THE KEY PLAYERS behind ‘Leaving Neverland’ Operation

Three days before the official trailer for “Leaving Neverland” was first released to the public on February 19, 2019, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times wrote her review of the film setting a sort of a standard for other mainstream media to follow.

Maureen Dowd should not be confused with Maureen Orth of the Vanity Fair who dedicated her life to smearing Michael Jackson. Maureen Dowd is the Pulitzer Prize-winning op-ed columnist who is “arguably the most powerful journalist in America thanks to her must-read column in The New York Times”.

To show how powerful she really is it’s suffice to mention that just one column of hers written in February 2007 ruined the chances of Hillary Clinton for presidency and projected the career of Barack Obama as a Democratic nominee who would later win the elections.

Let me repeat – it was Dowd’s just one column that changed the US political climate forever.

And on February 16, 2019 she reviewed the Leaving Neverland film, just several days before some of its footage was to be shown to the public for the first time.

A month prior to that the film premiered at the Sundance festival and those present had already sent shock waves throughout the world, however its TV premiere was to take place only on March 3 and 4, so Maureen Dowd’s opinion of the film was kind of setting the scene.

One would imagine that a journalist whose word people hang on as if it were the gospel, would be wary of making rash conclusions and warn others that unless proven by facts the assertions of two individuals are worthless.

However this was not the case. In the very headline of her column Maureen Dowd denounced Michael Jackson as the King of “perversion”, presented the film as fact and instead of asking appropriate questions about its legitimacy redirected everyone’s attention to “how could we be so blind?”

Her review abounded in words like “lair”, “monster”, “rapist”, “apparent criminality”, “shredded lives of victims”, “tragedy” and the like.

The King of Pop — and Perversion

By Maureen Dowd

Opinion Columnist

February 16, 2019

When Dan Reed ordered up a score for his documentary, he asked the composer to evoke the image of a shimmering sprite leading two boys deeper and deeper into an enchanted forest. The boys don’t notice that the trees grow menacing. And suddenly, the sprite turns into a monster.

As “Leaving Neverland” shows, Michael Jackson spent his life shape-shifting from best pal, father figure and beneficent idol into cruel, manipulative rapist.

It was apparent for decades that Jackson’s cotton-candy lair was sulfurous. But as with other monsters — Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, Woody Allen, Jeffrey Epstein and Bryan Singer — many turned a blind eye.

Celebrity supersedes criminality. How can you see clearly when you’re looking into the sun? How can an icon be a con?

It was easier to ignore a landscape designed as a spider web for child sexual abuse than to give up the soundtrack of our lives, the catchy songs that coursed through memories of weddings, bar mitzvahs and other good times.

“With Michael Jackson, you can see how grotesquely his fame, and our worship of fame, distorts and excuses and enables evil — to the point mothers fail to protect their children and literally throw them in harm’s way,” says Maureen Orth, who did groundbreaking stories in the ’90s for Vanity Fair about both Jackson and Allen.

Indeed, the most harrowing part of the new documentary about the shredded lives of two of Jackson’s victims is the complicity of their mothers. Jackson spent as much time grooming the mothers as the sons, to the point where the women saw nothing wrong in letting their children share a bed with a grown man. (The documentary, which left the audience stunned at Sundance last month, premieres on HBO next month.)

Reed is a Brit who made several documentaries about terrorism. He says he became practiced at leading victims gently back to their traumas, so they could use their minds as cameras to bring key moments to life, letting their faces and voices tell the stories.

And that is how the tragedies of James Safechuck and Wade Robson unfold, through the pain in their eyes and the confusion in their voices and the moments where they tear up or swallow hard.

Safechuck, who works as a computer programmer, was raised in Simi Valley. He met Jackson when he was a 9-year-old child actor in 1987, starring with the singer in a Pepsi commercial. Jackson promised to make the boy the next Spielberg.

Robson, a dance teacher who did choreography for Britney Spears and ’N Sync, grew up on the other side of the world in Brisbane. He spent all his time dressing and dancing like Jackson. He won a dance contest in 1987 and got to meet Jackson, who was on tour in Australia, and dance onstage. Then, he was ensnared in the warped fantasy, a 7-year-old being initiated into sex at Neverland by the 31-year-old Jackson.

The mothers, Stephanie Safechuck and Joy Robson, knew that Jackson was ensorcelling their sons, even as he lured the mothers out of the frame with luxurious enticements. But they were stage mothers and fans, so they chose to believe Michael was a kind, lonely little boy at heart, not a heartless pedophile, and they did not dig deeper when their sons said nothing bad was going on.

“He flies you first class, you have a limo waiting for you at the airport, amazing, you know, it’s a life of the rich and famous,” Mrs. Safechuck gushes in the film, adding: “I got to meet Sean Connery. That was big for me. It was like, ‘Oh my God, Sean Connery!’” She also loved Neverland: “He had a beautiful wine cellar, really good wines, champagne, that was just something I enjoyed — it was a fairy tale every night.” After all, as she says, he was a genius and they were “just nobodies.” Jackson bought them a house after James testified on the singer’s behalf in a trial involving another boy.

It somehow made sense to James’s mother when she was told that she couldn’t be near the hotel rooms her son and Michael shared in Europe because the nicer suites she would prefer were farther away.

As Wade Robson puts it, “What you’d think would be standard kind of instincts and judgment seemed to go out the window.”

His mother left Australia and his father and moved to L.A. with Wade and her daughter to be closer to Michael; the father later committed suicide. After Wade finally told a therapist and his wife and family what had happened, he was alienated from his mother for a time. Like James, Wade — who lied in court twice to protect the man he loved — had symptoms of trauma that intensified with the birth of his son. James’s hands shake as he shows a diamond ring that Jackson gave him for a private mock wedding. Wade had a nervous breakdown and stopped dancing for a time.

“I had one job” and messed it up, Mrs. Safechuck says. “My son had to suffer for me to have this life.”

Even with this shocking documentary, the Michael Jackson estate is still demonizing the victims and planning to bring a musical about Jackson’s life to Broadway in 2020.

Reed says he is “agnostic” about it: “Am I going to campaign to have Michael’s name removed from classrooms and his statues removed from shopping malls? No. Is this the right time to celebrate Michael as a legitimate good person you might want to emulate? Possibly not.”

And that is what’s known as British understatement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/opinion/sunday/michael-jackson-leaving-neverland.html

That kind of opinion coming from the NY Times, the pillar of American journalism, and from its well-respected columnist, must have sounded like the final verdict for the majority of readers – and many would probably not even go beyond the headline. A few rare voices of protest were heard but were drowned in the almost universal wailing and shaming that ensued.

These rare voices of reason included David Walsh from a socialist site which criticizes liberals from the left. He called Maureen Dowd’s review “disgusting” and expressed his amazement at the universal acceptance of the unsubstantiated claims by the American media. For him Michael Jackson is a tragic victim of the American entertainment industry that went over him like a bone-crashing machine (correct).

Here are some excerpts from David Walsh:

 “A striking feature of the present situation is the almost universal acceptance of the Robson-Safechuck claims by the American media. The word of two individuals, who have been seeking monetary compensation from the Jackson estate for years, is taken as gospel. Why is there so little skepticism, why are so few questions being asked? This is not a reflection of “popular opinion,” as it were.

Everything about Leaving Neverland produces a bad odor. … the film’s “first-hand account” provides no substantiation whatsoever of that claim; those who made Leaving Neverland and those promoting it are morally deplorable and shameless. They are seeking to profit from the film and exploit the events to advance their careers and make money.

They calculate that with money comes wisdom, and their word should be law. The accuser “must be believed” is now the watchword, and presumption of innocence and due process be damned. The allegations of Robson and Safechuck cannot be doubted or even scrutinized, because that would throw the entire #MeToo witch-hunt into question.

Billionaire Oprah Winfrey, who utters another banality every time she opens her mouth, is the spiritual-financial leader of this movement and the New York Times is its intellectual “backbone.”

The Times’ Maureen Dowd, one of the moral pillars of our time, penned a disgusting column denouncing Michael Jackson on February 16, “The King of Pop—and Perversion.”

Dowd writes, “As Leaving Neverland shows, Michael Jackson spent his life shape-shifting from best pal, father figure and beneficent idol into cruel, manipulative rapist.” The film, in reality, does not show anything. It passes on the unsubstantiated, unproven assertions of two individuals. To present Jackson as a “monster” is dishonest and reprehensible.

Jackson was swept up by the American entertainment industry’s bone-crushing machinery. … There isn’t a trace of sympathy or elemental humanity in the media coverage. The creation of “monsters,” sexual predators and the like, has become essential to the operations and agenda of the Democratic Party in particular.

Michael Jackson has been dead for nearly a decade. Now he is being excoriated, trampled upon once more—for what? The whole business has degenerated into a squalid pursuit of money and career advancement. We condemn it.”

Full text: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/03/06/mich-m06.html

Even a bigger number of sensible voices came from the more conservative spectrum including Piers Morgan, John Ziegler, Razorfist and others. Radio host Mark Davis, for example, looked into the root of the problem and asked for the proof of those claims, saying that without it the film was “no journalism but activist filmmaking” with an agenda to smear Jackson.

The shocking Michael Jackson documentary deserves to be seen, but can it be believed?

By Mark Davis

6:09 PM on Mar 7, 2019 GMT-6

The makers of the new Michael Jackson documentary may not have envisioned the reaction it sparked in me: I am more open to his family’s denials than ever.

…my problem is with the heavy-handed one-sidedness of the entire spectacle. This is not journalism, nor does it pretend to be. It is activist filmmaking with an agenda —  the desire to paint Jackson as a serial child molester.

This is not illegal, or even unethical. Michael Moore had no obligation to film contrary views in his Bush-bashing Fahrenheit 9/11. But no one should rely on Moore for an even-handed assessment of the subject matter.

Leaving Neverland brims with the shocking stories of Wade Robson and James Safechuck, both of whom recanted their charges in the 1990s. Robson even testified on Jackson’s behalf in 2005. This does not mean they are lying today, but nor does it guarantee that their newfound desire to share should be treated as gospel.

The film buries viewers in stories of bizarre scenes and actions, but even those do not mean the victimization described took place.

The accusers are not under oath. They have gone public for money after their lawsuits against the Jackson estate failed. But my biggest obstacle to believing them involves Jackson himself.

There is nothing in the behavioral catalog of pedophilia that includes building an amusement park in the yard. Real child molesters tend to be guarded, insular and so pathologically concealed in their sick aims that they usually look like guys you could see in line at a hardware store. I find it easier to believe that Jackson’s eccentricities were not the product of a man who lusted for children, but a stunted man clinging to his own lost childhood. But again, I have no proof either way.

And ultimately, consider the numbers. The total of mega-rich, famous people who have provably festooned themselves with the trappings of childhood in order to lure kids into sex: zero. Meanwhile, the number of liars spurred by profit motive to fabricate stories about famous people: too many to count.

This is not an argument that the documentary is a pack of lies; it is a suggestion that it is a wholly unworthy basis for a firm conclusion of Jackson’s guilt.

Mark Davis is a radio host and frequent contributor to The Dallas Morning News. The Mark Davis Show airs from 7 to 10 a.m. weekdays on KSKY-AM (660). 

Full text: https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/03/08/the-shocking-michael-jackson-documentary-deserves-to-be-seen-but-can-it-be-believed/

So while the establishment media universally condemned Michael Jackson on the basis of stories alone, the rare voices from the outside asked for facts to substantiate the claims, without which the film is no documentary but is just activist film-making with an agenda to paint Michael Jackson as a monster.

The exceptions only prove the rule as they highlight the existence of a rule, and this is how the few voices that contested the official narrative made it apparent that the establishment media is actually heavily biased against Jackson and has exactly the same agenda as the two accusers.

This has been clear to us for a long time already and the only thing that required clarification was the reason why. This post will try to look into that.

THE PERSON WHO DETHRONES KINGS

Maureen Dowd’s right-wing critics are perfectly aware of her one-sided reporting and remind her that journalists are expected “to balance their sympathies and opinions with their obligation to present events in the most accurate way possible” – the reproach that fully applies to Dowd’s headlong accusation of Michael Jackson of things she and no one have absolutely no proof of.

Dowd’s critics point to an interesting episode in her career that sheds the light on the way she ruined Hillary Clinton’s chances and on who was the real driving force behind her column and the political earthquake that followed.

It turns out that the person who dumped Hillary Clinton’s nomination was the same person who, according to Michael Jackson himself sank his career too.

Yes, the name of that person is David Geffen.

From the political point of view Hillary Clinton as Geffen’s victim and his choice of Barack Obama as a new favorite are not that important to us. What is important is the way Geffen handled Hillary’s crash, the gigantic power he enjoys in American media and at the top tiers of American politics, his ability to turn public opinion overnight by his choice alone and his connection with Maureen Dowd who in both cases was a means to achieve his goals.

All these factors are extremely relevant to Michael Jackson’s case too, because if Geffen could overturn the career of politician No.1 just by making a few remarks to a journalist, he could easily do the same to the No.1 star in the entertainment industry too.

Actually, the fact that it was Geffen who busted Hillary Clinton is well known to the American public, but few know the details, so here they are coming from the book “Race of a Lifetime: How Obama Won the White House” by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin.

The old Jack Warner house sat on Angelo Drive at the top of Beverly Hills. Built in the thirties, it now belongs to the billionaire entertainment mogul David Geffen.

On the night of February 20, 2007, Obama was there for a private dinner in his honor. Earlier that evening, Geffen and his partners in DreamWorks SKG, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg, had hosted a $1.3 million fund-raiser for him at the Beverly Hilton, attended by some three hundred members of the glitterati. From the time the event was nnounced, it had drawn notice, signifying that at least a portion of Hollywood, including some longtime backers of the Clintons, was attracted to Obama.

After the fund-raiser, a more intimate group of thirty-five retired to Geffen’s mansion, spreading themselves out across three tables. Among them were Michelle Obama Spielberg and Katzenberg, former Dinsey and Fox studio head Joe Roth, William Morris Agency chairman Him Wiatt, Walk the Line writer and director James Mangold, Sleepless in Seatlle producer Lynda Obst, and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. 

As the dinner wound down, Geffen approached Obama, holding a printout of a Web page with a column by Dowd that would be appearing in the next day’s Times. The piece was all about Geffen’s disenchantment with the Clintons. It contained harsh words, and lots of them, that would reverberate through the political world for months. Handing it to Obama, Geffen said, “I think I should show you this.”

Geffen and Dowd were a colorful pair of friends – a mischievous dyad, each with a long and complicated relationship with the Clintons. Coquettish and flame-haired, Dowd was liberal but never earnerst or doctrinaire [] She had won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 1999, for a series of columns that folded, spindled, and mutilated Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Geffen’s relationship with Clinton began to change toward the end of Bill’s White House years. Before that, the mogul and the president had been tight, the former raising millions for the latter and sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom more than once. Clinton would phone Geffen all the time – at home, in the car, late at night – and would often stay with Geffen when he was in Hollywood.

Now, as Geffen showed the text of the column to Obama, he wondered how the candidate would react. Obama read it, gave Geffen a wide-eyed what-have-you-done look, and laughed. This is going to cause some conversation, Obama said dryly. They’re not going to be happy with this.”

The Dowd column was explosive, all right. It went off like an atomb bomb inside Hillaryland.”

Please note that the book calls David Geffen and Maureen Dowd a colorful pair of friends. What followed as a result of that friendly collaboration was described as “a Hillary blaze”:

Dowd started a Hillary blaze in February of 2007 by revealing that David Geffen, the Hollywood record mogul and key Clinton supporter, was switching allegiances to Obama.

At the time Clinton was considered a virtual shoe-in for the Democratic nomination, but the fissures which emerged after Geffen’s comments in Dowd’s column would never close over and heal.

As Patrick Goldstein wrote subsequently in the Los Angeles Times, “When historians start looking for turning points in the trajectory of the Obama campaign for the presidency, they will inevitably turn to February 21, 2007, the day that The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd ran a column where Geffen blasted then-Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton. 

It is worth noting that as usual, Geffen’s involvement in the game is downplayed by all those concerned and he himself plays the role of a modest bystander whose word is insignificant as “no one’s interested in what he has to say”.

In fact, each time I mention David Geffen as the ultimate power behind dumping Michael Jackson’s career and explain it by their difference of opinion over some issues, I am told that a certain dispute between them was too “insignificant” a matter for Geffen to turn his ire and vengeance against Michael.

Well, exactly the same was said about Geffen when he made some remarks for the NY Times column. There was certainly “no danger” to anyone because of Geffen’s “insignificant blip”:

Obama advisers described the Geffen remarks as an insignificant blip and said they saw no political danger in letting them stand.

But the power of that insignificant blip was such that it turned the American primaries upside down and the near-nominee who seemed invincible and even inevitable was replaced almost overnight by a person of Geffen’s choice.

“…back in the winter of 2007, Hillary wasn’t just the front runner–she was considered inevitable. The entire Clinton campaign was based on a sense of her invincibility.

Geffen broke the spell. Having soured on the Clintons after raising huge sums of money for Bill and sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom–twice–Geffen found himself enamored of Obama from the first time he saw him on TV, giving a speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. “I thought he was a remarkable guy,” Geffen told me today. “After I heard him give that speech, I called him up and said, ‘You’re going to run for president and I’m going to support you.’ ” Geffen says Obama laughed and said he was very flattered, but that he wasn’t running.

Cut to two years later. “He called me one day and said with a laugh, ‘ David, I guess you’re right. I am running for president and I’d like your support.’ And of course, I said, ‘You have it.’ “

… how did Dowd get Geffen to finally go public with his complaints about Hillary? Keep reading:

Some time before, Geffen was a speaker at the 92nd Street Y in New York. When someone asked about his take on the Democratic presidential aspirants, the billionaire mogul didn’t mince words. “I said that Hillary was an incredibly polarizing figure and that if she ran, she’d never be elected president,” he recalls.” Maureen was in the audience and afterwards she said to me, ‘We oughta do a column about that.’ “

Geffen says he wasn’t ready. “I said, ‘No, no, no. No one’s interested in what I have to say about the Clintons.’ But she kept after me and finally, when Steven, Jeffrey and I had the fundraiser, Maureen cornered me and said, ‘You have to say what you’re thinking. It could have a real impact on the race.’ So I did.” Geffen sighs. “What can I tell you–I was just speaking the truth.”

His remarks caused a media uproar. The comments were front-page news in Washington, D.C.

https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2008/11/geffen-on-obama.html

Oh, I absolutely love that part about Geffen remonstrations: “’No, no, no.  No one’s interested in what I have to say” as well as Maureen Dowd’s “cornering” Geffen at that fundraiser after which the latter allegedly gave in to her with a “sigh”.

Well, we do remember that there was no need to corner Geffen at that fundraiser as by the time it was organized the article in the NY Times had already been printed and was ready to see the light of day the next morning.

What all of the above amounts to is that when kingmaker David Geffen supports someone, his favorite is sure to triumph. And if he withdraws his support and scams to dethrone the one who fell into his disfavor, the latter will be busted and trampled upon.

And the person who masterminded it all will stay behind the scenes and pretend that he has nothing to do with it or that his opinion does not matter.

So does anyone still think that Geffen would refrain from doing something similar to destroy Michael Jackson in order to get even with him for a slight remark about the Bible (for example), or rejecting Geffen’s passes as rumor has it, or both?

CLOSE FRIENDS

The events regarding Hillary Clinton took place in 2007, and the article below is dated 2010 and while it reiterates everything we already know about those past elections it also confirms that several years later the friendship between David Geffen and Muareen Dowd still flourished.

The article was written in connection with Obama’s inauguration ceremony for his second term of office and it refers to Geffen’s Dreamworks as his top fund-raisers, Geffen being “very close” friends with Obama’s administration, and at some point also quotes Geffen saying that Maureen Dowd is a close friend of his.

JUN 25, 2010 

Let there be no doubt. David Geffen loves the Obamas. The billionaire entertainment mogul, an active Democrat and one of the industry’s savviest strategists, writes that rumors of his disenchantment with Barack Obama are “made-up nonsense.”

As a sign of Geffen’s alleged disenchantment, political wags also note that the mogul was not prominent at the inauguration and did not meet with Obama when he visited California in March.

But Geffen writes in an e-mail response, “There is not a word of truth in what is being said.” He points out that he was not in the country when Obama last visited Los Angeles, and writes, “I was not interested in being there for the inauguration festivities, nor did I attend them when Clinton was there.” Geffen did attend a Dowd party on inauguration eve, because “she is a close friend and I was the guest of honor.” But he adds, “I left that night.” Concludes Geffen: “I love the Obamas,” adding that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel “is a very close friend.”

Andy Spahn, who serves as political adviser to Geffen and his DreamWorks co-founders, Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg, also calls the speculation “completely off the wall.” He says that during Obama’s presidential campaign, “David, Steve, Jeffrey and I were the President’s top fund-raisers nationally,” and still are.

https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/billionaire-entertainment-mogul-david-geffen-loves-president-obama-article-1.180809

When four years later, on June 10, 2014 Maureen Dowd and a few selected journalists were invited by the NY Times to a special event honoring the most powerful opinion-makers, David Geffen was certainly present to hail his old friend Maureen Dowd there.

Dowd placed the photo of her, Barbara Walters and David Geffen together on her Twitter account:

With @BarbaraJWalters and David Geffen at last night’s #NYTOpinion celebration. pic.twitter.com/duVbeT1tLE

— Maureen Dowd (@maureendowd) June 11, 2014

Previously we knew of only one Maureen – Maureen Orth of the Vanity Fair whose list of anti-Jackson articles is also somehow connected with Geffen as only recently it was decorated with his photo as if with a medal.

Until only recently the collection of Maureen Orth’s articles about Michael Jackson ended with a photo of David Geffen (now removed). Was it a tribute to the sponsor?

And now we are also aware of the long and nice cooperation between David Geffen and Maureen Dowd of the NY Times whose friendhip has spanned at least 13 years by today – which explains very well why she joined the 2019 hate campaign against Michael Jackson and actually set the tone for all other media on how to perceive the “Leaving Neverland” film of lies about him.

However there is one more person to be included in the tight circle of Michael Jackson haters and this time it is Maureen Dowd who is dropping the name.

ANOTHER NAME

Dowd made her revelation in September 2009:

Sep 10, 2009

…Dowd admits her interview with Geffen changed the presidential race forever, and she is grateful to Geffen for standing by his comments.

Dowd rates Geffen as one of the few wise men left in a bleak economic landscape. Recently she asked him his opinion of the current climate.

“I was on business in Los Angeles and I had lunch with David Geffen and Oprah, and he knows a lot about money. He got out before the crash.” She also asked him why he was the only one of his DreamWorks studio partners — Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg the others — not to get caught up in the Madoff scandal, and Geffen said simply because the two others did not call him.

“So he called them and he said, ‘Why didn’t you give me that tip? I would have told you not to do it, but you didn’t give me that tip.’”

https://www.irishcentral.com/news/the-secret-side-to-maureen-dowd-58485922-237658781

Oh, here is another familiar face and this time it is Oprah Winfrey!

In fact, Geffen seeks collaboration with Oprah every time he needs her support over something of extreme importance to him – for example, the documentary film about himself called “Inventing David Geffen”. The caption to this photo of them together says that the documentary was released in November 2012 and that Oprah joined the exclusive dinner after its premiere as Geffen’s date.

“At a Spago dinner after the premiere of “Inventing David Geffen,” some feelings were hurt when organizers apparently kept some of Geffen’s pals off the list. Geffen himself arrived with date Oprah Winfrey and claimed to have nothing to do with the dinner guest list”.

And now Oprah Winfrey amazes us by the fact that she was in close association with Geffen already in 2009, and their friendship that seemed to have flared up only recently is actually long and standing the test of time.

So on some occasion in 2009 Maureen Dowd was on business in LA, coming all the way from New York, and joined Geffen and Oprah at lunch (lunches in Los Angeles and Hollywood are almost solely the only time and place where business is discussed).

The date of the above article is suspiciously close to the time of Jackson’s death and funeral but this is when the article was written, while the visit could be much earlier, of course. The only reliable marker for it is the Madoff financial scandal that took place in mid-December 2008 and lasted well into 2009 and even longer.

So it was quite probable that during that visit the three of them were discussing money with Geffen who apparently advised the two leading media personalities on how to invest it.

And ten years later we see the same trio again, only this time it was Geffen who was seeking the two journalists’ support.

Maureen Dowd has shown hers by powerfully denigrating Michael Jackson in her powerful column. Her part was to stigmatize him as a monster well in advance and influence the minds of millions even before they saw the film or even its teaser. Her business was to distract public attention from the total lack of evidence from the two guys and support their weak stories – that also recanted their earlier versions – and while people were still in shock at what they were told to also focus their attention on “How could we be so blind about him?” instead of asking “Where is the evidence, guys?”

And Oprah Winfrey’s part was to promote the film further which she eagerly did at her show special after the film TV premiere on March 3 and 4, 2019. Her aftershow was broadcast simultaneously by HBO and Oprah’s channel “OWN” and took place the same night as the conclusion of the film. Oprah hosted director Dan Reed and the two accusers who further elaborated on their lies to a big audience of genuine sexual abuse survivors – apparently, for better effect and more emotional impact.

But that was on March 4 while Oprah got familiar with the film much earlier, right after its premiere. And the circumstances under which she first saw it were quite bizarre, to say the least.

The thing is that a couple of days after the film debuted at the Sundance film festival on January 25, 2019 David Geffen invited Oprah Winfrey to his yacht on a three-day visit there. The official reason for the inivitation was Oprah’s birthday (January 29).

For some reason Geffen happened to have his personal copy of “Leaving Neverland” and sometime after the birthday cake he treated his celebrated media guest as well as her associate Gayle King to the four-hour long entertainment movie.

You will agree that the very idea of showing a film about the alleged sexual abuse survivors at anyone’s birthday party sounds ludicrous enough, and the fact that the guests had to enjoy this kind of entertainment for four hours too makes you wonder even more. So the version that this was really entertainment can be ruled out and this leaves us with the only other option that it was common business instead.

Geffen’s part in that business could be connected with its production (otherwise how could he lay his hands on its copy?) besides the general idea and possible inspiration for it, and Oprah’s part, as I’ve already said, was apparently its further promotion and providing her TV show as a platform for the two guys to continue with their story.

Now that we know that each of the trio implemented their roles perfectly well, it is easy to see through the original plan too. And the fact that all three participants are also close friends only adds to our certainty that their coming together for a character assassination of Michael Jackson is not a mere coincidence but a well thought-out operation.

In fact, now I even begin to think that Oprah’s interview with Michael Jackson in February 1993, just on the eve of the Jordan Chandler scandal, could also be part of someone’s plan.