Skip to content


August 29, 2019

Honest people to whom the truth matters are doing so splendid a job of debunking  the lies of Dan Reed’s ‘Leaving Neverland’ film that I can only watch in awe the speed at which they are doing it. Great new videos have been released lately and more are still to come – the ‘Leaving Neverland‘ fakes are indeed an endless source for research and analysis for those who value the truth and reveal it to others.

The thorough shredding of ‘Leaving Neverland’ into pieces seems to have come as a surprise to its authors as well as the mainstream media – none of them expected Michael Jackson’s fans to watch the film in the first place, not to mention the fans’ determination to dissect it.  Of course all those involved in making this fabrication continue to play the old tune, but now they are definitely on the defense and sound more and more like a broken record. Their fake documentary is in rags now because of the numerous holes poked in it, but the liars in and around the film continue to pretend they don’t see anything wrong with it and don’t mind the stench. And this is what backfires most – the more they pretend and censor the voices of reason, the clearer Michael’s innocence is.

Out of the many latest videos debunking Robson’s and Safechuck’s lies the only one available to me is the one called ‘Lies of Leaving Neverland’, released in mid-August, almost on the eve of Michael Jackson’s birthday.

The video is a marvel. It takes only 32 minutes to show the enormity of falsifications in Dan Reed’s film – its numerous contradictions, provable lies, fakes scenes, restaged shoots, reconstructed memories, omission of critical information, manipulation of news clips, use of discredited source materials, key motives ignored and whatnot.

But to me the most stunning discovery of all were the fragments of Robson’s and his mother’s depositions videotaped in 2016 and released only now. Let me tell you – it is one thing to read the tapescripts and it is a totally different thing to see them saying it.

Watching Robson squirming like a snake on a frying pan during that deposition is an unforgettable sight. When facing inconvenient questions about his earlier testimony (in 2005) like “Did you tell a lie then?” Robson bends and almost spreads himself over the desk not to show his face to the camera and gain some time to rework its expression into something acceptable to the viewer and when he finally raises his head his answer is both defiant and uncertain: “I didn’t tell the truth.”

Another question, and another “I didn’t tell the truth.” One more question, more fidgeting and clasping of his hands and another “I didn’t tell the truth. I didn’t tell the truth. I didn’t tell the truth…..”

What a repelling one-man show of a liar bragging of his lies which is sometimes hilarious, sometimes pathetic and sometimes an outrageous sight!

His mother’s behavior is different – she is sitting with a stone face and is obviously afraid to say something that will not fit her son’s current narration.

But despite her fright she still chooses to tell the truth which she actually told many times before 2016. And the truth is very simple – during their first visit to the US in 1990 the family didn’t leave Wade alone at Neverland and all of them, including the kids, went to the Grand Canyon and returned to the ranch a week later to spend another weekend with Michael Jackson there.

To those who are not in the know this piece may sound trivial, however the importance of it is fundamental and should not be overlooked. For Robson’s current story his mother’s description of the joint trip to the Grand Canyon is simply damning as it ruins the foundation on which his whole pack of lies rests.

The problem is that in Dan Reed’s film Robson claims that during that first visit to Neverland “he was left alone there with MJ” and this was the very moment when the alleged abuse started. Then he tells a very long and horrible story about “what happened during that week” describing the alleged abuse in much detail and most graphic terms (“the grown man-size penis in a little seven-year-old’s mouth”, Oh my God!) thus making the whole thing the most dramatic and focal point of Dan Reed’s film.

However in her deposition Robson’s mother chose to tell the innocent truth and revealed that her son was not left alone at Neverland in 1990 – actually the first time he stayed there on his own was not until two or three years later. And the plain fact that Robson was simply not there instantly nullified his long and graphic “recollections” in the same way a soap bubble pops at a slight touch.

The “abuse” so vividly described by Robson couldn’t start and continue “every night” at Neverland for the simple reason that he left the ranch together with his family and was on his way to the Grand Canyon instead.

So not only Safechuck wasn’t abused at the train station which hadn’t been built yet, but also Robson’s abuse didn’t start and “continue” at Neverland because he was away from it at the Grand Canyon together with his sister, parents and grandparents.

The Grand Canyon

Robson’s mother testified about that innocent joint trip not once but three times – in 1993, in 2005 and now again in 2016, each time speaking under oath. Telling the truth in 2016 required certain fortitude on her part, but previously she spoke about the Grand Canyon episode quite effortlessly as she had no incentive to lie and the episode was regarded by her and the family as just a memorable event in their joint biography.

In other words, if you watch this tiny fragment of Joy Robson’ deposition you won’t need to see anything else and may close the matter of Robson’s allegations then and there, without researching them any further. This piece is crucial to Robson’s whole story because it destroys the basis for his lies, nullifies everything he invented about MJ from that point on and nips all his fabrications in the bud.

This precious piece of Joy Robson’s deposition is found at 10:14 – 11:47 of the ‘Lies of Leaving Neverland’ film. Here is the tapescript of that small episode:

10:14 Voiceover: But that is not all. Earlier testimony by Robson and his mother contradict the entire 1990 story told in ‘Leaving Neverland’ the director Dan Reed uses as a foundation for the film.

Robson’s mother Joy testified in 1993 that her son was never alone with Michael Jackson at Neverland until that year. And here she is seen confirming under oath in 2016 that her entire family – husband, parents and the kids – went on the trip to the Grand Canyon.

10:43 (a fragment from Joy Robson’s videotaped deposition on September 30, 2016):

Q: I understand that you stayed, then, two different weekends at Neverland during that trip, is that right?

Joy Robson: Yes.

Q. Then in between, you and your kids and your husband and your parents all went on a tourist trip to the Grand Canyon?

JR: Yes.

Q. So you were there, was it two nights the first time?

JR: Yes.

Q. And then you came back after your whole family had gone away?

JR: Yes.

Q. Did you spend another two nights?

JR: At Neverland, yes.

(end of the deposition fragment)

11:13 Voiceover: Robson himself testified as an adult that the first time he visited Neverland without his mother was in 1992 or 1993, which means he would not have been alone at Neverland with Michael Jackson in 1990 as ‘Leaving Neverland’ claims.

In other words Robson and his family over time have told multiple versions of a key story viewers heard in ‘Leaving Neverland’. So which is it? The version Joy Robson tells in her deposition or the version Dan Reed presents in ‘Leaving Neverland’?

Which version is correct? To normal people the answer is clear. The fantasy told in what is essentially a feature film cannot stand against three testimonies given under oath over a period of 30 years – though some bigots may disagree and still persist in their delusions. When the plain but precious truth is told in a tired manner, while the lies are striking and delivered with much enthusiasm, some will prefer what glitters most – much like those natives who exchanged pieces of gold for strings of glass buds centuries ago. In modern times the fakes moved into the information field where many are still unable to tell the truth from its cheap imitation though the difference between fantasies and true facts is “the same as for jewels: it is always the false ones that look the most real, the most brilliant.” (Salvador Dali)

In Dan Reed’s film Joy Robson presents the twisted version of the trip to the Grand Canyon which is in direct contradiction to her deposition. Or to be more exact, she doesn’t say anything directly (the film only implies it), and it is her daughter Chantal who claims that when they went away to the Grand Canyon they left Wade at Neverland. And her grandmother Lorraine, Joy Robson’s mother, also says something to that effect.

Why aren’t these people afraid to contradict what Joy Robson said in her numerous depositions? Apparently, they hope that few people will have access to those documents and will never have a chance or desire to compare.

Here is the transcript of the family’s revised story from the third half-hour of Dan Reed’s ‘Leaving Neverland’ which I don’t intend to place here in full to save you from the filth and falsity of Robson’s graphic descriptions. The transcript begins where we left off the previous time.

1:02:30 Robson: To the left was the dining room and then kitchen. Tons of beautiful paintings and statues everywhere (music). It’s more than just going to someone’s house that was beautiful. You know, it felt like a lot more than that, a lot different than that. It felt like travelling to another planet.

1:03:00 Joy Robson (speaking about their first visit to Neverland): And then we all came back to the guest units, and Michael came back with the children. They’d been looking at some other things. And they came in and they asked if they could stay with Michael for the night.

(music, photo of the inside of a guest house)

1:03:15 Robson: (music, footage of Neverland) The guest quarters is a separate building, essentially, kind of, across from the main house, with about, I think, four hotel rooms. “You can stay in the guest quarters with your parents if you want, “or if you want, you can, you know, you can stay with me, in my room.” And I was like, you know, I wanna stay with Michael.”

Note: Robson makes it sound like Michael invited him to his room, while in reality it is him and Chantal who begged their parents to let them stay with Michael. And Michael agreed only after the parents asked him if Michael didn’t mind it. He didn’t and this is how the kids came to spend their time in MJ’s quarters.

See Joy Robson’s testimony in 2005:

18   And then it was getting late, and my

19   children said to me, both Chantel and Wade, my

20   daughter, said, “Can we stay with Michael.”

21   And my husband and I sort of looked at

22   Michael, and said, “Well, if that’s okay with you.”

23   And he said, “Oh, absolutely.  If they’d like to

24   stay, that’s fine.”

Now back to Dan Reed’s film:

1:03:35 Joy Robson: So, we thought, oh, okay. We didn’t seem to think anything of it. We just thought that’s fine, and Chantal was with him as well.

1:03:45 Robson (music): Like, for me to look back on the scenario now, what you’d think would be standard, kind of, instincts and judgment, uh, seemed to go out the window. Even if we knew him, which we didn’t, at all. We’d known him for, I don’t know what, four hours maybe. Not known him. We met him four hours ago, you know? That’s the trippy part is because it felt like we knew him. Like, he had been in my living room every day (footage of little Wade dancing in front of TV). In my ears via his music and his posters like I had known him, I thought. And it, for some reason, it didn’t feel strange to let, you know, me, a seven-year-old, and my sister, a 10-year-old, sleep in this man’s bedroom.

1:04:45 (cello playing, the camera shows the locks on the door to MJ’s bedroom)

1:04:50 Chantal (music): Michael had an extra guest bed that was above his bed. It was basically like a staircase that just kind of took you up to this other room in his room. And so, he said that we could stay in his room in that guest unit, if we wanted to. And of course, we were like, “Please, can we?” you know (makes an energetic gesture with her hands).

1:05:10 Grandmother Lorraine (music): We went to his bedroom and sat on his bed and talked to him. And he had a train running around the bed, electric train running the bedroom, and he was just like a child. Yes. (smiles)

1:05:25 Robson (aerial view of the main house, music): There was pillow fights. I mean, just having a blast, like, no rules. You know, like, you can’t get in trouble, you know.

1:05:35 Chantal (music): We were just kind of all hanging out in Michael’s bed, in the same bed, like me, Wade, and Michael, and just watching movies and watching videos.

1:05:45 Robson (aerial view of Neverland at night): And then at some point, we just knocked out, all three of us on his bed. Yeah, and that’s as much as I remember that first night.

(a glorious morning with much sunshine, beautiful views of Neverland). (The visit was in early February 1990)

1:06:15 Joy Robson (music): The next morning, waking up and looking at the lake, and the flowers were just amazing. I mean, my mother said her first thought was, “Oh my God, I’ve died and gone to Heaven.”It was just so beautiful.

(view of Neverland)

1:06:30 Robson (music): Here we go, like, a day of adventure, right.

1:06:30 Chantal (music, views of Neverland): You know, it was a lot of just silliness, sort of like that chase each other and, you know, big water fights (photo of the family with MJ).  It seemed right away like he was family. It was like being with a brother.

1:06:40 Robson (aerial view of Neverland, music): We kind of loaded up in a couple of golf carts, and him driving us around and showing us everything, right. So this is the first time of seeing, um, the arcade. We walk in and flip a switch and boom, the whole room comes alive, right. One of the most amazing things that I could ever experience, and have total access to, to just go play whatever I wanted to.

And how I excited Michael was to kind of watch me and watch me react. (music)

1:07:20 Joy (photo of little Wade): He was fascinated with Wade. He said that, “It’s like looking at myself in a mirror. I see myself all over again. So, that was something to hear that, that was pretty impressive. And this little boy was just living the dream. He really was.

(music, the aerial view of the amusement park)

1:07:40 Robson: The theme park, which wasn’t as extensive then as it became, but still a theme park in someone’s house, you know. You know, seeing my mother, kind of just, high and giddy and playful and like children. And then on to the animals, right. I mean, chimpanzees, giraffes, elephant, tiger.

(a night aerial view of Neverland, suspense music)

You know, then it was bedtime, and it was just kind of unspoken, like it was set up already as to how it, you know, how we slept last night.

(another night aerial view of Neverland, music)

NOTE: In his lawsuit and deposition Robson claims that the “second night was when the abuse started”. But after recalling Chantal’s testimony in 2005 where she insisted that she slept on Michael’s bed on the second night of their stay at Neverland Robson shifted the time of his “abuse” to a later date.

Robson: At some point, I had fallen asleep. And I woke up. I could hear, like, crying, like, sulking and sobbing (crickets chirping, view of the Neverland gate at night). I could see a figure over in the corner, kind of scrunched up, sort of sobbing. It was kind of hard to get words out. ‘Cause we were supposed to leave the next day, the whole family.

“I’m just so sad that you guys are gonna leave me. “You know, I don’t wanna be alone. I don’t want you guys to leave”.

I mean, I felt the same way. I felt like I almost had this kind of burden and guilt to like, if I leave, like, what’s gonna happen to him? Like, he was so upset, you know? Then, the next morning, the plan was that we were gonna go on this kind of trip to the Grand Canyon and that sort of thing with an RV.

1:09:30 Joy Robson (aerial view of the main house, photo of little Wade): I remember going into Michael’s room to talk to him about it, and he said to Wade, “We can stay here. We can go to Los Angeles. We can go wherever you want, do whatever you want.”And Wade wanted to stay at Neverland.

Снимок экрана (242)

1:09:45 Joy Robson (suddenly having shorter hair and a heavier make-up): I actually didn’t have a problem with it at the time. I didn’t actually have a hesitation.

1:09:55 Chantal: So then, that’s when I left with my mom and everybody, and we went to the Grand Canyon. We had, like, a motor home, and we went and camped and did all that, and then Wade stayed with Michael.

1:10:09 Robson: I was ecstatic about this. Michael was ecstatic about this. So, my whole family left, um and I had, you know, five days ahead of me, with just me and Michael, doing whatever the hell we wanted to do.

(cello playing, aerial view of Neverland)

1:10:33 Robson: There were no cell phones, or anything like that. So, my parents had– once they left, they had no direct access to me at all. They were really far away, in many ways (sniffles).

(the photo of little Wade, cello playing)

1:11:00 Grandmother Lorraine (the view of the Grand Canyon): We went right through the canyon. First time I’ve ever seen snow. That was exciting, too. And, uh we thought that Michael was teaching him all his dances. That’s– We thought, how lucky he was to have that, somebody to take their time and do it, in his position, to have somebody like that, to teach him what to do.

1:11:28 Joy Robson (with the original hairstyle again and less make-up):

I somewhat regretted it as we were traveling. I became a little anxious, at times, about it. And I remember calling once, and I couldn’t get through. I remember being absolutely hysterical on the phone at one point because I couldn’t get through, and I couldn’t find him.

(the photo of little Wade, slow music)

1:11:50 Robson’s voiceover: First day at Neverland was Michael making physical contact with me…(descriptions of the alleged abuse follow).

Well, looking into the detail is always worth it. If you give enough attention to the above transcript you will realize that Joy Robson is taking special care not to contradict her earlier testimony and depositions directly. All she says about the contoversy of the alleged week at Neverland are just three statements worded in a top careful way:

  • “I remember going into Michael’s room to talk to him about it, and he said to Wade, “We can stay here. We can go to Los Angeles. We can go wherever you want, do whatever you want.”And Wade wanted to stay at Neverland.

Then, with a sudden change of her hairstyle and make-up, she makes a non-committal statement that may refer to anything:

  • “I actually didn’t have a problem with it at the time. I didn’t actually have a hesitation.”

And this is her final statement on the matter, made after she assumes her previous image:

  • “I somewhat regretted it as we were traveling. I became a little anxious, at times, about it. And I remember calling once, and I couldn’t get through. I remember being absolutely hysterical on the phone at one point because I couldn’t get through, and I couldn’t find him.”

There is no mention of the Grand Canyon in her narrative and if you question her about the discrepancy between the film and her deposition she can easily claim (in order to avoid the crime of perjury) that she was talking about some other place to which they also travelled. The Grand Canyon is only being implied here and there is indeed no proof that she is talking about that particular place and time, and not another.

So what does all this beating about the bush mean?

First of all the care with which Joy Robson and Dan Reed go about this potentially explosive point reveals that both of them know that under oath Joy testified to the opposite, and this is why they avoid speaking about this matter directly.

As to Lorraine and Chantal, none of them can be accused of perjury even if they tell a flat lie. The grandmother has never testified before and if someone points to her untrue statements the charming old lady she can always explain it by her memory fail.

In fact, the only one who tells the lie openly is Chantal:

  • So then, that’s when I left with my mom and everybody, and we went to the Grand Canyon. We had, like, a motor home, and we went and camped and did all that, and then Wade stayed with Michael.

However even she doesn’t run the risk of perjury or even losing her credibility – in her testimony in 2005 she didn’t elaborate on the trip to the Grand Canyon, so you can’t compare her present story with what she said before, and she is free to claim whatever she likes now. No one will ever know.

Okay, but what about Joy Robson’s hairstyle?

The way Joy Robson’s hair changed right in the middle of her story is strange and is actually a big surprise as two of those three scarce remarks were made by Joy Robson when she had long hair and little makeup, and one more was made by Joy Robson with shorter hair and heavy mascara on her eyelashes.    

The most natural explanation for this unusual phenomenon is that, same as with Safechuck, Dan Reed filmed these episodes at different times and with a rather big interval between the two shots, because not only is Joy’s hair shorter on one of the occasions, but the outline of her face is different and she doesn’t look as slim as in the rest of the film.

But then another question arises – why did Dan Reed do it? I mean, why did he reshoot the scene with Joy Robson? Was it worth meeting her again in order to add just one remark to her previous story which isn’t even that striking in its content? In fact all she said was: “I actually didn’t have a problem with it at the time. I didn’t actually have a hesitation.”  

Is there anything in this remark worth taking a second trip to film Robson’s mother? Absolutely not. It doesn’t add anything to the story and if you cut the piece out, nothing much will change in the whole narrative. The only visible effect will be less evidence from Joy Robson about that particular week at Neverland, but Joy Robson is not the main witness here anyway – the story about Robson staying at Neverland is mainly told by Chantal and the grandmother, so what was the point?

 Is there a way to explain this mystification?

Yes, there is. Firstly, Dan Reed’s little manipulation means that he had very little footage of Joy Robson speaking about their trip to the Grand Canyon. Apparently she didn’t want to tell a story different from her deposition, so Reed had to use all the scraps he had recorded at different times to try and build up support from Joy Robson for her son’s narrative.

The reason for her unwillingness to confirm Robson’s story? Here we have only two options to choose from – she either knows that her son is lying or she herself repeatedly lied under oath on three separate occasions.

Each option is marvelous in its own way, and this is why Joy Robson is neither here nor there – she avoids mentioning her deposition version and refrains from openly confirming her son’s story about “his lone week spent with MJ at Neverland”.  As a result Dan Reed has very little material on his hands and had to put together the very few comments she made on the subject even at the risk of someone noticing that they were made on different occasions.

Secondly, the above compilation is another irrefutable proof that Dan Reed’s film is not a spontaneous interview, but is a series of staged and reshooted scenes. Same as with Safechuck, much care was taken by him to recreate the same scenery for Joy Robson – the same light, the same attire, etc. – and it was only due to the slightly different hairstyle that the imitation could not be complete. And same as with Safechuck Dan Reed’s working pattern shows that his intention is to fool his viewers and produce the impression that the interview is seamless and spontaneous while in reality it is a compilation of reshooted scenes.

To remind you of the same way it was done for Safechuck, here is the respective piece from the ‘Lies of Leaving Neverland’ film:

11:48 James Safechuck’s dramatic scene where he claims Michael Jackson gave him jewelry for sex, including an alleged “wedding ring”, was deceptively staged and edited to appear as one seamless scene, when in fact it was actually edited together from filming done on two separate occasions 17 months apart. And done intentionally – to pump up the drama of the scene. You can tell by looking at his clothes, essentially the same in both shots except he forgot the undershirt the second time around.And look out the window – it’s clearly different seasons with the plants trimmed in one shot but not the other.

Once people pointed out the changes, Dan Reed was forced to admit he went back and rented the same Airbnb to recreate and reshoot the scene nearly a year and a half later. Can viewers trust deceptive editing?

No, they can’t. Dan Reed’s documentary style is that of a feature film director – it requires reshooting to achieve the desired result and adding scenes for extra drama even if it means that he has to recreate the old stage decorations a year and a half later.  

Speaking about the timeline of Safechuck’s revelations, the moment when Joy Robson made hers is a matter of interest to us too. Indeed, when was Joy Robson filmed? Or rather, which variant of Joy Robson was filmed first – Joy Robson 1 or Joy Robson 2?

Joy Robson 1

Joy Robson 2

The question is not as silly as you may have initially thought.

If Joy Robson 1 (with longer hair) was filmed first and Joy Robson 2 was added later, it means that Dan Reed had to take the trouble to go all the way to Australia, or probably to Hawaii where Wade Robson resides now, to be able to add to the earlier footage just one little remark by Joy Robson already mentioned here ( “I actually didn’t have a problem with it at the time. I didn’t actually have a hesitation”.)

Does anyone believe here that this was the case? I don’t think so.

But if the above variant is illogical, the only other option remaining to us is that Joy Robson 2, the one with shorter hair, was filmed first and that little remark of hers is the only piece Dan Reed used from Joy Robson’s original story. And the reason why he had to reshoot Joy Robson was that the original story was very much different from the one we see now in the final version of his film.

If this explanation is correct, it means that originally Joy Robson was unwilling to take part in that project as she didn’t want to contradict her deposition and run the risk of perjuring herself, but during the break between the two shoots they managed to convince her that most of the talk about “leaving Wade alone at Neverland” would be done by other family members who didn’t risk anything by telling the lie, and that her part would be minimal and that the impression that she agrees with her son’s version would be created through clever editing and alternating her words with the words of the other participants.

In fact the result of this carefully built fabrication is what we actually see in the final version of Dan Reed’s film. The confirmation from Wade’s mother was their top priority for giving credibility to Robson’s story, and they did manage to create the necessary impression by putting together her minimal remarks and combining them with the statements of the supporting actors. If the worst came to the worst and she was accused of a criminal offense of lying under oath her non-committal remarks could be said to refer to something different and that is why there are no direct statements from Joy Robson about her son’s alleged stay at Neverland while they were away.    

And once the carefully constructed impression of Joy Robson confirming her son’s version was created Wade Robson could freely present any bogus story he liked. After all, “he was left alone with MJ the first time they visited Neverland”, wasn’t he? 🙂

42 Comments leave one →
  1. Alex permalink
    October 6, 2019 11:54 pm

    Great job showing how Dan Reed manipulates the Grand Canyon story. I would like to add that he does the same with the grandmother. She says “And, uh we thought that Michael was teaching him all his dances….” showing a pic of the GC as if it was then that MJ was with Wade but basically this could have been any other time. Very deceiving.


  2. luv4hutch permalink
    September 23, 2019 2:13 pm

    Yes. Also, the name Louis Theroux, one of the people who has been loudly trumpeting LN and declaring it proof of Michael’s guilt has a bit of an excuse of misguided nobility.

    In 2000, he did a documentary/interview with Jimmy Savile, and they kept a friendship of sorts. After the smoke cleared and his crimes exposed, Theroux did a new documentary which included showing the clues in hindsight about Savile, and how he got away with it for so long. So, since his feelings about Savile and guilt at not getting the truth is raw, he assumes Michael is the same.


  3. Battenburg permalink
    September 10, 2019 6:23 am

    I haven’t seen this Netflix special, but I’m assuming that it’s the same Dave Chappelle that was in Robin Hood: Men In Tights?

    Interesting that he has a connection to the previous accusers, but doesn’t believe the current accusers.


  4. September 9, 2019 3:08 pm

    So, you aware of the recent flashpoint of controversy regarding Dave Chappelle’s Netflix special? Among the polarizing moments, he said he didn’t believe Robson and Safechuck, but then said, “but if it did happen…I mean you got raped by Michael Jackson! That’s like a badge of honor!” – luv4hutch

    Yes, I am aware that he said that though I haven’t seen his Netflix special. And would have been much happier if he hadn’t added that “rape” phrase. Of course it was a joke, but an extremely tasteless one in my opinion. And even a dangerous one because it creates the impression that even if the allegations had been true it would still be okay – which is a totally unacceptable idea in every way. Dave Chappelle probably didn’t mean it, and all of it was just buffoonery, but still there is absolutely nothing amusing about it.

    But what I also understand is that it was Dave Chappelle’s (lame) attempt to voice a different opinion in a highly toxic (to Michael Jackson) environment when people are simply afraid to go against the tide. It is almost like a totalitarian atmosphere where everyone who voices his dissent is immediately shunned and ostracized. So what MJ’s fans appreciate in his statement is his courage in supporting MJ, even at the danger to his own popularity. And this courage is what I also like. But absolutely not the form in which he displayed it. I hope that next time he will find something cleverer to say.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. luv4hutch permalink
    September 8, 2019 10:15 am

    So, you aware of the recent flashpoint of controversy regarding Dave Chappelle’s Netflix special? Among the polarizing moments, he said he didn’t believe Robson and Safechuck, but then said, “but if it did happen…I mean you got raped by Michael Jackson! That’s like a badge of honor!” The press is reporting that “Jackson truthers” are supporting Chappelle, “gleefully” using it, and saying that “everyone, especially the victims, are irate.” Personally, I feel that the divide between critic and public opinion regarding the special is a “tempest in a teapot”, with both sides overplaying their hand, but I mainly feel that Michael’s supporters are not actually, like the press suggests, using the special as part of their arguments, or “threatening” those moving to tear Michael down. Just more press hyperbole regarding the patient zero of fake news.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. September 4, 2019 4:34 pm

    I just found this on Scribd:
    It gives a really good break down of Gutierrez’s role in the manufacture of the false allegations against Michael. What I found really interesting was the part about how Diane Dimond did a pro-Michael news story on Hard Copy only to show that she didn’t have malice towards Michael – William King

    Oh, we spoke about that pro-MJ story by Diane Dimond already 7 years ago, and the fact that the civil suit filed against her by Michael Jackson right at that moment was a perfect incentive for her to present herself as a “unbiased” reporter. Here is the post:

    As to the pdf file there is some interesting information there which is new to us and has not been discussed here.

    First of all the author spoke to the former FBI agent Robert Hamer, who managed to infiltrate NAMBLA though it took him 3 years to be allowed for their sessions after passing various tests. And he says that prior to 2000 their conferences were not that secret, so virtually anybody could attend it (including Gutierrez).
    Of course I am not the one to argue with a former FBI agent, but my post about Gutierrez, his gang and Robert Hamer written in 2011 provided some other materials about the secrecy surrounding NAMBLA and a certain code of their behavior. The picture from their conference attended by Gutierrez in 1986 says it directly that it was a NAMBLA membership conference, so even by definition it was meant for its members and “invited guests”. And they could perfectly well hold their meetings at a public library saying that they gathered there to meet, say, with James Kincaid, professor at the University of Southern California to discuss his literary opus called “Erotic Innocence: The Culture of Child Molesting” or something of the kind.
    You will find these and other details in this post:

    But what I really find interesting about this pdf file are some details of Gutierrez’s biography, yet unknown to us. And again the traces lead us to Arizona where Gutierrez lived for two or three years, between 1981 and 1984 when he fled the state and changed his Social Security Number. After that he emerged in California and later claimed that he had arrived from Chile to report on the 1984 Olympic Games there. So his activity in the period between 1981/92 and 1984 is something he is not too willing to disclose.

    Also there seem to be close ties between California and Arizona. The NAMLA members from California’s chapters complain that the members in Arizona “are more successful” than Californians and the other parts of the nation.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. September 4, 2019 3:19 am

    @Helena Did he actually interview Joy or did he get that information from public sources? – William King

    When the English version of the book was released in 1996 (the Spanish version in 1995) there were no public sources speaking about the Robsons’ family in so much detail. Of course his conversation with Joy Robson was one of many Gutierrez’s so-called interviews with all parents of the children around Michael Jackson. He had been making rounds of them for several years spreading false information about MJ well before Evan Chandler was the first to swallow his stories. Gutierrez’s method was to begin his so-called interviews with “Let me tell you that he is a ped-le”, so they were not so much about asking, but about telling, and the basis for his stories was “what they say in Hollywood.”

    So the succession of the events was as follows:
    the NAMBLA conference where Gutierrez took part >>> rumors that were started in Hollywood >>> Gutierrez spreading these rumors for several years among the parents of children who knew Michael, including the Safechucks AND talking to the house staff wherenever he could >>> meeting the Robson mother and son in 1992 >>> meeting the Chandlers too (the exact time is yet to be specified) >>> the Jordan Chandler scandal>>> Gutierrez cooperating with Evan and Ray Chandler in writing a book >>> their fall-out >>> Gutierrez self-publishing his book in 1995/96 >>> Ray Chandler calling Gutierrez a “sleazebag”, etc.
    Add to it that Gutierrez was in contact with Rodney Allen, a convicted pedophile and that Rodney Allen also put his hand to smearing Jackson (see that story with a false accuser in Canada) and that both were used in this or that way by Tom Sneddon in his persecution/prosecution of Michael Jackson.

    The excerpt from Gutierrez’s book shows that he was provided by Joy Robson with many details of their friendship with Michael, but he exaggerated them to no recognition, distorted the whole timeline, added the juicy details that were never there – in short it is a great illustration of Gutierrez’s modus operandi. And remember that this was Diane Dimond’s “best source”, according to her own admission.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. William King permalink
    September 4, 2019 12:17 am

    I just found this on Scribd:

    It gives a really good break down of Gutierrez’s role in the manufacture of the false allegations against Michael. What I found really interesting was the part about how Diane Dimond did a pro-Michael news story on Hard Copy only to show that she didn’t have malice (towards Michael) to get out of being held accountable in the lawsuit over the sex tape lie. Gutierrez was her main source there, as well; although not directly. He was doing her favor by giving her Rodney Allen to do the story on.


  9. William King permalink
    September 3, 2019 11:31 pm

    @Helena Did he actually interview Joy or did he get that information from public sources?


  10. William King permalink
    September 3, 2019 11:10 pm

    Thank you. I just needed to get the facts straight. I didn’t want to spread misinformation.


  11. September 3, 2019 4:16 pm

    Those unfamiliar with Gutierrez’s stories and powerful imagination may be interested to see what he is writing about Wade Robson and his mother. And if Gutierrez’s weren’t so horrible a liar we could even use his narrative to show that in 1992, at the age of 10 Robson had no contact with Michael whatsoever – “the family was not in touch with MJ”, “they were homeless”, etc. – and that Wade’s mother was duly warned by well-wishers like Gutierrez, only she fully ingored it.

    When reading this opus please note details like “a visit to Disneyland (in 1991!) as a prize in a dance contest in Australia (!)”, “the fax machine given to Wade immediately after the contest (!)”, and “Wade’s father taking Wade to the recording studio they first day they were in the US (!)”, “Joy seeing the boy only the next day (!)”, and many other similar masterpieces from Gutierrez.

    And please remember that this book was studied inside out by District Attorney Tom Sneddon and his people and regarded by them as a credible source. Gutierrez was summoned by the police almost immediately after opening a criminal investigation against MJ and was interviewed by them for two days in a row. This is just a piece of what he must have told them:

    Victor Gutierrez: “When I explained that I was not from a tabloid or
    newspaper, Joy asked me what I wanted to speak about. I
    told her that the basic idea of the book was to speak about
    Jackson’s friendships with minors, and to listen to all sides
    and versions regarding this issue. When I finished speaking,
    Joy exclaimed “It’s not true!”

    I told her that the truth was going to come out one day.
    I asked her to at least let me explain what I had found out
    up until now, and then ask her if there was anything that she
    wanted to add. If not, I would understand. She silently
    listened as I told her about the cases involving other young
    boys and about the several statements made in Hollywood
    about Jackson’s sexual preferences for boys. I gave details
    about how he went about persuading minors. She paid more
    attention when I told her about Jackson’s employees, who
    had seen Jackson with her son in compromising positions.
    She continued to listen attentively and without interruption.

    Now that she knew the details of my investigation, Joy
    sat down on the grass and began to confide in me. Wade was
    reading a magazine, but was close enough to hear his
    mother’s story. She expressed her amazement at hearing
    that other minors had experienced the same story. M y
    friend was listening with equal interest.

    “My son was born September 17th, 1982 and we lived
    in Chatswood Hills, Australia. When my son was five, he
    won a dance contest in Australia. The prize was to meet
    Michael Jackson and go to Disneyland. And so we met him
    in Australia. Right away, Michael gave Wade presents and
    gave us a fax machine so that they could communicate
    better. The trip to Disneyland would come four years later.
    We arrived in the United States in September of 1991.
    On the first day, my husband took Wade to the recording
    studio to meet Michael. When they met, Michael asked if he
    could leave Wade with him and he would drop him off later
    in the afternoon. M y husband said it was okay. Michael,
    though, didn’t bring him back as promised, and I began to
    call his office like crazy so that I could locate Wade. Finally,
    one of the secretaries was able to locate Michael and called
    me at the hotel to say that Wade was okay. I didn’t see my
    son until the next day. That was my welcoming to the
    United States.”
    Joy told us how Jackson had made special arrangements
    to facilitate their obtaining a visa to gain entry into in the
    United States. “Michael had Wade and I sign a contract
    with his production company, MJJ Productions. [The
    contract was dated October 1st, 1991, and filed at the Los
    Angeles Superior Court, under case number BS011073].
    The contract was for one week. Wade was supposed to
    dance in one of Michael’s videos, and he would be paid $400
    a day. He gave us part of the money from his pocket and we
    received part from his production company.” Joy, however,
    was concerned about the contract. “He made it look like we
    were employees of his under a contract that would make it
    legal for us to get into the country. The money given to us
    after the first week was not related to the contract. It was a gift
    to support us so we could afford to stay in the United States.
    We were breaking the law, and Michael knew it. There
    were times that I thought immigration would come and
    detain us. Michael told us that we shouldn’t worry about it,”
    said the mother.
    Joy was referring to the fact that after the one week
    contract expired so did the reason for their visa, and, technically,
    they should have left the country. Jackson, though, wanted
    Wade to stay, and so he supported his family for another two
    months in the United States. Joy and her son could not prove
    that they were working for Michael Jackson beyond the one
    week, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service
    could have deported them.
    During their stay with Jackson, he bought Joy and Wade
    numerous presents, and Wade and Jackson spent much time
    playing together outside of the presence of Joy. One day,
    though, that would change. “I told Michael that where my
    son would go I would go. Of course, Michael didn’t like
    this. I also told him that I didn’t want my son to sleep with
    him. Wade would stay with me at night and if Michael
    wanted to play with him during the day, it would be in a
    place where I could keep watch.” These demands proved to
    be very costly for her.
    “If there was something I learned, it’s that I shouldn’t
    have gone against Michael. He was enraged. It was because
    of this that we left the ranch. He didn’t give us any money.
    He left it up to us to contact him, but he never took our calls.
    We were calling because we needed money. We didn’t want
    to leave the country. Wade was finally able to speak with
    him and asked him if he would take him on the ‘Dangerous’
    tour, but Michael said that he never took kids on tour. My
    son believed him, but afterwards he found out that he had
    taken five boys that Wade had known. My son was very sad
    and confused. He was depressed. This is why we are in the
    street trying to earn money.”
    At first, it did not seem as they were poor. But after
    some time it became apparent to me that they were homeless.
    They once had a rich life with one of the most famous
    people in the world. Now they were in the street without
    money, without friends, and hoping that Wade’s dancing
    would put bread on the table. Joy needed to talk, and she
    continued “Michael manipulated my son, that was what I
    didn’t like about him. He always made my son feel guilty if
    he didn’t do what he wanted.” I interrupted her to ask her the
    obvious, as I needed to hear her say it. “Manipulate your
    son? What was it that Michael wanted with a boy like your
    son?” Joy looked at me. She was upset and disgusted with
    what I had asked. She said: “I think the both of us know
    what we’re talking about. Michael was obsessed with my
    son. When I asked him why he wanted to sleep with my son,
    he replied that we would talk about it later. It never
    Joy told of her experience in trying to talk to Jackson
    about subjects other than her son. She spoke to Jackson
    about their life and how they were going to reach their
    goals. During these conversations, Joy would get upset
    because Jackson would turn the conversation to boys.
    “Michael would say to me ‘our’ boys need his love, referring
    to my son and other boys. It was the way in which he talked
    about them that confused me. He wouldn’t talk of anything
    else. We would begin to talk about something and it would
    end with ‘our’ boys.” Among the boys talked about was the
    actor Macaulay Culkin. “Michael said to me that Macaulay
    was rebellious and that his parents didn’t care about their
    son. That is why he wanted Macaulay to come and live with
    him. Michael was obsessed with Macaulay just as he was
    with another boy that we knew at the ranch, Jimmy
    Safechuck, who was the other Pepsi dance contest winner.
    The obsession with Macaulay was deeper than the obsession
    with my son.”
    Joy turned out to be something of an opportunist. She
    tried to use my interview as a means of making good
    Jackson’s promise of the “good life.” The next day, Joy
    called the manager at Neverland Ranch, Norma Staikos,
    who was, according to police, the person that “provided”
    the “boys for Jackson. Joy told Norma that a journalist had
    an abudance of information and was asking questions about
    the relationship between Jackson, her son and other boys.
    She explained that the journalist was writing a book about
    Jackson on the subject of his being a pedophile. Joy told her
    that the journalist knew where Wade was and he would
    return to continue with the conversation. Staikos became
    alarmed. She believed Joy’s manipulative story, and
    understood what Joy wanted. She told Joy that the first
    thing they were going to do was pick her up at the apartment
    and take her to the ranch. Joy was happy. She thought her
    economic problems were going to be over soon, and that
    she had Jackson in the palm of her hand.’

    Liked by 1 person

  12. September 3, 2019 3:46 pm

    A wedding ceremony I don’t remember but a medallion I do – it was worn by Joy Robson when Gutierrez met her and Wade in June 1992. According to Gutierrez’s story Wade was dancing for money on the Venice Beach, California:

    V.Gutierrez: “As we got a bit closer, I realized that it was Wade
    Robson, the nine year old boy from Australia who was one
    of Jackson’s “little friends.” I couldn’t believe it, I had been
    looking for this boy and his mother for more than five
    months without any luck and here, by chance, I found both
    of them. It was a great opportunity to interview them.
    Wade’s mother, Joy, was behind him showing off photos of
    Wade with Michael Jackson in a photo album. Before I was
    able to present myself, Joy was approached by a lady who
    was interested in contracting the services of the young
    dancer. The mother was saying that she needed the money
    and that she would give her a special price. As I approached
    Joy, Wade ran up to her and said that he had only got three
    dollars from his latest performance. He took two one dollar
    bills and some coins out of his hat.
    I introduced myself to the mother saying that I was a
    journalist and that I was writing a book about Jackson
    which concerned his relationship with minors, including his
    being a pedophile. While I was introducing myself, I
    noticed she had a gold chain with a medallion about two and
    a half inches in diameter; it had Jackson’s profile on it. I
    asked her if Jackson had given it to her and she said that he
    had given it to her son, it was just that she liked to wear it.

    As to the so-called “wedding ceremony” I don’t understand why everyone thinks that it must have been prompted to James Safechuck solely by Gutierrez. In my opinion Safechuck could take it from fictional or even real stories published on the web or invent it all by himself. Or he could even imagine it in a drug-induced delirium that such a ceremeony had indeed taken place – by his own admission he took drugs for a long time. And the ring doesn’t mean anything either, it could easily be Michael’s present to his mother.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. William King permalink
    September 3, 2019 2:09 pm

    No but I feel like I should just to be able to have my facts straights regarding Safechucks original allegation. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t there a mention of a medallion in the book and a wedding ceremony?


  14. September 3, 2019 1:38 pm

    @Helena is there a way to get a free pdf version of MJ is My Lover? – William King

    Are you absolutely sure you want to read this filth?


  15. William King permalink
    September 3, 2019 12:18 pm

    @Helena is there a way to get a free pdf version of MJ is My Lover?


  16. William King permalink
    September 3, 2019 11:52 am

    @Battenburg Yeah we do because her name is on the witness list. She was just one of three, I believe, who knew Chandler during the time period. Chandler was attending NYU during the 2005 trial along side them. Hopefully Josephine’s testimony will inspire others to come forward as well.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Battenburg permalink
    September 3, 2019 7:39 am

    With LNL sinking faster than Titanic, Reed is desperate for sleaze to keep the allegations in the public consciousness. With Michael gone, there will never be any new stories and so these bottom feeders are going back through historic interviews to look for any quote or soundbite that is ambiguous enough for them to present as though it’s “yet more proof of Michael’s wrongdoing”.

    With regards to Danny Wu’s “Square One”, do we know if Josephine Zohny is the same friend that Tom Mesereau was going to have testify against Jordy Chandler?

    If it is, then that’s great as it validates Tom’s claim that he had such a witness.

    If it isn’t the same person, that that’s even better as it means that there’s multiple people that can discredit his allegation.


  18. luv4hutch permalink
    September 2, 2019 10:38 am

    I figured it was something like that. On a bit of good news, it looks like the Weinstein doc that Leaving Neverland edged out of focus, reviews and conversation at Sundance finally premiered on Hulu, and now it’s getting the attention it should’ve had:

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Battenburg permalink
    September 2, 2019 4:33 am


    No, she isn’t.

    In an interview she simply said that she saw some crazy things backstage and the clickbait news websites have presented this as if she saw something “sinister” or “disturbing”.

    Of course she saw crazy things backstage. This was the Bad tour, not some low key classical concert.


  20. luv4hutch permalink
    September 1, 2019 5:02 pm

    Wait, is Sheryl Crow now turning on Michael and declaring him guilty, too?


  21. August 31, 2019 5:08 pm

    “I’ve reread Wade’s testimony from 2005 and found and interesting tidbit where he’s questioned about the first visit” – rider

    Robson indeed thought for quite a long time that he had stayed at Neverland for a week and all this time Chantal was with him. I call it “the memory of a 7-year old” and even wrote a post about it in 2015. Here is an excerpt:

    The way the 22-year old Wade Robson remembered the events that took place 15 years prior to that will surely make you smile.

    His memory of his first visit to the US at the age of seven was so vague and unclear about certain things that one can’t help being amazed that now he remembers all of it so well. Ten more years have passed and he suddenly recollects every detail of it? What an interesting phenomenon indeed.

    His then memory was full of exciting impressions but had little correct detail in respect of time and location:

    25 … we went, my whole family

    26 went to the ranch. And, you know, we stayed for, I

    27 don’t know, about a week or something like that.

    28 Q. And approximately what year do you think you

    1 first went to Neverland, Mr. Robson?

    2 A. That was 1989.

    3 Q. Okay. And who did you go to Neverland with

    4 the first time?

    5 A. Went with my mother, my sister, my father,

    6 and my grandfather, grandmother.

    7 Q. And how long did you stay during that first

    8 visit?

    9 A. I think it was about a week.

    10 Q. And after you spent a week at Neverland,

    11 what did you do?

    12 A. Went back to Australia.

    21 Q. Do you recall the second time you ever

    22 visited Neverland?

    23 A. No, I don’t.

    What a great timeline indeed. So he thought that his stay at Neverland lasted for about a week. And all this time his family was with him:

    “we stayed for, I don’t know, about a week or something like that”

    And then they went back to Australia. There was no second weekend at Neverland, no trip to Los Angeles, no travel to San Francisco of his father and grandparents – it was just a “week” with Michael spent by the whole family and that’s it.

    Is it a lie? No, it isn’t – it is just the memory of a child. Try to remember yourself when you were seven and you will realize that you are able to recall only some fragments that produced the biggest impression on you, positive and negative alike. They come as a flashback here, a flashback there with no connection between the two and no clear succession and timeline of the events.

    The older members of the family will naturally tell you more about your own childhood and as a result of their descriptions, photos, videos, etc. you will have a more or less coherent picture of your childhood, but you will agree that your own memory retains only the brightest and most emotional moments of your early past.

    In the same way Wade’s memory captured only the brightest moments of that visit – and it was the time he stayed with Michael Jackson.

    Michael was all that mattered to him at the time, and this is why their nearly month-long visit to the US reduced in his memory to one week only. It is clear that he remembered nothing but only the time he spent with Michael, while all other events of the trip completely faded away.

    If you had asked him then where they stayed in LA before or after they met Michael, he wouldn’t be able to tell – all he remembered was the time he spent with Michael. His impressions of him compressed into one continuous week “after which they all went to Australia” and that’s it.

    Robson’s testimony of his later years became more detailed and accurate as he was growing older, but at the age of 7 his memory was as fragmented as yours or mine at the same age. If something really grandiose or horrendous happened to us, we do remember it while the routine events uncolored by any emotion fade away. Test yourself and you will see that the only things you remember are the episodes imprinted into the memory through some strong emotion – joy, fear, happiness, anxiety, distress, shock, amazement, etc. All the rest of it is nearly blank – unless the impression made by the event was really strong.

    So Robson’s memory was typical for his age and even though formally his timeline was all wrong he was telling the truth when he was testifying about it in 2005.

    Robson also clearly remembered that his sister Chantal had been together with him all the time he was with Michael. For him it was a “week” again and technically speaking his impression was correct – they really stayed with Michael for two weekends (four days) and for a couple more days in Los Angeles closer to the end of the trip. And all in all the period was indeed something like a “week”. The only difference is that it wasn’t a continuous stay with MJ, but the whole time spent with him made up of separate occasions.

    Here is an example of what Robson remembered about the fun they had together with his sister Chantal there – rides, golf carts, animals, videos and even a jacuzzi. He clearly remembers that she slept with him in Michael’s bed on three or four occasions (which coincides with Chantal’s words) and remembers that she was with him the entire time “during that week”:

    28 Q. Okay. What do you recall doing at Neverland 9098

    1 during that first visit when you spent approximately

    2 a week?

    3 A. Well, at that point he didn’t have many of

    4 the rides. We would watch movies in the theater.

    5 You know, we’d play video games. We’d drive around

    6 on the golf carts, look at the animals. Those sort

    7 of things.

    24 A. One time with my sister and I, my sister and

    25 I and Michael, we went in the Jacuzzi at Neverland

    26 Ranch.

    27 Q. And do you know approximately when that was?

    28 A. I don’t. I can’t say for sure. I have a

    1 feeling that it was within that first trip in ‘89

    2 when I went there.

    3 Q. Do you recall what Mr. Jackson was wearing

    4 in the Jacuzzi?

    5 A. From my recollection, he was wearing shorts.

    5 Q. Now, you said your sister would sometimes

    6 stay in Mr. Jackson’s room, correct?

    7 A. Yes.

    8 Q. And how often do you recall that happening?

    9 A. I remember it just within that first trip we

    10 were there. So it was — it was, you know, three or

    11 four nights or something like that.

    1 Q. All right. But you slept in the same bed

    2 with him when you were seven years old; is that

    3 correct?

    4 A. Yes.

    5 Q. Was anybody else in that bed with you?

    6 A. My sister, Chantel Robson.

    7 Q. She was ten years old; is that right?

    8 A. Yes.

    9 Q. Is it true that there was not another adult

    10 anywhere in that room at the time you crawled into

    11 bed with Mr. Jackson?

    12 A. True.

    13 Q. And in fact, you continued to sleep with Mr.

    14 Jackson through the balance of that week during your

    15 seventh year; is that right?

    16 A. Yes.

    17 Q. Was your sister there the entire time during

    18 that week as well?

    19 A. Yes.

    20 Q. Was she in that bed with you as well?

    21 A. Yes.

    I don’t know how Robson is going to reconcile his then version that “Chantal stayed with him for the entire week” and “always slept with him in one bed” with his tragic story today that “he was left behind for a week all alone there”. Something definitely does not fit here, but let it be Robson’s headache and not ours.

    Instead let us approach the matter from a different side and see whether Robson ever mentioned staying at Neverland alone, without his mother. Is there anything in his testimony to suggest that at some point he could really be alone there?

    No, there is absolutely nothing to suggest it. He remembers one occasion when his mother was not accompanying him to Neverland. It was just once and it took place three years after their first visit to the US, in 1993. By then he had already met Jordan Chandler and actually the reason why he stayed on his own at Neverland was that there were other children there, including Jordan Chandler, Macaulay Culkin and Brandi Jackson.

    See some more excerpts from Robson’s then testimony:

    — most of the time my mother

    1 and I went to the ranch together. I think once I

    2 was there by myself without my mother. There was

    3 other people there.

    12 Q. Were there occasions that Mr. Jackson would

    13 summon you to Neverland Ranch?

    14 A. Summon me?

    15 Q. Yes. Call you up and ask you to come and be

    16 there; invite you to Neverland Ranch?

    17 A. Invite us, yeah.

    18 Q. All right. Without your mother?

    19 A. Like ask if I could come without my mother,

    20 do you mean?

    21 Q. Or just ask you to come, and you came by

    22 yourself.

    23 A. The only time I remember being there —

    24 sorry. The only time I remember being there was

    25 that — that trip that we spoke of by myself with

    26 Jordie Chandler and Macaulay.

    7 Q. Now, how often do you recall your mother

    8 going to Neverland with you?

    9 A. It’s been every time except for that one

    10 time that I spoke of when I was there with Jordie

    11 Chandler and Macaulay and I.

    So despite all those insistent questions Robson recalled only one occasion when he was at Neverland without his mother. It was three years after his first visit there and he was actually not alone there but with Jordan Chandler and Macaulay Culkin.

    And that was all.

    Liked by 3 people

  22. August 31, 2019 4:02 pm

    In reference to the Marlon Brando story: ”My father would never have been friends with Michael if he thought he was capable of doing harm to kids, and he would never imply anything negative about Michael. Please correct your story.” -Miko Brando”

    In this case I appreciate much more the opinion of Mike Brando who was really a close friend to Michael and always vehemently defended him. As to Marlon Brando, I doubt that he was Michael’s friend – he was just using him, for money and his own comfort. And his own morals were so loose that he was definitely not the one to climb on his high horse and judge others.
    The problem with people with no moral compass is that they usually interpret other people’s behavior by their own standards. So frankly, I don’t even care what he said or didn’t say about Michael Jackson – no matter what he thought about MJ his opinion was skewed by default.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. August 31, 2019 3:22 pm

    “Many were sure we’d moved on and left Michael behind.” – Dialdancer

    Dialdancer, I think they don’t understand that they themselves contribute to enlarging the number of Michael Jackson’s supporters. What many of us resent is the injustice of it all, and the more they continue with it the stronger is the response. Every new big and massive onslaught against Michael raises at least a new wave of curiosity on the part of those who were never even interested, and once they look into the details and see that the smear is intentional, many of them also join in and become Michael’s defenders.

    And what’s great about it is that it is a sort of a natural selection of honest people who cannot tolerate injustice and cannot be indifferent to it. This is what brings them together and makes them as one. So in a way all this character assassination of Michael Jackson is a sort of a blessing in disguise. It draws into Michael’s orbit the people with a similar outlook and similar life values. And this is an amazing process – these people have never seen each other and probably never will, but thanks to Michael Jackson they have found each other and now act as one.

    Look at Lanny Wu, a young Chinese-Canadian filmmaker and the way he came to defend Michael. He made a documentary film with new evidence of Michael Jackson’s innocence as he contacted some people who know Jordan Chandler. The video is to be released at the end of September and will be available on Youtube. And though we have come a long way ourselves I feel like the real fight is only beginning!

    New evidence dug up in Michael Jackson case
    By Zhang Rui, August 30, 2019

    Danny WuA Chinese-Canadian filmmaker will debut a new independent documentary film on the first child molestation case against American pop icon Michael Jackson in late September in Hollywood.

    “Square One,” made by Youtuber Danny Wu, is said to dig up new evidence from the notorious 1993 case involving alleged victim Jordan Chandler, which caused the downfall of Michael Jackson, who had been enjoying “juggernaut” status in the world’s music landscape and pop culture before the case.

    Wu, whose Chinese name is Wu Yue, told he actually contacted the individuals who had been on the witness list for the 2005 Michael Jackson child molestation case, the second one in the King of Pop’s life which ended up with his acquittal, and got them to talk about never-before-heard testimonies about the case and insights. One of them is Josephine Zohny, a friend of Chandler who is ready to come forward and break the silence while Chandler himself went into hiding.

    Thursday, Aug. 29, marked the late singer’s 61st birthday anniversary, however, Jackson’s reputation and music legacy was threatened and marred rather than being celebrated this year as a controversial documentary, “Leaving Neverland,” made by Dan Reed caused an uproar and disputes online and in the public forum on whether Jackson actually harmed children.

    The documentary film, funded by HBO and Channel 4, debuted at Sundance Film Festival on Jan. 25 with two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, bringing forward lewd claims against Jackson. The two were accused of being liars by Jackson fans and supporters, and their lawsuits were rejected by a judge while trying to sue Michael Jackson and his companies for millions if not billions of dollars.

    “When ‘Leaving Neverland’ was announced, I was shocked, I didn’t know what to think,” Wu said, who admitted he was a casual fan since 2008 and once who danced to his music. “I thought he was guilty but it didn’t feel right to just blindly accept it, so I did some research.”

    Wu was born in Chengdu, Sichuan province in 1996, and moved with his parents to Canada when he was 7 years old. As a basketball lover who also won many awards in this field, he once was more passionate about the game than Jackson but he still managed to imitate all the singer’s dance moves. He actually performed for his school on June 17, 2009 for the first time, but just eight days later, Michael Jackson died of a propofol overdose administered by his personal doctor.

    “Michael Jackson’s death really hit me hard,” he said. Life also changed for him later, as he suffered two knee injuries that forced him to stop playing basketball. He then worked as a basketball coach and, two years ago, he found his new stardom online by making videos.

    After “Leaving Neverland” stirred up a new round of controversy, he made two Michael Jackson videos showing the other side of the story, which would prove Jackson was indeed innocent despite the accusations. Each of his videos had around 100,000 views and he donated the money he made to Taj Jackson, the nephew of Michael Jackson who has been fundraising an untitled documentary series intended to clear all the misunderstandings, disinformation and false charges.

    Taj Jackson and Brandi Jackson, niece of the pop star, later appeared in Wu’s show to defend Michael Jackson, but he also realized that most of the allegations always led back to the 1993 case, so he started to investigate the original case and check the witness list, managing to persuade some to speak in his new film.

    After making this film, Wu said his current position is: “Nothing is certain. We can’t be certain of anything except that Michael Jackson is not here to defend himself. The inconsistencies of the accuser’s stories are also undeniable and to ignore that, is irresponsible.”

    He added, “We also must not ignore the fact that Michael Jackson was found not guilty on 14 counts of child molestation. Thus, he should be assumed innocent, which I believe he is. Unless there is viable proof, I will not change my stance.”

    The inconsistencies of “Leaving Neverland,” as angry Jackson fans kept pointing out, included examples that James Safechuck said in the film that he was molested from 1988 until 1992 in Jackson’s Neverland train station which was proved to not have been built until 1994, while Wade Robson also claimed he was molested by Jackson in 1990 while he was left alone with the singer and while his family went on a trip to the Grand Canyon. But in 1993, Robson testified in the Chandler case that he went with his family to the Grand Canyon. His mother, Joy Robson, said the same thing during her testimony.
    Both the alleged victims never responded to the inconsistencies.

    Comedian Dave Chappelle recently flat-out said that he didn’t believe Robson and Safechuck in his latest Netflix comedy special “Sticks & Stones”.

    John Branca, the co-executor of the Estate of Michael Jackson, told TMZ on Aug. 27, “We agree with Dave Chappelle – these guys are liars. After years of exploiting Michael’s generosity, they waited until he was gone and unable to defend himself before accusing him.”

    Danny Wu’s “Square One,” will premiere at TCL Chinese Theatre in Hollywood during the Indie Night Film Festival on Sept. 28, and will be released online on Oct. 5 worldwide.
    Square One


  24. Susanne permalink
    August 31, 2019 12:11 pm

    Why is Brando’s deposition leaked now all these years later on Michael’s birthday?
    Why didn’t Sneddon use it in the trial? Brando may have been dead at the time but he was under oath when he testified so Sneddon could use it.
    Who has leaked this? Nobody seems to wonder about that. The DA or Robson’s lawyer?
    Miko’s statement makes me wonder if they have altered his father’s statement.
    They have fabricated stories for decades so why would they stop now?


  25. rider permalink
    August 30, 2019 11:45 pm

    Helena, I haven’t thought about Blanca, it’s great point.
    I’m not convinced by your argument with regards to Kleindeinst’s potential incompetence, but to each their own. However, several dozens of pages of Joy’s and Wade’s depositions are missing (for some reason) from the publically available transcripts, so maybe there’s something there that we haven’t heard.
    I’ve reread Wade’s testimony from 2005 and found and interesting tidbit where he’s questioned about the first visit:

    Q. And in fact, you continued to sleep with Mr.

    Jackson through the balance of that week during your

    seventh year; is that right?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Was your sister there the entire time during

    that week as well?

    A. Yes.

    Q. Was she in that bed with you as well?

    A. Yes.

    Now, it may not refer to our “missing” week, but to the next almost-week that they spent in Michael’s apartment apartment LA, but still, could Chantal have possibly stayed with Wade?


  26. Dialdancer permalink
    August 30, 2019 11:21 pm

    Vindicatemj (Helena) said: “The thorough shredding of ‘Leaving Neverland’ into pieces seems to have come as a surprise to its authors as well as the mainstream media – none of them expected Michael Jackson’s fans to watch the film in the first place, not to mention the fans’ determination to dissect it.”

    This is true, what else they did not expect was the voluminous response to LNL by us. By year ten the Fanbase of most deceased iconic persons is gone and even the most horrendous stories about them only stir a hot but quickly forgotten response.. Many were sure we’d moved on and left Michael behind. They saw, assumed and reported the large Fan websites were no longer heavily populated or gone; therefore we were gone for good.

    Over the years I learned one thing the people who make it their mission to try and sully Michael’s name undermine and question his achievements and contributions all suffer from the same malady. That is avarice. Most come from the entertainment world, even those who are loosely affiliated (journalists & critics) want & need a large and loyal, and dedicated following. Few have bigger, even after 10 yrs of death than Michael Jackson. Fewer still continue to draw in new people and none have the time tested loyalty as MJ’s. Hince the comments about Fans worshiping him, building godlike images of him and the rest of the envious blather.

    Dan Reed neither worked or associated with Michael. I doubt until he was presented with a story that was meant to gain him many gold statues he gave MJ a thought so we were a surprise. Wade saw us as a means of promoting his work and revenue, but he did not know us. Of all persons involved in this fraudulent venture, Oprah is the one who should have known better. But I guess she figured 10 yrs was long enough and with MJ dead she’d try her hand at playing god again. Life goes on and so must we, but that does not mean that Michael doesn’t remain a part of us.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Dialdancer permalink
    August 30, 2019 11:12 pm

    In reference to the Marlon Brando story: Miko Brando responds. Just don’t expect to see this article splashed everywhere like the other story. After all Miko does not have the MSM connections like HBO or Dan Reed or Harvey Weinstein to insure it is widely known & read..

    (Marlon Brando’s son slams report of dad making Michael Jackson cry) :
    “”This is just someone’s cheap publicity stunt to promote their paid podcast. My father would never have been friends with Michael if he thought he was capable of doing harm to kids, and he would never imply anything negative about Michael. Please correct your story.” -Miko Brando”


  28. August 30, 2019 5:58 pm

    And this is what Marlon Brando was like in his younger years, at least according to this site:
    A sex animal.

    Marlon Brando
    Hollywood’s Rogue Bisexual

    He was a tough guy with a stunningly beautiful face. He got kicked out of high school for riding a motorcycle through the hallways. He once came to the rescue of a skinny kid being taunted and beaten by schoolyard thugs, helped him up, threw his arm around him and said, “I’m your new best friend.”

    Thus began a bizarre, intimate relationship with fellow actor Wally Cox that would last a lifetime. After Cox died in 1973, Brando kept the ashes for safekeeping, because he wanted his own ashes to be commingled with Wally’s when the time came. Sure enough, in 2004, Brando’s family honored his request. The Associated Press reported, “The ashes of Brando’s late friend Wally Cox, who died in 1973, were also poured onto the desert landscape of Death Valley as part of the ceremony of scattering Brando’s ashes.” Brando not only kept his friend’s ashes for more than 30 years, but, when lonely, would sometimes dine with the urn, holding conversations in which he would perfectly imitate Cox’s distinctive voice.

    Unlike many bisexuals (like Cary Grant), who denied their homosexual activity all their lives, Marlon Brando brazenly admitted it. In a 1976 interview, Brando said, “Homosexuality is now so much in fashion it no longer makes news. Like a large number of men, I, too, have had homosexual experiences, and I am not ashamed. I have never paid much attention to what people think about me.”

    Brando was bisexual and possessed of a voracious libido. There were plenty of homosexual experiences to report – among his partners were Burt Lancaster, Laurence Olivier, John Gielgud, Leonard Bernstein, Noël Coward, Clifford Odetts, Tyrone Power, Montgomery Clift (on a dare, they once ran naked down Wall Street together), James Dean and Rock Hudson. Striving for a balanced diet, however, his conquests also included Marilyn Monroe, Marlene Dietrich, Grace Kelly, Rita Hayworth, Shelley Winters, Ava Gardner, Gloria Vanderbilt, Hedy Lamarr, Tallulah Bankhead, Ingrid Bergman, Edith Piaf and Doris Duke (the world’s richest woman at the time).

    By the age of 23 Brando had achieved stardom as Stanley Kowalski in Tennessee Williams’s stage play, A Streetcar Named Desire (1947). When he reprised this role in the 1951 film version, Brando received an Oscar nomination for best actor. By the time of his death, the American Film Institute had named Brando the fourth greatest male film star, and Time Magazine included him in its list of the 100 Most Important People of the 20th Century.

    He was a generous and tireless advocate for social justice, particularly for the rights of African-Americans and Native Americans. He supported statehood for Israel, and in 1946 he performed in Ben Hecht’s Zionist play, A Flag is Born. When Brando read in a newspaper that actress Veronica Lake had fallen on hard times and was working as a cocktail waitress in Manhattan, he had his accountant mail her a check for $1,000; she never cashed it, out of pride, but framed it and hung it on a wall to show to her gay friends.

    The world knew of his predilection for “dark-skinned women”, particularly those of Tahitian and American Indian descent. That Brando had a skinny, bespectacled male lover called Wally didn’t fit the image. Yet he once admitted that he had never been happy with a woman, adding: “If Wally had been a woman, I would have married him, and we would have lived happily ever after.” Wally Cox was the only person Brando allowed to berate him – many was the time that Cox would put Brando in his place.

    In later years he admitted, “I searched for, but never found, what I was looking for either on screen or off. Mine was a glamorous, turbulent life – but completely unfulfilling.” At the time of his death at 80 years old in 2004, he weighed well over 300 pounds and was suffering from diabetes, pulmonary fibrosis, congestive heart failure, liver cancer and failing eyesight. I found a photo of a hugely bloated, fat Brando taken shortly before his death, but I couldn’t bear to post it. I’d rather be in denial of what came at the end of this remarkable life.

    Born 1924, Omaha, Nebraska
    Died 2004, Los Angeles, California

    Newman was floored, totally swept away by Brando’s performance (A Streetcar Named Desire). He went backstage, but was not successful in getting to meet his instant idol. Newman foreswore any other Broadway shows, returning every night (with better seats) to see Brando’s mesmerizing performance. He hatched a plot to meet him. Having read that Brando rode his motorcycle around the city every night after his performance, Newman searched the alleys behind the theater until he spotted a motorcycle. An hour after the curtain, Brando appeared, and Paul nervously confronted his prey with a well-rehearsed line: “Mr. Brando, you’re the greatest thing since God granted men the right to cum.”

    Worked like a charm. Next thing you know, Brando was saying, “Now get your f*cking cute little ass over here and plop it down on my cycle. I’m going to take you on a tour of the midnight sights of Manhattan.”

    According to Carlo Fiore, Brando’s longtime companion, Brando later boasted, “I f*cked the kid in all known positions. He even inspired me to some new ones. The kid even resembles me. It was as if I was f*cking my younger self, even though he’s just a few years younger than me. Of course, by the time he got on that train back to Ohio, he’d fallen madly in love with me.”


  29. August 30, 2019 5:38 pm

    Мария, you’ve made some very good points.
    Of course Brando had no facts and was expessing his opinion only, or rather his interpretation of what he saw (Michael’s tears). And the interpretation of another person’s behavior always depends on the mindset and way of thinking of the one who interprets it.

    For example, if the viewer is a monster he is guaranteed to interpret what he sees accordingly, because every person projects his own personality and his own way of thinking onto what he sees.

    in this connection the Guardian article about Marlon Brando in 1996 may be of interest to us (you remember that Brando talked to Michael two years prior to that, in 1994). So this is what Brando was like two years after he shared his opinion of MJ with the prosecutors.

    Marlon Brando was my idol but he turned into a monster. He sabotaged my film

    Screenwriter Ron Hutchinson reveals the bizarre truth behind one of the Hollywood giant’s final films, The Island of Dr Moreau
    Dalya Alberge
    Sun 17 Sep 2017 00.05 BSTLast modified on Sat 2 Dec 2017 02.43 GMT
    Marlon BrandoMarlon Brando in The Island of Dr Moreau, 1996. Photograph: Moviestore/Rex/Shutterstock
    He was one of cinema’s biggest stars, but Marlon Brando behaved like a “monster” and seemed “hell-bent on sabotaging” The Island of Dr Moreau, one of his last films, according to its screenwriter.
    When Ron Hutchinson was asked to work on a film with The Godfather star in 1996, he could not believe his luck. In adapting HG Wells’s science fiction novel about a renegade scientist who creates an island of monsters, Hutchinson would be working with one of his great acting idols, as well as the acclaimed director John Frankenheimer. There was the added bonus of spending a couple of months on the Great Barrier Reef and in the rainforests of northern Australia.
    But when Hutchinson joined the production team, he witnessed “one of the legendary movie disasters of all time”, describing it as a “$40m train wreck”.

    He was shocked to discover that Brando – who he claims arrived on location “weighing about 300 pounds” – would not recite words written for him: “He wanted to improvise it all.” And Brando would rarely emerge from his trailer: “They were flying in these hapless [studio] executives to try to beg him to come out of his damned trailer.

    “Brando was only answering the door when the pizza man came. This was the best news that the pizza-makers of Cairns, this small town, had ever had because Brando was consuming industrial quantities of pizza while ruminating on what the hell he was going to do when he had to face the cameras. I think there might have been an existential terror there.”

    Hutchinson, who was born in Northern Ireland, is an Emmy award-winning screenwriter, Olivier-nominated playwright and was writer-in-residence for the Royal Shakespeare Company before making the move to work in Hollywood. His five previous collaborations with Frankenheimer included the Emmy-winning Against The Wall, about the 1971 Attica prison riot, starring Samuel L Jackson.
    Next month, Oberon Books will publish his memoir, Clinging to the Iceberg: Writing for a Living on the Stage and in Hollywood. In it he has relived a painful chapter of his career – so painful that he has never watched The Island of Dr Moreau since its completion.

    Although Brando revolutionised acting with his mesmerising performances in classics such as A Streetcar Named Desire and On the Waterfront, he was known to loathe producers, directors and even acting. Frankenheimer had warned Hutchinson that there were difficulties with working with Brando, sending over some initial footage shot after he replaced the original director, Richard Stanley.

    “He [Frankenheimer] said: ‘Take a look at these [tapes] before you actually commit.’ They showed Brando sitting in a hammock with literally the smallest person who’s ever been measured by scientists, the actor Nelson De la Rosa who was just under 28 inches tall.
    “Brando absolutely fell in love with this guy. He put him on his chest in the hammock and sang ‘Frog Went A-Courting’ to him. There was 90 minutes of that. John said: ‘This is all I can persuade Brando to do.’ ”

    Hutchinson writes in his book: “By this stage of his life Brando, playing the God of Moreau’s island and emerging as the God of the production, was way beyond bored with the making of movies. Overweight, unprepared, mocking, dismissive, on the razor’s edge where caprice becomes malice, the case for the prosecution is therefore easily made. He was indeed here to sabotage this movie.”

    He continues: “Brando placed a kitchen colander on his head, slathered himself in sunscreen, fell in love with Nelson, retired to his trailer and refused to leave it.”

    Looking back, Hutchinson now notes the irony that, in making a film about an island of monsters, everybody in the movie turned into a monster: “Everybody behaved monstrously to each other.”

    He was shocked to discover the “poisonous” relations between Brando and most of the other actors. Careful about mentioning names, Hutchinson refers to incidents including a “prohibition” on one actor being allowed to handle a gun – even one that fired blanks.

    There was such intense hatred that the executives eventually “threw up their arms” and asked the actors to film “a one-man show” that would be stitched together in post-production: “It was an island of crazy people – an awful experience.”


  30. August 30, 2019 5:14 pm

    Wade and Joy discuss it in their private emails back in 2012. They had no idea those emails would become public and had no reason to pretend with each other that something that never happened did happen. – rider

    Initially it was a stumbling block for me too and I thought the same way you did. It baffled me for some time, but not until I recalled in what country I live. 🙂 Only then did I have a guess about what could that email exchange mean. When you are constantly at risk of your telephone being tapped and your private correspondence monitored, you start – well – safeguarding yourself. Taking precautions over some sensitive issues. Saying one thing meaning another. Just to be on the safe side. Just in case. Not always, but still.

    With regard to Robson, we must realize that as soon as his anti-MJ project started, he and his mother began functioning in a somewhat similar mode. Since Robson engaged himself in a colossal legal case there was a risk, if not a guarantee, that one say the court would rule to produce all his private correspondence. And in fact the court did make such a ruling, only at first Robson didn’t provide any, then claimed the client-attorney privilege in respect of correspondence with his own mother, then produced just a few emails least damaging to himself, and destroyed the rest.

    What I mean is that it is quite possible that from the moment Robson started on his venture he, his mother and the rest of the family agreed about a certain cautious strategy which they adhered to even in their private correspondence. Just to be on the safe side. Envisaging the possible consequences. And his mother’s enigmatic reply about her “having several variants” regarding that trip and seeing which one would benefit him most is an indication that all is not as clean here as it looks.

    You will agree that a reply like that is not normal to say the very least, and besides many other things it shows that both of them do share a certain strategy. And that she is aware of her son’s new storyline.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. August 30, 2019 4:29 pm

    “the estate’s lawyer, Katherine Kleindeinst, that deposed moma Robson, would’ve let Joy get away with that vague “whole family” answer. She would’ve asked her specifically about Wade” – rider

    Not necessarily. It seems to me that Katherine Kleindeinst’s goal was to ask the same questions that were asked before, in previous depositions and in a maximally neutral form – not to get Joy Robson on the alert and to see if she gave the same answer as before. Of course all of us would have preferred to hear a point-blank question and a direct answer, but it seems that K.Kleindeisnt didn’t ask it. By the way I noticed that in other situations she also missed several opportunities.

    During the AEG trial Brian Panish, Katherine Jackson’s lawyer, often changed the subject right at the moment when it was time to ask the crucial question. At first I thought that it was some kind of tactics on his part and he would certainly get back to it, but he never did. I remember being absolutely mad at him on several occasions because of the several perfect opportunities he missed.

    Lawyers are not ideal. Some are not prepared well enough, and some seem to be cowardly and afraid to get an unwelcome answer, so avoid asking direct questions.

    But even the way it is Katherine Kleindeisnt did ask Joy Robson whether the kids went away together with all the others to the Grand Canyon and Joy Robson said YES.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. August 30, 2019 3:58 pm

    Rider, you are asking perfectly legitimate questions. I asked myself the same questions and though I haven’t got final answers yet here is what I think.

    As regards the Neverland staff members who could remember if a 7-year old was left alone for a week there or not, the best sources for us are the worst Michael Jackson’s haters – Blanca Francia and Victor Gutierrez. They were in touch with each other (even have a photo together) and Blanca worked as MJ’s personal maid until June 1991, so in early February 1990 she must have seen Wade. And if the 7-year old boy had been left alone at Neverland she would have certainly remembered it – things like that are not a routine occurrence. At least because she is a mother herself, of a boy approximately the same age, she would have not only noticed it but also wondered about it.

    But as far as I remember neither Blanca Francia, nor Gutierrez ever mentioned any such incident. Before the 2005 trial Blanca as a witness for the prosecution was surely interviewed by the police – for hours – about every little thing incriminating MJ and if any such information about Wade had been found they would have surely used it at the trial. But again, there was no mention of it, ever.

    If the story about that week had been true, Gutierrez would have known it. Blanca Francia, same as Adrian McManus were his informants, and in 1990-1991 both of them were working at Neverland – so if one of them forgot, the other would have remembered it. But again – zero information about a 7-year old boy staying alone at Neverland.

    So with MJ’s haters like Gutierrez, Blanca and McManus the matter of “witnesses who could have seen Wade alone at Neverland” can be closed. If even they don’t know anything about it, then it simply never happened.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. August 30, 2019 3:35 pm

    This thing with Brando is a good example of how we should learn to distinguish 1) when someone talks facts from 2) when someone talks his feelings, fantasies, imagination and “conclusions” (which means nothing and proves nothing).

    I put “conclusions” in quotes, bcs real conclusions are based on facts, not feelings.
    If Brando was so open as to admit to police his doubts about his good friend, then he should have been equally opened to present FACTS.

    Did he see or at least hear anything substantial? Did he had any reason to doubt Michael? Obviously NOT, otherwise he would have told that to police, and the press would have been happy to report it. The absence of facts tells us this: Brando was MJ’s close friend and never saw anything inappropriate.

    Brando says he had doubts because MJ was uncomfortable talking about sex.
    I lot of people are uncomfortable talking about sex, that doesn’t mean the are p-les.
    If Brando felt like that, that’s only because his vision was tinted by accusations.
    I would say that exactly proves MJ’s innocence – IF (if!) MJ did those things his accusers alleged, that would mean he was pretty comfortable with sex (no matter how perversed), and he would have had no problem talking about it and simply lying that in was with women, not kids.

    It’s the same with Sheryl Crow’s nonsence – she didn’t present any facts. If you look closely at what she is saying, she only says that he saw Jimmy, and is mad at people (why mad, what people, why she never said it in 1993 and 2005… why all of that is so vague?)

    When they write articles like this – with no hard facts – they rely on your imagination.
    You start imagining things, that were never said in an article like “oh, but if Brando had doubts MAY BE he saw or heard someting fishy?” Be sure if he saw or heard something, they would have had reported it.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. August 30, 2019 3:20 pm

    Battenburg, very well said.
    I vote for all your alternative explanations of Michael’s tears, especially the first two.


  35. August 30, 2019 3:01 pm

    “I was wondering if you could also do a post about this article.” -kate

    When I read articles like that I don’t know whether to cry or laugh. Its main idea is that in 1994 (Marlon was 70) he was giving acting lessons to Michael and he asked him about those sexual allegations. And Michael cried. The article says that he cried so hard that “the superstar” (meaning Brando) had to comfort him.

    Okay. And what should he have done? Should he have laughed? Michael’s whole life was ruined by those allegations, and nevertheless he should have laughed or what?
    So in the opinion of the media:
    1) tears are a bad sign
    2) laugh is even worse
    3) the answer “he would rather slit his wrists than harm a child” is suspicious because he doesn’t say directly that he didn’t do it
    4) if he says “he didn’t do it” it doesn’t prove anything
    5) if he keeps silence, it is a sign of guilt
    6) if he is indignant and starts smashing things against the wall, it is a sure sign of guilt

    I wonder what answer would suit the media and the reading public? Let them say what answer they prefer because I don’t even know what else could Michael have done to satisfy the demands of the esteemed audience.

    By the way here is the full article:

    Michael Jackson allegedly cried when Marlon Brando confronted him about child sexual abuse allegations

    Suzy Byrne
    Editor, Yahoo Entertainment
    August 29, 2019

    The public’s fascination with Michael Jackson continues. On what would have been his 61st birthday, it’s being reported that the King of Pop was once confronted by his friend Marlon Brando over the child abuse allegations against him — and Jackson broke down in tears.

    The podcast Telephone Stories: The Trials of Michael Jackson touts in a press release that it obtained the sworn account Brando gave to Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys on March 14, 1994, and that interview — which was recorded and transcribed — will be featured in its season finale on Sunday.

    In it, Brando reportedly told authorities, “I think it’s pretty reasonable to conclude that [Jackson] may have had something to do with kids.”
    The reclusive Oscar winner — a close friend and visitor to Neverland Ranch — had been contacted by the D.A.’s office and spoke with district attorneys Bill Hodgman, of O.J. Simpson trial fame, and Lauren Weis about “an unusual conversation he had with Jackson and his suspicions concerning the King of Pop’s behavior around young boys,” according to the press release. He also relayed “impressions and concerns” he had discussed with his son, Miko C. Brando, who worked as a security guard for Jackson.

    Brando detailed a “tear-filled conversation” he had with Jackson at Neverland Ranch, the release states. It reportedly took place after Brando confronted Jackson during a private dinner and acting lesson and it “culminated in a revealing exchange between the two men.” Weis, now a judge, confirmed the interview with Brando about Jackson to the Los Angeles Times.

    According to Brando’s documented account, Jackson broke down in tears during the talk and admitted he hated his father, Joe Jackson. The conversation then turned to homosexuality and the children he was accused of sexually abusing, as Jackson had first been investigated for child molestation in 1993. Brando reportedly said that Jackson ended up crying so hard that the superstar had to comfort him.

    That’s when Brando told prosecutors, “With this mode of behavior that’s been going on, I think it’s pretty reasonable to conclude that he may have had something to do with kids.”

    That said, Brando noted that Jackson never came out and said he was gay or admitted to sexual relations with the boys. Instead, he kept crying and was so shaken by the conversation that Brando thought he was telling him something.

    “My impression, was that he didn’t want to answer because he was frightened to answer me,” Brando said.

    Brando also reportedly told the D.A. that the childlike Jackson never cursed and didn’t like when people used the F word. He was especially uncomfortable when being asked about his sex life.

    “I had asked him if he was a virgin and he sort of laughed and giggled, and he called me Brando,” the actor told prosecutors. “He said, ‘Oh, Brando.’ I said, ‘Well, what do you do for sex?’ And he was acting fussy and embarrassed.”

    Brando also asked, “Well, who are your friends?’ He said, ‘I don’t know anybody my own age. I don’t like anybody my own age.’ I said, ‘Why not?’ He said, ‘I don’t know, I don’t know.’ He was crying hard enough that … I tried to assuage him. I tried to help him all I could.”

    This is the first time the conversation between Brando and Jackson has been made public because it was never used as evidence in Jackson’s 2005 trial — which resulted in the pop star’s acquittal. Brando died in 2004 followed by Jackson in 2009.

    After Brando’s death, his son Miko told the L.A. Times his dad counted the pop star among his closest friends in his final years.
    “The last time my father left his house to go anywhere, to spend any kind of time, it was with Michael Jackson. He loved it,” Miko said. “[He] had a 24-hour chef, 24-hour security, 24-hour help, 24-hour kitchen, 24-hour maid service. Just carte blanche.”

    Miko said that the men met through “Quincy Jones back in the 1980s.”

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Battenburg permalink
    August 30, 2019 7:13 am

    Marlon thought Michael crying indicated guilt. It’s a shame that he thought that, but it doesn’t mean anything.


    Marlon Brando said he confronted him about the allegations and said MJ started crying because he was upset that Brando doubted him.

    Marlon Brando said he confronted him about the allegations and said MJ started crying because the ordeal of the case had left MJ exhausted and vulnerable.

    Marlon Brando said he confronted him about the allegations and said MJ started crying because – y’know – being accused of raping children kinda gets you down.

    Unless Michael was saying yes between the tears, his crying confirms nothing. If Brando believes that it means he was guilty, then that’s up to Brando. If he did indeed “confront” Michael about it, then it sounds like Brando had already made up his mind before he asked.

    It doesn’t mean anything.

    Liked by 2 people

  37. August 30, 2019 7:01 am


    I’m sure Helena will give you a better answer, but I want to chime in with my 5 cents.

    1) Big picture: Wade and James are lying. We have more than enough proof that they are lying, even without the Canyon story. No matter where Wade was, in NL or at GC, he was not molested.
    2) Even if Joy for some reason lied 3 times (in her 1993, 2005 and 2016 testimonies)… well, I would thank her for that, as it still gives us a proven contradiction in their story: either Joy lied and Wade was in fact left in NL, or Wade lied and in fact went to GC with his family. Either way one of them is lying, and that is what’s important: why would you lie if you “main story” is true?
    3) Even if Joy lied in 1993 and 2005 as to simply not look like a neglectful mother, the Statute of limitation for perjury (7 years) had ended in May 2012, and she is well aware of that. There is no danger for her to admit, that she lied. Why wouldn’t she tell the truth in 2016 then, why would she willingly contradict her son’s story?
    4) Talking about the emails, you mean Wade’s message to Joy “How did that happen that you guys left me alone there?”? It doesn’t necessarily mean that *he WAS left alone*. It doesn’t even necessarily mean, that *HE THINKS he was left alone*. That could mean that Wade and Joy had agreed already *to present the story as he was left alone* – and Joy in a way confirms that by answering “I wrote DIFFERENT VERSIONS”.
    5) As to why the Estate doesn’t mention… Maybe because they have nothing to prove Wade was at GC. It would take a lot of time and effort to find all employees of NL to try to prove that, but there’s no guarantee that they would find someone who remembers. And because they have enough other proofs, they don’t risk to waste time and energy on that.


  38. Des permalink
    August 30, 2019 6:25 am

    Happy birthday Michael,you are not physically here with us but your leave in our hearts forever.My opinion, the day Michael died,those peoples lives changed forever,they support system gone,their dreams gone,so mother supports son on his lies ,because she feels guilty that she stuffed up his life by making the decision to move to America and separate the children from their father brother grandparents ,am sure that ones things didn’t go the way they planned and he missed out on an education too ,he made sure that his mother owns him the lies. We need more Michael Jackson in our world but we never gonna get one like him ever again,but we had him .


  39. rider permalink
    August 30, 2019 4:36 am

    I’m hesitant to express this opinion on my social media lest I be accused of being a “hater troll”, but you’ve always been very pro free speech on this blog, so I’m hoping that I could have this discussion with you. I actually don’t think the Grand Canyon part of Robson’s tale is false.

    First, Wade and Joy discuss it in their private emails back in 2012. They had no idea those emails would become public and had no reason to pretend with each other that something that never happened did happen. Joy had no misgivings about refuting that bodyguard article.

    Secondly, lawyers’ occupation requires them to be very precise and tenacious. There’s no way that the estate’s lawyer, Katherine Kleindeinst, that deposed moma Robson, would’ve let Joy get away with that vague “whole family” answer. She would’ve asked her specifically about Wade. The Grand Canyon bit is such a monumental part of Robson’s story that, if Joy had actually admitted that Wade’d gone on the trip, the Estate would’ve, for sure, mentioned this lie alongside others in their letter to Pepler or Petititon to compel arbitration. And, for sure, they would’ve published that part of Joy’s depo video as it would’ve been the most damaging (I think we all can agree that it’s the Estate that supplied Lies of Leaving Neverland with the depo tapes).
    The fact that they didn’t, tells me that either they didn’t ask her because they knew Robson actually had been left with Michael or they asked and she said outright that he wasn’t with them. What confuses me is that the Grand Canyon story, unlike others, can actually be verified. Yeah, it happened 30 years ago, but there must’ve been dozens of staff memebers at Neverland at that time, at leat some of them must remember whether a seven year old was left alone for a week there.

    Regarding, Joy’s Grand Jury testimony in 1993. Unpopular opinion, but I think she lied.
    Nowadays, we fans like to portray Joy as this pushy stage-mom who was pursuing Michael, trying to get him to help advance Wade’s career. What we don’t realize is that we’re playing right into the hands of the 2005 prosecution, that painted exactly the same portrait of Joy trying to prove that she would’ve turned the blind eye to the abuse if that’d helped her ambitions. While, I, of course, don’t believe that, I think that Joy had no compunctions about embellishing the truth, trying to disguise the fact that she did have certain expectations that Michael would advance Wade’s career. You can see it clearly in 2005 testimony when she tries very hard to avoid any insinuatuon that Michael helped Wade’s career or that her decision to move to the USA was in any way influenced by the reliance on Michael’s assistance. She also tries to deny that she knew that Wade’d slept in Michael’s bed during the first night (which both Wade and Chantal claimed that she did know). I think she would have had no problem lying about the Grand Canyon or exaggerating Wade’s independence at that age (as she did on multiple occasions) both because it would’ve helped Michael (with whom they still had a relationship both in ’93 and ’05) and because, frankly, saying she’d left a seven year old alone would’ve made her look bad.

    Now, I’d very much like to be wrong about this, it’s always good to poke as many holes as we can in Robson’s tale, but as of now, I’m not convined about the Canyon.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. kate permalink
    August 30, 2019 2:49 am

    Great article. I thank God for people like you who do their research. I was wondering if you could also do a post about this article of Marlon Brando, he said some terrible things about MJ, saying he confronted him about the allegations and said MJ started crying as though he was guilty. I don’t know why Marlon Brando would turn his back on MJ. Please Helena do a post about this, debunking the lies. Thank you so much. God bless you <3.


  41. August 29, 2019 7:45 pm

    First: Happy Birthday to Sweet Michael. We miss you so much.

    Second: If these two idiots think they’re going to get away with this, they got another thing coming. The world knows you’ve been lying. So move on with your lives.

    Thank you for posting Helena.

    ❤️❤️❤️ Justice For Michael ❤️


  42. August 29, 2019 7:24 pm

    Happy birthday, MJ.
    Happy birthday to all those who were brought together by Michael.
    Happy birthday to all of us.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: