reed says it clear that it’s all about the money: https://youtu.be/s_kuVffY22E
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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!
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
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…
https://twitter.com/Pascalpadr/status/1108851513940680704
• That photo shoot is no different that this
• They just forgot a little detail…
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
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.
Absolutely true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some new tweets:
Samar @TheMJAP
They filed a multi-million dollar civil suit.
They filed it under seal.
https://twitter.com/TheMJAP/status/1110192005848752129
(About Safechuck) Xicalees
If I were being sued for $420000 I’d start remembering shit that didn’t happen too #facts
https://twitter.com/xicalees/status/1110138672567873536
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
https://twitter.com/tyffsaysWHOA/status/1110220345808572417
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
John Ziegler
Jim Clemente, whom I know well, is a total fraud.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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:
https://twitter.com/LizMJ9/status/1109976551884500992
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ 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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Helena are you in support of MJ innocence or not
LikeLike
Hello ! Have you known about Jim Clemente ?
Can you explain about him ?
LikeLike
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:
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
https://twitter.com/offthewall1979/status/1109863446743527424
LikeLiked by 1 person
What I don’t understand is why the word Truth should be in inverted commas in this headline:
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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”.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
https://twitter.com/TheMJAP/status/1109505786844250113
World is indeed a small place, at least around Michael Jackson – wherever you look, it is the same people again and again.
LikeLike
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):
LikeLike
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?”
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.
LikeLike
Wonderful information. Could you provide the link please? And the transcript of it, if possible?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike