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.
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.
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).
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
Rotten Tomatoes voting regarding Square One has finally opened to the public: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/square_one