Danny Wu’s documentary SQUARE ONE about Michael Jackson is a MUST-SEE
Danny Wu did a remarkable job.
His SQUARE ONE documentary does away with the allegations against Michael Jackson in a very concise and clear way, and what amazes me most is that despite the documentary being only 1 hour and 20 minutes long he manages to cover it all and not miss a thing. Out of the vast exculpatory materials accumulated since Michael Jackson’s passing, Danny Wu managed to select only the most essential facts and documents that tell the truth about those allegations in their most condensed form.
From what I hear about the author he more or less believed Michael Jackson’s accusers after watching the “Leaving Neverland” fake but since it didn’t feel right for him to just blindly accept it, it triggered off his own research and after an obviously very deep dive into the MJ story he made his rebuttal documentary just in two months – a miraculous phenomenon in and of itself, especially considering how impressive the result is.
Even from this point of view it is totally unlike Dan Reed’s tedious shooting and reshooting of his “Leaving Neverland” scenes intended to present its characters in their most favorable light and give them some semblance of credibility through their endless repetitive lies, which are meant to pass off as “research” that actually never took place there.
It is also funny how Danny Wu manages to be slightly ironic about Dan Reed’s crooked job by imitating his signature aerial views and piano music which adds to this documentary at lot as you can’t help occasionally laughing even despite the seriousness of the subject.
In short the quality, accuracy and standard of research of SQUARE ONE are phenomenal, which make it a must-see for those who never heard MJ’s real story and are ready to leave the nasty media matrix to discover the sensational truth that Michael Jackson was an innocent man.
And even long-time researchers like us can also find in the documentary some new facts to carry on with.
NEW WITNESSES
First of all, we finally have an opportunity to listen to some of the people who were on the defense witness list for the 2005 trial. Their names didn’t mean much to us until Danny Wu contacted them and some (not all) agreed to speak for his documentary.
Jenny Winings recalls that she and the other fan were taken by Michael Jackson all around the house and were to his bedroom, bathrooms, memorabilia room which prompted Danny Wu to say: “It speaks volumes to how easily he trusted people to come into his life” to which she agreed, “Yeah. Unfortunately he trusted a lot of people he shouldn’t have trusted” (at 00:14:15) and adds, “Many people can’t believe it that he let us into his house like that”.
The reason why Jenny Winings was on the witness list for the 2005 trial was that she happened to be at Neverland on March 10th 2003, right at the time when Michael was supposedly “abusing” Gavin Arvizo and she knew that it was not happening.
Caroline Fristedt remembers that she and her friends flew to Neverland from Europe and before Michael had to go he told them they could stay and enjoy Neverland as much as they wanted. When the ranch manager took them to the main house he told her that Michael had asked him to give them the royal treatment.
“And we sure got the royal treatment. When we went up to the main house all the staff were lined up on the stairs welcoming us. They told us that we could move around as freely as we wanted to. There were no places off limits” (00:15:20) – another proof that Michael treated all his guests in the same way and gave royal treatment even to the people he hardly knew.
Caroline Fristedt (1:12:50) also happened to spend the entire day with Gavin Arvizo at Neverland, on February 19th 2003.
“This was the very same day Gavin and his mother Janet accused Michael of inappropriate behavior”, she says. “The day they accused Michael of wrongdoing was the day when Gavin didn’t even see Michael. Instead he was with us, having fun.”
You remember that once Tom Sneddon realized that Michael was not even at Neverland at the time of “abuse” initially defined by the Arvizos, he shifted the timeline to a later March period, but oops, here came another inconvenient witness – Jenny Winings, who was at Neverland right at that moment and was ready to testify that nothing happened.
Remember that Ed Bradley was also there at the end of February and told Larry King that he had sat in the kitchen having doughnuts with the Arvizo mother and kids, and they were also telling him how wonderful Michael Jackson was.
But Josephine Zohny is probably the most inconvenient witnesses of all as she was one of those people who could have been put up by the defense had Jordan Chandler testified at the 2005 trial.
The fact is that several years before the trial she had made acquaintance with Jordan Chandler and she heard him speaking directly in defense of Michael Jackson.
She got to know Jordan Chandler in 2001 when she was 16 and came to New York University to study music business. She and Jordan Chandler regularly met at the university program meetings. At the very first meeting she wore a Michael Jackson T-shirt and the young man who came up to her and said he liked her T-shirt turned out to be Jordan Chandler (00:02:30).
At the university Jordan preferred to associate with people who were Michael Jackson fans and she remembers a party at his apartment where he played MJ’s music and made some MJ-like moves which got people cheering him on. His apartment was a sort of a shrine to Michael Jackson and was filled with a lot of his memorabilia (1:03:15)
But a much more important testimony comes from Josephine Zohny (at about 1:09:00) when she speaks about Martin Bashir’s film released in 2003 when it became a huge topic for conversation for all of them, especially at their university program meetings.
“Immediately after the Martin Bashir documentary aired there was a meeting and discussion about whether or not Michael Jackson was a child molester. [..] Those were the people who did not have any fondness for Michael Jackson, and I chimed in with my belief that I didn’t believe that MJ was a child molester and that the documentary was misleading and exploited him. During that conversation Jordan Chandler chimed in and said that he too believed that Michael Jackson wasn’t capable of all the things he had been accused of. He said that voluntarily and he said that without my prompting. And he wasn’t asked”.
“He wasn’t in the direct conversation. No. I was arguing with a group of maybe three other people. He was sitting close to us but he wasn’t in on this discussion. And throughout the semester there were different occasions like that where again he would sort of reaffirm things that I said in defense of Michael Jackson. And the very first time I remember catching his eye. It was shocking that he would speak up. And it reaffirmed my belief that Michael was innocent”.
“Given the things Jordan said separately, having nothing to do with Michael Jackson about his home life, it affirmed my belief that he was a victim of his parents’ greed, and that he was forced to say certain things. I really have a hard time believing that if he had been molested by Michael Jackson he would be going out of his way to say that he didn’t think he was capable of these things. And I didn’t address it with him. You know, I was very young. I didn’t really know how important it would have been to address it then.”
“These conversations happened before Gavin Arvizo made any allegations against Michael Jackson”.
In the later years Josephine moved on from her music business classes and lost touch with Jordan Chandler. But when she was asked to make a statement for the 2005 trial she did so and this is how she found herself on the witness list.
Another memorable episode of Josephine’s memories concerns Stacy Brown (1:16:00) who approached her when he still seemed to be a friend to Michael Jackson.
He was very effusive in his praise of MJ and urged Josephine to sort of pump up her Jordan Chandler story – like saying that she was his girlfriend and he had a crush on her. But she never felt comfortable to claim that and adhered solely to fact. In retrospect, knowing how Stacy Brown turned on Michael she feels like Stacy Brown did it as a preemptive way to discredit her – because if she lied about her relations with Jordan Chandler it would discredit her entire story.
“Of course I was never willing to say that”, she repeats again and again. “I take this very seriously. I firmly believe in due process. [..] I don’t think I understood the enormity of it at that time. All I knew was that somebody’s life and livelihood was on the line and I had the information that potentially could help him, so I felt it was my obligation and my duty”.
And here is one more important remark from Josephine about Jordan Chandler (1:17:25):
“His name wasn’t widely known. From my discussions in the program I don’t think that there was anybody else other than very few people who knew who he was. So yeah, people could be sitting on information they don’t even know is relevant”.
“This doesn’t benefit my career at all”, she goes on. “This doesn’t give me access to anything. I am very much somebody who likes to be in the background [..] but I am speaking out because you asked me to and because all this nonsense is being rehashed [..] in the media, and it’s ridiculous. [..] If I had the slightest doubt that Michael Jackson was innocent I wouldn’t be speaking out. I heard directly from Jordie Chandler that he didn’t believe that Michael Jackson was capable of the things he was being accused of and that’s very powerful. You know, every allegation since is built on the original 1993 allegation. And I believe that if that one is false – which I do believe it is false – all the rest crumble”.
LA TOYA
Another great find in Danny Wu’s film is an episode concerning La Toya and the allegations against her brother fed to her by her husband-manager Jack Gordon. This episode was initially recalled by Charles Thomson and Danny Wu managed to find a rare video of La Toya talking on Australian TV in 1994 and leaving the show when the host found out that all throughout their talk someone in the background was literally telling her what to say over the microphone in her ear.
Charles Thomson says about it (0:36:20):
“All of a sudden LaToya who had been previously speaking in favor of Michael suddenly U-turned and started selling interviews claiming that her brother in fact was guilty. Early 1994 when La Toya appeared on an Australian TV show the host of the show realized that there was something wrong with the situation – he realized that all of the answers LaToya was giving were being fed to her by somebody else who he identified on the show as her husband Jack Gordon.
(video tape)
The host: “Well, Miss Jackson carried on with that nonsense for another 25 minutes all the time being prompted by someone in the studio but off camera – presumably her husband manager Jack Gordon”.
And when he questioned her about it on the air she looked like a deer in the headlights and suddenly stood up and stormed off the show answering no more questions.
(video tape)
The host to La Toya: “Who is talking to you on the micro?”
La Toya (taking off the microphone from her ear): “I refuse to sit here and listen to you talk this way. I have nothing to say to you whatsoever…”
This episode is a complete marvel. It will tell you more than anyone or anything could ever tell you to explain La Toya’s behavior at that time.
VICTOR GUTIERREZ
The very informative part about Victor Gutierrez is a thrill to watch even despite us knowing about this creature more than we would be willing to know. But when the documentary links him to Rodney Allen, a pedophile now serving a life sentence in prison in Canada, we suddenly make a new find.
The documentary quotes a letter sent by Rodney Allen to our fellow researcher Paula who started that correspondence by presenting herself as an acquaintance of “Victor” whom Rodney Allen immediately recognized as his friend Victor Gutierrez. And in one of the letters sent to her from prison Rodney Allen reveals Gutierrez’s own ways with children which up till now have been a closely guarded secret of his.
Here is an excerpt from Rodney Allen’s letter (at 1:00:49):
“Now let me clear up something else that is very important that the letter that was sent to Nambla was written by Victor Gutierrez and then fax to me to my home from the company called the Mail Box on Westwood Blvd just south of Sunset Blvd. I had no contact with Nambla until I met Victor and I was so stupid to fall for his game. I am against child pornography and the way Victor operated I did have great concerns of how he likes to hang around young children in private. At the house on Beverly Glen Blvd, Victor used to have all these toys like trains and things that children like to play with…”
When Rodney Allen says that he “fell for Gutierrez’s game” he means that at Gutierrez’s request he wrote to NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) suggesting that they include Gutierrez’s child pornography book about Michael Jackson into their reading list. And much to Allen’s dismay the fax reply from NAMBLA was later found at his home by the police and served as incriminating evidence against Allen while Gutierrez stayed unaffected (how very interesting that he was careful enough not to write that letter himself!).
But the rest of that piece is simply mind-blowing. It is a clear suggestion that Rodney Allen, a pedophile himself, disapproved of how Victor Gutierrez “operated” and that the latter possessed child pornography and liked to hang around young children in private. It is apparently for this purpose that Gutierrez’s home was filled with toy trains and other things children like to play with.
What a shame we can’t use Rodney Allen’s words as an evidence against Victor Gutierrez – Allen is said to be mentally impaired and have a propensity for embellishing stories. Otherwise his letter could be regarded as a damning evidence that Gutierrez was not only a NAMBLA attendee (as he admitted himself), but is a child predator who likes child pornography and hangs around young children “in private”.
Victor Gutierrez’s contacts: Joy Robson, NAMBLA, Diane Dimond, Blanca Francia, Maureen Orth, the Chandlers, Adrian McManus.
COURAGE
One more Josephine Zohny’s remark is very important for understanding where we are at the moment. At about 1:04:27 she says in connection with “Leaving Neverland” and the fact that few people dare challenge it as an obvious fake:
“It doesn’t surprise me that people are scared to come out. I have some flexibility, I work for myself. If I were in a corporate job I may be scared too because we don’t really know who the powers that be are behind “Leaving Neverland” and to speak out at this point may [..] really harm their career. I am not surprised that people would be afraid to come out”.
This sent me pondering over a strange phenomenon that despite our totally different social environment the people in the West and East are both in a situation when it is dangerous to tell the simple truth. In one place the truthers risk their jobs and careers, in another place they risk their freedom and lives, but the common problem they face is that lies are so flagrant and powerful at the moment that it requires a good deal of courage to say a simple word of truth.
However there is another marked tendency also on the rise now – some people, especially a younger generation, seem not to mind these obstacles and prefer to do the right thing no matter what, like Danny Wu and Josephine Zohny, for example. Same as Charles Thomson, Mike Smallcombe and Dave Chappelle who are also ready to accept the challenge. Don’t know how they manage to do that but they do.
And what I also admire about Danny Wu’s documentary is that he made it available to his viewers for free. This selfless sharing of his professional work with others is very much in the spirit of Michael Jackson and is very rare in today’s world of sweeping commercialism.
In the long run it seems that this whole nasty business around the innocent Michael Jackson is all about money – from its extreme form of avarice in accusers’ cases to a mere going with the shameless crowd by others out of the cowardice to lose their comfort, means and worldly success. And this seems to be where the roots of the evil are.
Few of us realize how real evil looks. No, it does not come in the form of extraterrestrial monsters the way it is portrayed in Hollywood blockbusters. Mass evil is here and all around us, is much more banal and conventional and comes in the shape of ordinary self-interest, expediency and justification of one’s cowardice, indifference and occasional betrayal. It is commonplace, opportunistic and is sleek and happy in its conformism, and it will always find an excuse.
Another popular video-blogger, in my country this time (Yuri Dude), recently addressed this problem when speaking to an assembly of journalists in Russia:
“When another [atrocity] takes place here, I beg of you to speak out and not to be silent. It seems to me that silence is no longer a safe haven. If you are silent it doesn’t mean that you are safe. And if there is no difference, I don’t understand why it is necessary to meet lawlessness with silence and not meet it face to face. Many will say to me: “We understand everything but we don’t want to lose our jobs”. But he who has brains and hands will never die of hunger and boredom. Even I could find some work, and you are much smarter and better educated than me…”
Yury Dude’s latest documentary on Youtube was viewed by almost 18 million people. I wish the same success to Danny Wu’s excellent case for Michael Jackson and to many others that will follow suit.
“The real story hasn’t been told. The real story is that Michael Jackson was the victim of an elaborate extortion scheme that launched the false allegations.” – Geraldine Hughes
Watch the documentary and raise your voice for the truth.
SQUARE ONE premiered at the Chinese Theatre on October 5, 2019
Rotten Tomatoes voting regarding Square One has finally opened to the public: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/square_one
Vindicating Michael 
Yes Daniel Tabitha is with someone else has left Cali and has a daughter now. Do you know if the pics posted were recent?
LikeLike
It’s very easy to trace Jordan’s family members and friends on social media. I heard he has seperated from his long term partner and she’s now living elsewhere with her new partner and baby daughter. I do believe Jordan lives in California, but I could be wrong. &I don’t think he’s in hiding since there are photos of him on SM that friends have uploaded.
LikeLike
Guys, I was shocked to learn that Jordan Chandler attended New York University, along with thousands of other students. Are there any pictures of him at college, or yearbooks from other NUY students?
LikeLike
I didn’t say I believed her. I give almost everyone the benefit of the doubt and think that she could make a mistake and take one person for another.
Actually there is no point in discussing it, because my analysis is never about believing this or that person. It is solely about facts.
And time will show whether Shana lied or made a mistake.
LikeLike
You really surprised me, Helena..
You believe Shana !!
It’s a concicence that she talked about Chandler, the same month that Square One aired !!
Really surprised.
LikeLike
Hey everybody, I need a little help. Can someone point me to the documents which mention Safechuck filming at Neverland? I thought it was in his supplementary declaration but I don’t see it.
LikeLike
I don’t think that Shana is lying. She could easily make a mistake and take one person for another. I doubt that Jordan Chandler will go out into the public that openly, especially in LA. What surprised me in her story is that her “Jordan” bought a lot of stuff when he went shopping. Real Jordan will not risk getting stuck like that – by now it should be a habit with him to immediately leave as soon as he spots a paparazzi.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The L.A. location makes me raise my eyebrows.
While it’s possible that he’s relocated (or was on vacation), Chandler was always reported as living in New York.
LikeLike
After doing more research, I’m much more skeptical of Shana. She could be telling the truth here but her reputation overall isn’t very good. She lies about MJ a lot. SMH. We’ll see.
LikeLike
She lives in California. L.A., I believe.
LikeLike
We’ll see. If this is true we’ll probably hear more about it. I don’t know where Shana Mangatal lives, but if Jordan is really her neighbor then it means that he is no longer in hiding from the rest of the world – and this is good news.
We know perfectly well that Michael Jackson’s fans are the last people he should be afraid of. In fact it is the opposing side he should be wary of. If they were capable to do in MJ, they are capable of doing the same to Jordan, God forbid.
In this case it is in his interests to go public with the truth about Michael Jackson as soon as possible.
But there is also a possibility that Shana Mangatal simply made a mistake and took another person for Jordan.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Helena I wonder what your thoughts are regarding Shana Mangatal’s recent account of meeting Jordan Chandler in a local store two months ago? Her description of him was very similar to how Josie described him in Square One. She talks about her run-in here: http://tedlyde.libsyn.com/shana-mangatal-halloween-ep206
LikeLike
I am sorry, but after looking up that “comment” by Justine Levine which is 84 pages long and requires 124 minutes to read, I will certainly not look into it any further. These 124 minutes could be divided into 62 articles 2 minutes each to report at least some facts about the way Michael Jackson was framed up, but the mainstream media have not published even one! Though the scam against Jackson could make a thriller and its details are really sensational.
I also checked up how many Google pages were reporting the news about Moses supporting his father Woody Allen and went as far as page 15 (it probably goes much further than that). And given that each Google page has links to at least 10 articles in various papers, it amounts to 150 articles covering Moses’s story.
The contrast between scarce reporting of what Taj or Brandy Jackson, for example, said to debunk Wade Robson’s lies and the way Moses’s message is being publicised is indeed despicable and tells us all we need to know about the situation. You needn’t go further to see the intentional media slant in favor of one and total lack of coverage of anything positive about the other. It is simply an outrage.
LikeLike
I haven’t yet studied that information about Woody Allen, Maureen Orth, etc. for lack of time (will try to later), but at the moment have to say that the difference you noted in the way the mainstream media treat Michael Jackson and Woody Allen is simply glaring in the eye.
The media do not only lack equal standards here, but their standing up for Woody Allen shows that the #MeToo movement everyone thinks is hampering to objectively analyze anti-Jackson allegations is not the main problem here. I don’t know what #MeToo activists say about Dylan now, but previously they didn’t support her too much, and if it still goes on it means that they cherry-pick their objects for criticism and therefore show the signs of being guided. If their approach changed I will be glad if it did.
Another point of concern is that though we no longer expect the media to do the hard job of fact checking the allegations against Michael Jackson, they could at least report the findings made by other people that speak to his innocence. However they are not doing even that!
They simply suppress these facts, at the same time speaking incessantly about those allegations against him, even when they are totally disproven by facts and found completely absurd. And this is another sign of it being an orchestrated campaign against Jackson, guided by someone who is staying behind the scene. I have no doubt whatsoever who this person is.
LikeLike
Also, I forgot to mention, that Maureen Orth’s Undeniable Facts post was actually in favor of Woody Allen’s guilt, and the rebuttal piece on Medium is on Woody’s side. Just want to see how that changes things, not just because of what comes from her, but the fact that the Dylan Farrow case is not so cut and dried, and the idea that Mia Farrow may have set him up is just as credible as him being guilty. Of course, there’s far more evidence to support the allegations than there ever was with Michael, even if it somehow does turn out that he is innoncent, and of course it doesn’t change the fact that both Woody and Mia are quite vile, despicable people, more focused on vengeance against each other than resolution, who have ravaged the lives of those around them, and regardless of what actually happened, Dylan genuinely believes it happened to her, and her behavior is in line with what an actual abuse victim goes through. And there’s a good chance that quite a few people connected to both this case and Michael’s, deliberately set things up (maybe with David Geffen’s help) to take the heat off of Woody. There are also suggestions that Ronan Farrow’s work in Me Too and his articles and new book was not motivated so much by genuine desire to help, but vengeance of own against Woody, because Harvey Weinstein was the only one funding Woody’s films at the time, and so he latched onto the story simply for that, and wouldn’t have been so involved if Weinstein didn’t have that relationship.
LikeLike
It’s specifically a reference to the fact that Michael apparently taped a not to himself during the making of the album that said “100 million,” wanting to top the sales figures of Thriller. This of course leads in to a famous, lazy meme that Michael was only concerned with breaking records and keeping his reputation alive, not art for art’s sake, and that the music he made can’t touch a candle to Thriller, his star was in decline, he lost his touch, yada yada… even though, as it is known, Michael also genuinely had that as well. People can’t accept that it’s possible for someone to be both, or that for someone like him, this was no contradiction, but one and the same.
LikeLike
“Maureen Orth’s 10 Undeniable Facts”
Maureen Orth is a very strange lady, and her supposedly undeniable facts are usually wildly inaccurate and can be disproved easily. She’s well aware that what she writes is untrue, but her clickbait methodology means more money in her bank account, so she doesn’t care.
Maureen Orth isn’t to be taken seriously. The kind of people that read her garbage are the kind of people that could watch a video of the Chandlers from 1992 planning their scam and STILL wouldn’t believe MJ is innocent.
“mentally disturbed”
Abusive father, relentless pressure, head caught fire, suicidal fans/stalkers, false allegations of child abuse, false claims of plagiarism, constant betrayals, spinal injury.
It’s a miracle Michael’s brain didn’t explode years and years ago. Yeah, he probably was left mentally disturbed from all the things he had to deal with. I know I would be.
“I don’t know why he did that if he’s as innocent as he says he is. After all, when someone makes lies about me in the press, I go out and fight them,”
So Elton hasn’t read the history of the case deeply enough to know what actually happened with Cochran and the civil-before-criminal debacle.
This is just another example of Elton being argumentative for the sake of it.
“having the same unhealthy retreat from reality as Elvis did, as I did which almost killed me,”
So he acknowledges that Michael reacted to the pressures of his career in exactly the same way that he did.
Stars such as Elton and Elvis were constantly surrounded by sycophants, ass-kissers and people trying to get a piece of their pie, and it’s well known that Michael attracted these leeches as well (Wade Robson, Stacy Brown, etc.)
Here Elton says that Michael didn’t like hanging around with two-faced disingenuous people, and so went to chill out and play video games instead. Well, shit the bed. Different people like different things. This is a non-story, presented in a way to get some attention. It’s just another form of clickbait.
“Michael ruined his career by “searching to top Thriller”,”
I have no idea how trying to get better and better is considered ruining your career. Maybe I’m just weird.
It’s not like Bad wasn’t a massively successful album either. Michael was still the biggest star in the world at this time, so trying to make an album better than Thriller certainly didn’t harm his career.
LikeLike
Also, Elton John’s recent autobiography, which is amazing, is unfortunately gaining attraction because of comments he made about Michael calling him mentally disturbed, “unable to stand human contact,” and “the last year of his life, he was at a party of mine and he was creepily focused on children.”
This also ties in with the fact that in an interview Elton did with Barbara Walters in 1994, he talked about how he provided a home for Michael to get off his addiction to Demerol (which Michael was eternally grateful for and thanked Elton for in the Blood on the Dance Floor liner notes), but said he didn’t understand the settlement. “I don’t know why he did that if he’s as innocent as he says he is. After all, when someone makes lies about me in the press, I go out and fight them,” talking about the time he did so when someone made false claims that he used rent boys and cut the vocal cords of his dogs. Elton sued for libel, and not only won a substantial settlement from The Sun, he even got them to publicly retract the story.
But it also shows that Elton didn’t truly know Michael, especially since he rarely saw him and can’t divine that much from sporadic contact, and that even someone who’s known for calling a spade a spade (especially about himself) is no less susceptible to the media smears about Michael. Especially if he called him “having the same unhealthy retreat from reality as Elvis did, as I did which almost killed me,” when the opposite is true, or saying that Michael ruined his career by “searching to top Thriller”, which of course is a continued lazy meme that deserves to die.
LikeLike
Helena, I know you don’t plan to write any further posts about Woody Allen, though I do think you should make a comment about this. Mainly about the blog post Moses made in defense of Woody, and this comment in response to Maureen Orth’s 10 Undeniable Facts post, which moves to conclude that Mia Farrow set Woody up out of revenge for the Soon-Yi affair: https://medium.com/@levine2001/the-woody-allen-controversy-reader-why-maureen-orths-10-undeniable-facts-about-the-woody-allen-5f26791c15a0
Of course, simply put, I’m not making any comments or beliefs about it one way or another, because of all the ways that both Woody and Mia muddied the waters in their respective scorched earth campaigns against each other. Simply put, regardless of what actually happened with Dylan, the following is clear: Dylan genuinely believes it happened to her and behaves like an actual abuse victim; Woody and Mia are both quite despicable people and no one wins in the situation, especially not Soon-Yi, Dylan, Ronan or Moses, even if their perspectives on things differ greatly; and MORE CARE AND CONCERN WAS GIVEN OVER WHETHER WOODY WAS TREATED FAIRLY THAN WHETHER MICHAEL JACKSON WAS. None of this care to determine if anything is credible has been done in the mainstream media for Michael’s behalf, and it’s the truly most despicable part of it all.
LikeLike
“Exhibit 1 is the list of potential witnesses for the Defense. Zohny Josie is number 454 on it.”
454! That’s a lot of witnesses.
Just for reference, Wade Robson is witness number 355, and James Safechuck is witness number……wait a minute, where’s James Safechuck??? He’s not on the witness list!!!
How can Safechuck not be on the witness list? He very clearly said in LNL that he was to be called as a witness, and that Michael phoned him up and intimidated him into not testifying.
Wow. This legal document – not an unsupported anecdote or allegation, not a “crazy fan theory” – this Court record, this official document shows that which Safechuck claimed in LNL cannot be true. Wow. Who would believe that little Jimmy would tell a lie like this?
Are you there Mr Reed? Mr Reed? Dan? Are you there? Can you explain this one for us, just as you managed to explain how James was abused in a building that didn’t exist? No, I didn’t think so, you shiny headed, forked tongued squibnocket.
(My apologies for so much sarcasm in one post).
LikeLiked by 1 person
When I was watching Lois Theroux’s film “Savile” https://vimeo.com/198675249 there was one thing I noticed about Savile’s victims being decidedly different from the “Leaving Neverland” characters.
The fact is that none of Savile’s victims want to talk about their molestation in detail. Even when one of the most outspoken women, at 1:08:20 mark, answers Theroux’s question if it’s okay for her to go into a little more detail and agrees saying that “she is not going to make it sound nice” and “will not soften anything” – even then she doesn’t say much and only implies certain things. The most we hear from her is that she “didn’t have her period but used her elder sister’s tampaxes trying to protect herself” and “he sometimes put his hands into her mouth when he was doing … everything else”.
This very restrained talk about the way they were abused is very characteristic of true victims – they are extremely unwilling to describe it. And this is VERY UNLIKE the way Robson and Safechuck describe the alleged acts in “Leaving Neverland”- in much filthy detail, with a smile on their faces and a flicker to their eyes, as if they relish it and enjoy it in a perverse way.
Someone will say that this is because “they loved MJ”.
But this will be wrong again. That unfortunate girl certainly didn’t love Savile, but she loved her grandfather who was the first to molest her (since very early age until age 10). The girl loved him because she regarded him as her “savior” – she was somewhat “backward” at school and he went there to fight for her. She says that all of it was very confusing as it was wrapped into one person and even today, despite the things he did to her, “she still has lovely memories of him”. However she didn’t like the acts he committed, but the fact that “he took time out with me, a lot”.
Poor neglected children are indeed grateful for the attention given to them, and if they have an attachment for their abusers it is not for those “acts” but because these bastards are like “best friends” and “saviors” to them. And quite characteristically this woman refrains from describing her grandfather’s abuse of her again.
No, whichever way you look at it, even from the way they describe it, Robson and Safechuck are no victims and are just actors who are playing a role.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As far as I know it is not, though I haven’t been able to read all pre-trial documents – there are too many of them. If Jordan Chandler had testified in 2005 we would have heard of her statement, but since he didn’t Josephine Zohny’s participation was not required.
LikeLike
Thank you. Is Josephine Zohny statement online regarding the 2005 case?
LikeLike
Here is the Prosecution document which has Exhibit 1 as an attachment to it: http://www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/021105mlimexcltw.pdf
Exhibit 1 is the list of potential witnesses for the Defense. Zohny Josie is number 454 on it. Neither the defense, nor the prosecution was required to call all witnesses on their lists.
LikeLike
Hi, can anybody tell me where I can find the witness list that shows that Josephine Zohny was ready to backup the defence if JC had appeared in court?
LikeLike
Of course Savile was not lying when he said he didn’t like children. Pedophiles really don’t care for kids – children must be like soulless sexual toys for them. I don’t want even to start analyzing their motivation, but their pathology must have a lot to do with a perverse game to win the kid’s trust and exercise power over a helpless little being. It seems that they like the process of this game, the state of the child’s confusion, bewilderment, fear and forced silence. All of it has nothing to do with love for a child.
But their other common feature is that all of them feign disinterest in children because their top priority is to never get caught and this is why they always pretend that they are not interested. And of course none of them declare to the whole world that they love children and they never sustain open friendship with kids – in all cases their association with children is presented as a part of their professional life (for example, Rodney Allen was a driver of a school bus, or many convicted pedophiles in Hollywood were agents of young talents). They select a profession that will be a good cover-up for their activities, but at the same time try not to be seen with children outside those activities – unless it is part of their job.
And all of it is in stark contrast with Michael Jackson’s ways, of course. We can like or dislike them, but they have nothing to do with that other thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It seems that with all their copy-pasting, chasing gossip stories and idle chatting on radio and TV, journalists have had too easy a life and lost their professional and analytical skills. As a result what once was a serious profession has now given way to just “conversation”, shallowness and degradation.
But the void is being filled by young bloggers who turn out much more thoughtful, insightful and critical than those journalistic hasbeens.
I highly recommend this analysis by youtuber Nevets aka The Gutter Monkey. Just look at the headline alone:
“Cognitive Flaws, Leaving Neverland & Michael Jackson | An Appeal to Reason”
(not sure Lois Thereoux has heard of cognitive flaws at all)
LikeLike
I’ve looked up some statements by Lois Theroux about Michael Jackson and am now in two minds – is he simply a half-wit or a total journalistic misfit who never heard of journalistic integrity? How can a BBC journalist not know that what someone says is not a fact and it should be double checked before it is ever presented to the audience?
Theroux tweeted earlier this year:
The above is outrageously unprofessional! He has seen a film with two characters saying things that are not backed up by any facts, blindly believes them and calls those who need corroboration of those stories “wilfully blind”? No wonder he made so terrible a mess with regard to Savile. People like Lois Thereoux are a living example of sloppiness and professional degradation. God save us from such journalists.
Danny Wu is a much better journalist than these so-called “professionals”. Here is another piece where he and another video blogger discuss a podcast of a certain Ethan Klein who is another classic case of the blind leading the blind:
LikeLike
@Helena Note: this is just a trend I’ve noticed with many pedophiles before. I haven’t actually looked at any particular studies regarding attitudes towards children and parental roles/relationships. I specifically remember Woody Allen and Jared Fogle (subway guy) speaking negatively about children on audio tape.
LikeLike
“– Savile pretended he “didn’t like children” (typical for ped-lies) while Michael Jackson always said that he loved them (totally untypical) and said he saw God in their faces.”
@Helena I don’t think he was lying when he said he didn’t like Children. A lot of pedophiles don’t really care for kids and would rather not have them or be around them if they can’t abuse them.
LikeLike
Another thing I found valuable was how Danny included other stories related to Victor Gutierrez involving false allegations. He went into pretty good detail about politicians in Chile who also were accused of child molestation, in part because of Victor efforts to incriminate them. That was very powerful for me because I didn’t even know about that. It showed how MJ wasn’t his only victim.
LikeLike
Well, I can’t say for sure what type of person Theroux really is, and why he’s going this way about Michael, but yes, what about conscience? That’s something he certainly brought up a lot in the second documentary about Savile, saying he wanted to set it to rest and feel better about any complicity he had in enabling Savile to get away with his crimes.
It’s also easy to see how people like Theroux, and my entertainment industry friend that I’ve mentioned, will make the leap from “victims have delayed reactions and don’t immediately take in the fact they were abused’ to “victims not only have this delayed reaction but think so fondly of the experience that they thought it was actually consensual love,” which Guitierrez, Reed are clearly pushing, and which the LN defenders (at least those with some integrity) don’t realize they are actually pushing.
LikeLike
I don’t know what Lois Theroux declares about Michael now and know about him only from luv4hutch’s comment. If Lois is sitting on the fence now that would be understandable considering his previous mistake regarding Savile, but if he declares MJ guilty that will be inexcusable. Being wrong in declaring an innocent person guilty is no better than considering a predator innocent, especially if the accused is a deceased person who cannot defend himself. It is even worse than being wrong about someone who is alive.
In case of Savile the journalist indeed could have prevented further abuse, but in case of MJ (no matter who he was) there is no such danger and no hurry – so it’s better to measure three times before you cut and put a stigma on Michael Jackson’s reputation without proper research and asking the necessary questions. In case of doubt people should restrain themselves and clearly say – I won’t commit myself until I learn all the facts. But instead Lois Theroux is simply going with the crowd – just because “he is scared of being wrong”?
But is it okay to be wrong about an innocent person who was simply slandered? I know that Michael Jackson is dead and cannot sue, but is it the only obstacle? What about one’s conscience and plain decency?
LikeLike
It’s a little more complex than that.
Louis Theroux used to be very good at getting the truth from people. He presented himself as someone very non-threatening who didn’t quite understand, and so the people he interviewed would feel the need to explain, and explain again, and they would inevitably end up talking too much and reveal things that they didn’t intend to.
With Savile, this method failed. Savile was an intelligent man, always very aware of what was going on around him and apart from one brief moment (when he didn’t realise the camera was recording) he was in control the whole time.
Louis is now super defensive. He feels that he should have seen through Savile’s lies, and could therefore have brought an end to his abuse sooner. With Michael, he’s simply not willing to chance his name again in case he’s wrong.
I suspect that even if he watched Square One, The Lies of Leaving Neverland and the entire video of Wade’s 2016 deposition, he still wouldn’t commit himself to declaring that he believes Michael is innocent simply because he’s so scared of being wrong.
Of course, he could sit in the middle and say that he doesn’t know one way or the other but again, he has the fear of being criticised for not supporting the supposed victims.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just out of curiosity I’ve watched Lois Theroux’s documentary named “Savile” and though I am not ready to give a recipe on how to tell a child predator from an innocent man, let me share just some random thoughts.
First of all, Lois Theroux produces the impression of a person who believes everything he is told. No critical thinking, no proper research done prior to the interview – his style is what I see is what I sing. Savile blamed the tabloids for some rumors …. and this explanation is perfectly OK with Lois Theroux. Robson and Safechuck have recently sung four-hour long songs about some fictional abuse …. and again, this is enough for Lois Theroux to form an opinion on the spot. No need to look into the documents and compare at least what they claimed on paper with what they said in the film, no need to fact check the timeline, motives and credibility of the accusers, no need to talk to the other side, no nothing. He simply believes them and that’s it.
This kind of a style is a disgrace for a journalist, especially the one who aspires to be a researcher. If he were making travel notes of the countries he has been to, the reports like I sing of what I see would be just right, but it is a totally irresponsible approach to complex cases where you need to tell a lie from the truth, where a person’s reputation and legacy are at stake and the opinion you voice will affect the opinion of millions of people.
If lies were easy to crack they wouldn’t present a problem, but these lies are intricate and thoroughly made up, so to be able to get to the truth journalists need to do a lot of digging. Journalists simply do not have the right to fall for everything they are told otherwise their profession will turn into nothing but conversation and idle chatting.
Shouldn’t Lois Theroux have paid a little attention to some differences between Savile and Michael Jackson before he passed an opinion? For example:
– Savile had 326 accusers (according to Lois Theroux) and Michael Jackson had 5.
– All five were given top attention by the media. Two were investigated by the police and other authorities but to no avail. One was fully discredited at a trial. Two more spoke of Michael’s innocence for 30 years and one of them even testified under oath in Michael’s defense when he was 23.
– Savile’s accusers never had a chance to talk when he was alive. There was no media attention and the police investigations of occasional complaints were inadequate. The few true investigative reports about Savile were shelved while Savile was knighted and received by royalty. He himself bragged to Lois Theroux: “There is nothing I can’t get. There is nothing I can’t do”.
– Savile was a cynical bully and Michael Jackson was a shy, gentle and extremely sensitive soul. Both looked eccentric, but one was praised and admired in the press, and the other was non-stop harassed and smeared by the same people.
– Both were known for their charity, only Michael Jackson gave away money to hospitals on his way during his world tours with no personal gain, while Savile sponsored the hospitals and homes for troubled children where he was a regular visitor, had keys to their wards and private access to their rooms.
– Savile pretended he “didn’t like children” (typical for ped-lies) while Michael Jackson always said that he loved them (totally untypical) and said he saw God in their faces.
– and much more of it.
Okay, so Lois Theroux is no good at seeing these and other differences, but can’t he at least see that Savile’s accusers didn’t change their testimonies into their opposites and that their main problem was that there were never listened to?
If Lois Theroux is an honest man and is simply no good judge of people’s characters let him at least imagine that the accusers he visited for his second film about Savile previously PRAISED Savile and laughed at all the accusations as ridiculous. Let him just imagine all those women first testifying to the opposite and only then pass his opinion about the current MJ’s accusers.
Otherwise he risks being wrong twice – first in his blind faith that Savile was innocent and then in his blind hate that Michael Jackson was not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did mention her, but my post focused on the information in the documentary that is new only for us. Geraldine Hughes’s great contribution has been long known to the researchers of the frame-up of MJ and is a revelation only to newcomers. And yes, she, same as Charles Thomson are the main narrators in the documentary who share their unique knowledge of the case.
LikeLike
The documentary was excellent. The station that aired Leaving Neverland in my country gave a review of this one and their conclusion is that they understand the fans keep fighting for him. It actually changed their mind. How awesome is that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s really easy for us to miss things, or overlook how monumental something is as we’re already aware of Geraldine’s accounts of Jordy’s antics and so it’s not new information. You’r right though, her contributions to Square One are wonderfully important.
Something that was mentioned that I must have previously missed was that the Safechuck’s family business had been sued prior to James’ “remembering” the alleged abuse. I need to look further into the timeline of this, but hey, if that’s not a motif for targetting Michael’s money then I don’t know what is.
Overall, this documentary was great. It was everything that LNL was not.
LNL relied on storytelling and provided nothing to substantiate them. Square One showed court documents, news footage, etc. to support everything it showed.
LikeLike
You failed to mention the main eyewitness Geraldine Hughes who worked for the attorney in 1993 that framed Michael Jackson and gives very important inside details of the extortion plot and had been defending Michael Jackson’s innocence since ’93.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Helena, this is geat! I hope very much that Danny Wu’s documentary will reach a mass of people.
He already retweeted your post!
It is so true that all following allegations were based on these 1993 accusations which were never tried in court and only spread by a small group of people and the media. If people only would understand!
LikeLike
Thank you again a great post people should read and watch this MICHAEL JACKSON IS INNOCENT.
LikeLike
This truly was an impressive documentary that shows quite clearly Michael’s innocence. May it help turn the needle around for good.
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.
https://vimeo.com/198675249
LikeLike