The ANOMALY of Robson and Safechuck

‘It never happened to us, so it couldn’t have happened to anyone else’

[Brett Barnes and Macaulay Culkin about MJ]

We start where we left off several months ago – with the discussion of Brett Barnes’s interview with journalist Charles Thomson.

A short reminder who Brett Barnes is for those who have already forgot 🙂  He is an Australian who met Michael Jackson in December 1991 when he was about 10 and who remained Michael’s close friend until his last day.

At the age of 23 Brett Barnes defended Michael Jackson at the 2005 trial and said that despite the huge amount of time they had spent together he never experienced or seen anything inappropriate on MJ’s part. Moreover, he is sure that Michael was simply incapable of doing anything bad to another human being, let alone a child.

Brett Barnes never wavered in his support of MJ, and when he heard of Robson’s sudden allegations in 2013 he took to Twitter (now X) and shamed him in a somewhat impersonal but stern way for the lies the latter was telling, :

• I wish people would realise, in your last moments on this earth, all the money in the world will be of no comfort. My clear conscience will.

I wish people would realise, in your last moments on this earth, all the money in the world will be of no comfort. My clear conscience will.

— Brett Barnes 🖤✊🏽 (@IAmBrettBarnes) May 8, 2013

However the plain truth from Brett Barnes doesn’t fit the agenda of some people, so the media either ignores Brett or makes heinous innuendoes about him as the makers of ‘Leaving Neverland’ fantasy film did. In a written statement to the HBO producers of that despicable show Brett demanded that they stop implying him to be “another victim”, but to no avail.

The media has ridiculed Brett Barnes for about two decades now, thus turning his and his family’s life into a nightmare. They haunted and harassed him, twisted and doubted his every word, so no wonder the young man refused to meet the press – until last year when he spoke to Charles Thomson in his first interview since the time he defended Michael on TV in 1993 when he was a child.

You will find this interview here and the transcripts of the first parts of the conversation as well as some comment here, here and here.

One of Brett’s observations made so an indelible impression on me that it kept gripping me until I finally realized that there is a certain deficiency in our search for the truth about Michael Jackson and the hard work of examining lies about him – and it is high time we did something about it.

The problem is that despite all our good intentions we have unwittingly upheld the naysayers’ faulty logic and followed their lead.  And Brett somehow managed to point out where the flaw is.

It happened in that part of the interview where Charles Thomson and Brett Barnes discuss the all-too-common narrative the media and Robson/Safechuck are so vigorously promoting: “If they say that they were abused, Brett and all others must have been too”.

Here is the respective part of the interview.

CT: And you all ended up staying with him in his room at some point. And so their contention is that this is a grooming pattern, which is extremely similar. And so what they are saying is if we say we were abused, then Brett must have been abused. That seems to be what they’re saying, because it’s the same pattern.

BB:  Which I guess is the [chimera]. It’s the exact opposite. It’s the same thing but from a different perspective, on my side of things.  It never happened to me, so it couldn’t have happened to anyone else.

CT: Yes, so that’s what I wanted to put to you really, if they are pointing to you and saying you are proof of the pattern, then you feel it’s reasonable for you to say, well, actually nothing happened to me. And therefore I feel it’s reasonable for me to believe that probably nothing happened to you. That’s essentially where you are coming from.

BB:  That’s my viewpoint, yes. I can’t comment on what happened when I wasn’t there, but I can make a reasonable judgment in my opinion.

CT:  So, and your opinion, I take it, is that you don’t believe that Michael ever did abuse any children.

BB:  I couldn’t, I can never, I could never see him doing anything bad to another human being, let alone a child.

The above idea is simply staggering, so it is worth reading and rereading it again. It is like looking at one and the same thing as a glass half-empty or half-full.

What I mean is that if someone’s accusatory statement is made out to look like all others are “victims” too, the exact opposite should be true – someone’s statement about his innocent life-long friendship with MJ should equally suggest that similar relationships with others were similarly innocent.

At the very least, if it is the word of one against the word of another, there should be no preference for either of the sides because one thing negates the other, and the result is a draw.

And Brett absolutely hit the nail on the head when he pointed to it. He managed to show us that people’s whole perspective is somewhat askew and that we are also dragging at the tail of media propaganda unwittingly following their logic, and that there is a completely different and a much sounder way of looking at those allegations.

Robson & Safechuck:  “We say that we were abused, so Brett must have been abused too”

Brett Barnes:  “But it never happened to me, so it couldn’t have happened to anyone else either.”

This simple maxim escaped us for too long because the media consistently works on keeping all of us under a sort of a hypnotic spell.  At the slightest suggestion of some “impropriety” on the part of MJ the media pundits immediately point to it as a sign of a certain “pattern” and imply that “if this happened to him, the same must have happened to the others”.

The saying goes that a lie flies around the whole world while the truth is still putting on its shoes, and when the lie is inflated by the media out of all proportion and comes from every direction even skeptics begin to doubt.

As a result, if some charlatan says something bad about Michael Jackson, it casts a shade of doubt on hundreds of all other Michael’s child friends, even though the story is not verified, is only words and may be told out of spite, revenge, for profit or other reasons.

We are perfectly aware of the nasty media ways, but the real scope of their distortion and vicious bias against Jackson becomes clear only when you reverse the situation and look at it from the opposite side.

In fact, when the opposite happens and some honest person testifies that his interaction with Michael was impeccable during the many years of their very close friendship, this is supposed to be no news and a disappointment which is always followed by a skeptical remark like “well, if it didn’t happen to him, it doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen to others”.

This kind of a reaction actually boils down to a death verdict for the unfortunate target of the media propaganda because essentially it means that if a person is accused just once, he will be considered guilty forever after irrespective of what other people ever say.

But this imbalance is lurid, because the opposite variant has every right to be true too.

If the accused person had every opportunity to inappropriately behave, say, with a helpless child, and never once took advantage of the situation and for many years too, there is a very high probability that he never did anything improper to anyone else either.

And this high probability will grow into a one hundred per cent confidence if it is not just the word of one against the word of another, but if it is the word of hundreds of people like Brett Barnes who never experienced anything bad during their interaction with Michael Jackson and who stand by their word no matter what.

And we know it for a fact that Brett Barnes is not alone here. The word about Michael’s complete innocence is heard from hundreds if not thousands of MJ’s friends and acquaintances, who were once his child friends and are now grown-up people, and who remember their time with him as joyful, great and impeccable in every way.

[Dr. Wayne Dyer about Michael Jackson]

Under normal circumstances, the sheer multitude of these people and the massive volume of their evidence will point to the full innocence of a person, and by contrast will reveal who is lying here – especially when you remember that the accusers demand millions, while all the others testify to Michael’s innocence for free.

But the above could hold true only for normal circumstances, while we find ourselves in a situation when a huge part of the Establishment and its servile media consistently distort the picture, push their own narrative and shape people’s perception by taking one thing out of all proportion and turning a blind eye to the sea of everything else.

By now there can’t be any doubt that there is a whole machine working against Michael Jackson. They finance one false documentary after another, they are able to even amend the legislation to fit the needs of a certain accuser, and they have always tried to provoke an avalanche of “victims” by openly inviting people to a crime – by big money, huge publicity and guarantees of safety in case their scam is exposed.

And as a result of their colossal effort for the past 30 years they did manage to come up with five accusers all in all, which is a ridiculous number for real child molesters, but seems to be at least something to talk about.

Okay, but how good is the “quality” of these accusers if we take a closer look at them?

Out of these five characters two are even officially liars.

• Gavin Arvizo is an official liar because each and every of his allegations was disproven in 2005 in the court of law where Michael Jackson was found not guilty on all charges.

In fact, the Arvizo case was so big a sham and a disgrace for everyone involved that it is even awkward to remind you of it. Suffice it to mention that according to the official version the alleged molestation began after the whole world was shocked by Martin Bashir’s film and began to suspect MJ of wrongdoing, so the chronology alone suggests that it was Michael’s own decision to support people’s suspicions about him in order to be later prosecuted and tried in court!

• Wade Robson is also officially a liar as he testified at the 2005 trial and when under oath said that he had never been touched by Jackson.

Not figuratively speaking, but literally not touched – he was asked about every part of his body, and each time Robson said that he was touched neither here nor there, except probably for his hair which Michael may have shuffled on some occasions. Being relaxed and confident of what he was saying, at that time Robson laughed off even the possibility of abuse and this way turns out to be a liar in any case, because he either lied then or is lying now.

Facing the dilemma of when exactly he was lying, Robson decided that is much more profitable to say that he had lied on the stand. And it doesn’t matter that this way he becomes an official perjurer. California Penal Code classifies perjury as a felony punishable by up to 4 years in jail or prison, but in the current social environment it is highly unlikely that Robson will face the music for his crime.

On the other hand, if his present lies sound convincing enough, there is a big fat chance that he will get a billion dollars which is a decided advantage over the other alternative. How do we know that the sum at stake is a whole billion? Well, this is what he demanded from the MJ Estate, at least initially (see here). In fact, he himself told us of his big plans for the future by accidently leaving a note in his diary: “It’s time to get mine!”

• James Safechuck is a liar too but not officially yet. He escapes perjury accusations as he defended Jackson only in a witness statement in 1993 when he was 15, and he wasn’t involved in the 2005 trial at all.

This makes his stories about Michael’s telephone calls urging him to testify in his defense a flat fabrication because Safechuck was not even on the prosecution list of the alleged victims to be mentioned in court. The prosecution didn’t want to have anything to do with him due to his total unreliability because, as they said, he was “a little screwed up in the head”.

Well, screwed up or not, but the puppy-eyed money grabber saw his chance when he watched Robson on TV on May 16, 2013 where the latter made his allegations against MJ for the first time. This is when Safechuck suddenly recalled that he had been abused too, or to be more exact, formally remembered it after a brief (13,5 hours long) therapy initiated by him immediately thereafter.

The factor that surely contributed to Safechuck’s recollection was the $24 million lawsuit that had been filed against the Safechucks just two days prior to Robson’s interview, so it must have been a kind of an eureka moment for James Safechuck and his mother, seen by them as a miraculous Bingo way on how to fix the family problem.

On May 14, 2013 the Safechuck family business was served with a $24mln lawsuit. On May 20, 2013 James Safechuck discloses alleged childhood sexual abuse from Jackson. Later hires Robson’s lawyers to file a civil lawsuit 

[caption from 'Square One' documentary]

The good money on the horizon is probably why Safechuck’s mother looked so joyful in the ‘Leaving Neverland’ film when speaking about the alleged abuse of her son – the prospect of getting hundreds of millions from the MJ Estate must have been too lovely a prospect to be able to stifle the anticipation of it.

Safechuck’s lawsuit took two years in the making and was added to Robson’s in 2015. The complaint was by no means sloppy, and was so thorough, vast and comprehensive that it included almost every lie ever told about Jackson. There was no evidence of course, but its lack was compensated for by much emotion that was later reproduced in the ‘Leaving Neverland’ horror film.

However the big drawback of Safechuck’s venture is that though he was supposed to be the first alleged victim of MJ, his case against him is so much filled with “later” details that it made Michael’s behavior escalate in reverse.

Safechuck’s mother in ‘Leaving Neverland’ film

In fact, the lawsuits of both Robson and Safechuck abide in horrors never claimed by anyone else before them. Consequently, their stories make it look like the alleged misdeeds on MJ’s part grew graver and graver as we go back in time, and the earlier year it was the worse was the “abuse”.

This made MJ look his most rampant self when he was a shy, young and devoted Jehovah Witness and when, as we remember it, he was so fearful of God’s retribution that he was afraid to raise the Almighty’s fury even by celebrating Christmas which is not accepted by the JW religion.

Needless to say, this escalation-in-reverse defies all logic and contradicts common sense, not to mention the fact that it is also totally opposite to the behavior of real perverts who only want more and more as time goes by.

But the two rogues wanted so hard that their cases be really thick with horrors that in their ardor somewhat overdid themselves. Safechuck, for example,  included  a story about “sex” inside the Neverland railway station though that at the time of the alleged abuse it wasn’t even there and was built several years later.

Robson’s memory also made its crazy somersaults – it “evolved” from remembering virtually nothing about his first visit to Neverland at the age of 7 to recalling his every breath there in his minutest detail. And as soon as he was found to face huge (and documented) inconsistencies in his story, his memory immediately evolved again and recalled the same in a different way.

A certain insight therapy and some prompts from his mother certainly helped Robson’s recollection process – his mother Joy even emailed him that she had “several versions” of what happened at Neverland and she would see which one was “the best to her son’s benefit”.  What a family indeed!

• As to the remaining two accusers we remember the case of Jason Francia, the son of MJ’s personal maid Blanca Francia that took place twenty years prior to Robson & Safechuck.

Initially Jason refused point-blank to take part in a scam against Jackson, and during his interview with the police he even wanted “to get up and hit them in the head”.  But things changed when the good old Santa Barbara D.A. Tom Sneddon put him and his mother under a “therapy and counseling program” to help him recollect – and approximately six months later Jason Francia did remember something.

Sure, it was none of the horrors endured by sufferers like Robson and Safechuck. Jason Francia recalled just three cases of “no skin-to-skin” tickling which lasted for several seconds each and occurred during the tickling contests Jason liked to have with MJ. As a reward for this long-awaited revelation Tom Sneddon provided Blanca Francia with an officer from his own D.A. office who became Francia’s attorney (more about it here). The attorney squeezed from MJ’s lawyers 2 million dollars thus repaying the Francias for their services to the country, and the family lived happily ever after since then.

The only inconvenience was that Jason had to stay in further “therapy and counseling” for five years more, and the D.A. office kept an eye on the family until the 2005 trial where both were requested to testify against Jackson which they obligingly did.

Blanca Francia even recalled that she had seen Wade Robson in a shower with MJ which Robson readily included into the amendment to his complaint. However when she was deposed by Robson/Safechuck’s attorney in 2016, Blanca Francia revealed that she had never seen anything but a shadow of MJ behind the fogged glass and she only assumed that there was someone else there because when she peeped there for a second  Michael was making a little hee-hee-hee sound amid the music that was blasting there (see this post for details).

But most importantly, Blanca Francia’s deposition revealed that the shower episode took place in 1989 while Robson and his family met Jackson for the first time only in 1990, so none of it had anything to do with Robson in addition to the fact that it never happened at all. Well, they shouldn’t have looked for a black cat in a dark room, especially when it is not there…

• And lastly we come to Jordan Chandler as the fifth accuser or actually the first of them. His story is the crux of the whole matter, because if it hadn’t been for his allegations and that unfortunate $15,3mln settlement the rest of the accusers would have never emerged.

The essence of his case was best described by his own uncle, Ray Chandler who wrote in his book about Jackson:

“Had Michael paid the twenty million dollars demanded of him in August… he might have spent the next ten years as the world’s most famous entertainer, instead of the world’s most infamous child molester.”

Even in so frank a statement Ray Chandler couldn’t resist a lie – the Chandlers initially demanded $30 million and Ray lessened the sum of their claim by a third for the family to not look that greedy for money.

As to the evidence to support the claim there was none, and even the infamous description of MJ’s private parts provided by Jordan turned out to be all wrong in its every possible aspect (see points 1 and 2 of this post).

Jordan Chandler never refuted his allegations publicly but the “Square One” documentary directed by Danny Wu in 2019 contains a very interesting testimony by Josephine Zohny who was Jordan Chandler’s fellow student in one of their university programs.

She reveals that she directly heard Jordan Chandler saying that he didn’t believe that Michael Jackson was capable of the things he was being accused of.

Josephine Zohny

Josephine Zohny was one of those witnesses-in-reserve who would have faced Jordan Chandler at the 2005 trial if he had agreed to take part in that travesty of justice, however Jordan vehemently refused to do it and even threatened the police to sue them if they insisted on his participation.

This is why we hear her testimony only now. Here is some of it in more detail.

Josephine Zohny:  “Immediately after the Martin Bashir documentary aired we had a program meeting and there was a discussion about, you know, whether or not Michael Jackson was a child molester. People were calling him “freak”. 

Josephine disagreed and this is when Jordan Chandler who was sitting somewhat apart from the group “chimed in” and made this spontaneous remark:

“During that conversation Jordan Chandler chimed in and said that he too believed that Michael Jackson wasn’t capable of the things he was being accused of. And he said that voluntarily and he said it without my prompting and he wasn’t asked.”

Recently the same was confirmed by Carol LaMere who was Michael’s hairstylist. Back in 1993 she overheard Jordan Chandler talking to Michael Jackson in a telephone conversation that took place almost immediately after the allegations became public, just as “it started happening” as she said.

Carol LaMere was doing Michael’s hair in his Hideout apartment when Jordan called. The boy was crying and apologizing for his lies. The teary Jordan said that he was forced to say it and that “he didn’t know why they were doing this”. 

“Both of them were very, very upset”, said LaMere.

~

Well, if the above gang of five does not meet your standards for fully-fledged and credible accusers, I can’t help you because this is all we have.

Michael Jackson’s vilifiers are of course filling the web with stories about other children, who often go under the umbrella name of “Michael Jackson boys” irrespective of their gender. Since these children never said a bad word about MJ, they are thrown into the category of “silent victims”, and every lie ever told about them – mostly by the notorious pro-pedophilia author named Victor Gutierrez – is meticulously collected there in an effort to prove they were “also abused” though they deny they were.

These far-fetched and innuendo filled stories are needed to support the false media pattern that we discussed earlier and to create the impression that the pool of possible accusers is much bigger than it is. The publications pretend to be objective but abide in all sort of speculations and typically present totally innocent things as something sinister.

All of them imply that those who haven’t accused MJ yet are liars or are in denial, are intimidated, are bought off, etc. However when you look at what these lowlifes do to these Michael Jackson’s child friends you see the abominable practice of vicious intimidation on their part, as the example of Brett Barnes shows it.

But looking at the bright side of things, Brett Barnes has now equipped us with a way to how to handle the above trash.

If the favorite media pattern “If one says he was abused, so others were too” is used in its reverse version “If it didn’t happen to one, it couldn’t happen to others either”, the overall picture drastically changes in my opinion.

Previously we would be upset if more and more people fell into the category of suspected victims, because it would be damaging to them and damaging to the name of Michael Jackson.

But if we employ the opposite logic, the more such people are found by the malicious collectors the better it is – because the simple multitude of them will turn into an advantage and will be beneficial not only for these people but for vindicating Michael Jackson himself.

This is because the bigger the number of those who refuse to bend to the media pressure and “admit” that they were abused, the bigger is the weight of their testimonies versus the stories of false accusers. And the sheer massiveness of their evidence will tip the scales to the other side and will show where the genuine truth  is.

In other words if Safechuck & Robson face a strong opposition not only from Brett Barnes and Macaulay Culkin, but from hundreds or even thousands of people who will tell of their real experience with Michael Jackson, the credibility of the two rogues’ stories will shrink further and further until it reaches a stage when they will look like a total anomaly and the liars they really are.

And if this happens, it is these two characters who will find themselves in isolation and who will be the exceptions to the rule – because the rule itself has changed and is different now!

And the new rule is a kind of an opposite to MeToo and is something like MeNeither:

 “Since I wasn’t abused, there is a very strong chance that you weren’t either”.

~

The only problem here is that the honest and the upright are so intimidated by the media that they are afraid to speak up not to stir up trouble. Most of them know that a word in support of Michael Jackson is fraught with grave complications like a torrent of ridicule and hate in their direction.

Moreover, the media has managed to distort public perception so much that most of these people are under the impression that they are alone in their views about Jackson, and that their innocent interaction with him was just some singular experience, which makes their memory of Jackson look like it is in defiance of the general pattern.

This is why when these people speak about their innocent experience with Michael Jackson they visibly hesitate, carefully consider each of their words and sometimes even doubt their own selves.

They know perfectly well that nothing happened to them when they were around Michael, but under the media glare they look somewhat shy as they regard themselves as a sort of an irregularity– and who wants to feel irregular in the company of those who are not?

Many of them come from distant places and different corners of the world, most are disconnected from each other and may be even unaware of each other’s existence. They feel isolated and in their loneliness may feel that it was only due to some lucky chance that they escaped a wrong when they were around Jackson.

Almost all of them are not familiar with the media ways, and when they are asked loaded questions like “What happened to you when you stayed in MJ’s bedroom?” they seem to be even apologizing for the fact that nothing happened to them and that their answer will disappoint the interviewer.

It is obvious that they were expected to say something different and they didn’t live up to the media expectations, so on most occasions they feel obliged to make certain excuses and add the “right” thing.

All too often we hear them saying “It didn’t happen to me” which is then invariably followed by a sort of a disclaimer: “But I cannot speak for all others, of course”. This remark is immediately picked up by the interviewer who usually wraps up the conversation with a sad look on the face and a comment like “none of us was there, so we will never know”.

But isn’t it totally abnormal that those who are confident of their innocent friendship with Michael constantly have to explain themselves and make reservations that they can’t speak for others – however the few accusers who blatantly lie about Jackson do speak for the others and do it without batting an eyelid?!

How very interesting indeed.

Dozens of Michael’s child friends who never experienced anything bad are forced to feel that they are somehow at fault, while a handful of liars are so triumphant that they can throw dirt at all the others, and no one stops them from doing it!

How did we allow this state of affairs to happen when the truthful have to be constantly on the defensive? How come their testimony about Michael Jackson is always regarded as something insignificant and not worth talking about? Why do we allow the media to imply that it is only guys like Robson and Safechuck who matter, while all others are falling out of “the pattern” and are sort of “exceptions to the rule”?

Okay, so Brett Barnes is supposed to be an exception to the rule.

But so is Macaulay Culkin who is openly ridiculing all these insinuations.

Macaulay Culkin: “I’m going to begin with the line – it’s not a line. IT IS THE TRUTH: He never did anything to me. I never saw him doing anything. And if I had something to speak up about, I would totally do it. But no, I never saw anything. He never did anything”

 

And so is Emmanuel Lewis who told his naysayers not to try and take all the joy out of his innocent time with Jackson.

Emmanuel Lewis: “You take all the joy out of an innocent time, This was a conversion van with my Mom in the next chair with 1 Security driving, MJ’s head of security shotgun and Michael’s personal photographer”

‘Let’s be 100% clear: I was never a victim’

 

And also the Cascio brothers who travelled half the world with Michael Jackson, slept in MJ’s hotel rooms and have vehemently defended his innocence forever after. See Frank Cascio’s book “My Friend Michael” for that.

The Cascio children, Omer Bhatti and MJ

The juniors

And also Jonathan Spence who is extremely silent in contrast to the others but obviously hates the media and avoids them like the plague.  Corey Feldman is certainly another exception not to be taken seriously by the media – he was once in the hands of Hollywood pedophiles and says that he regained normality only beside Jackson, which is all the more outrageous as everyone knows Hollywood to be the epitome of moral righteousness. The late Barbara Walters explained to us that Corey was simply “damaging the whole industry”, so what is Corey’s voice against someone who received awards for journalistic excellence?

Taj, Taryll and TJ Jackson are exceptions to the media rule too because they are Michael’s relatives, so they are labeled biased and are being tolerated only because it is impossible to avoid them altogether.  For the same reason Levon and Elijah, the grandchildren of Joe Jackson’s brother who were practically raised by Michael Jackson are of little significance too, same as the crowd of all other Michael Jackson’s nephews, cousins and young relatives who spent day in, day out at Neverland together with Michael.

Gotham Chopra, Deepak Chopra’s son who was Michael Jackson’s travelling companion on the Dangerous tour when he was a teenager and who was delighted with the experience, is another of those exceptions. Same as all eight children whom Dr. Wayne Dyer (a psychologist and self-help guru) brought to Neverland and trusted Michael with, as well as the powerful word of Dr. Dyer himself in the defense of Michael Jackson.

“I know for absolute certain that this person could never have done anything that would be harmful to anyone. The most profoundly astonishing person I‘ve ever met in life; beyond anything I’d ever imagined profoundly good. As kind and decent and spiritual a human being as I’ve ever had the pleasure of spending time with; a beautiful human being. A transcendent being who had not only enormous talent, but a heart as big as the sky.” [Dr.Wayne Dyer]

Then come totally insignificant exceptions like the burn victim Dave Dave, a regular child-visitor to Neverland who considered Michael the father he never had.

And also Ryan White who was sick with AIDS and who received from Michael Jackson gifts like a red Ford Mustang.

And also David Smithee, another terminally ill boy who was presented with the original “Beat it” jacket and died very happy according to his mother as MJ gave him the happiest last month of his life.

Another exception is Richard Matsuura from Japan who went on TV to disprove the media lies about him and MJ (never mind you didn’t hear about him – he is of  “no unimportance” anyway).

And also Omer Bhatti, the boy from Norway whose mother was a nanny of MJ’s children and who is still a friend of the Jackson family – so we are writing him off too.

Same as the son of Michael’s hairstylist Carol LaMere who was beside MJ since he was a baby and whose birthday (together with Carol’s daughter) Michael Jackson celebrated every year at Neverland.

The Agajanian family must be another of those exceptions. They were regular visitors to Neverland and called the smear campaign against Michael a tragedy, and this is apparently why you’ve never seen them on TV. Only their 7-year old daughter Amy was once invited to Oprah’s show where she famously declared herself Michael’s best friend and said that she was much closer to Jackson than her brothers.

The 7-year old Amy Agajanian said Michael was her best friend

Anyway, Amy is a girl, same as Kellie Parker, Marie Nicole Cascio, Simone Jackson, Yashi and Stacee Brown, Brandi Jackson (Robson’s girlfriend of many years), Karlee Barnes, Spencer Malnik and others, which makes them another obvious exception to the rule.

As to Al Malnik’s sons Jarod and Nathan, they are exactly the people who are supposed to be the “silent victims” of MJ.  Back in the 2000s Michael regularly stayed in the Malniks’ house in Florida and travelled with the family to their various family spots. The chance that the media will ever talk about these children and MJ is very little, but the pictures made by the kids’ mother Nancy Malnik say it all –  about how happy they all were when they were around Jackson.

Al Malnik’s triplet with Michael Jackson

Nancy Malnik, her daughter Spencer and MJ

Malniks’ and MJ’s children

Feeling at home….

In contrast to them, Anton and Franziska Schleiter in whose house in Germany Michael Jackson stayed even more regularly, are very much willing to talk about their great experience with Michael, but they are never invited and the only documentary with their participation was made in Germany and was shown by only one independent (not mainstream) company at that. It seems that these people are not to the media’s liking either.

“Franziska and Anton show us exclusive videos, recorded in private moments with Michael Jackson, like a water balloon fight in the family’s garden”

“Moments that they describe as the best of their lives.”

Or take the case of Jolie Levine, Michael’s former secretary and production coordinator who was said to be MJ’s detractor. She and her son Yoshi endured massive media slander for many years until it was recently found that she was a defender of Michael Jackson all along. Her son Yoshi, now a grown-up, could hardly restrain himself from swearing throughout his recent deposition, especially when he was asked about the two policemen who interviewed him in 1993. This certainly places Yoshi into the category of those outcasts whose experience with Jackson will never be publicized.

Another person who is totally out of the media focus is the extraordinary Gayle Goforth (see here) who worked at Neverland for about 13 years and for half that time was Michael’s personal maid. She never hesitated to bring her sons to Neverland even despite the allegations though her own son had once been molested by a baseball coach. This made her extremely vigilant regarding the safety of every kid, however even she didn’t notice anything wrong about Michael’s behavior with children. Needless to say, this woman never fitted the media pattern and never appeared on TV.

The retired police sergeant LaPerruque who was head of Michael’s security and had access to his room at all times, also said he would be quite comfortable with his kids beside Jackson, and if it hadn’t been for Roger Friedman of Fox news we would have never heard about it. No one else simply wanted to know.

Michael Jackson’s security guard: Singer Is Innocent

 

You will be surprised, but there were times when even Adrian McManus, one of Michael’s most horrible vilifiers, was also considered one of those exceptions to be never reported by the media.

During her deposition in 1993 she said that she was so sure of Michael Jackson that she would leave her son alone with him. Years later she claimed that she had lied under oath, and since then has become a welcome guest on worldwide TV, of course.

Or look at the late Aaron Carter who was also in the center of media attention, only in the opposite way. His problem was that he said that MJ never did him anything wrong, except a small thing which was inappropriate for a 15-year old. The media connected Aaron’s rash statement with just one night he stayed at Neverland following MJ’s birthday party where he spent all his time with MJ in the full view of others and then slept in a separate theatre building alongside Chris Tucker. My guess is that Aaron drank at the party, or God forbid, smoked pot there, so hence the remark, but after that visit Aaron had to spend years screaming to the press that nothing sexual happened to him at Neverland!

“I’m sorry but where is the definition “inappropriate” does it mention sexual misconduct? [AARON CARTER, May 21, 2019]

A certain Daphne Barak made some forgeries also implying some “impropriety”, but when her lies were exposed (in our blog) she removed them from her website. However the lie persisted and dragged along together with much ridicule and nastiness towards Aaron, which certainly contributed to Aaron’s untimely death.

“How am I supposed to understand that if my whole personal experience with Jackson was gentle and beautiful and loving and embracing?”

Aaron Carter lashed Robson and Safechuck and said he wants to punch them in the face

“I’ve been offered six figures already for an interview and I turned them all down. I told them to go f**k themselves.”

 

I wonder why the media were not interested in Glenda and Sam Stein, their sons Damien & Jason and daughter Megan. Michael Jackson had a close relationship with the family, stayed for hours and hours on the telephone with Glenda (and the girl), visited their house and even had his own room there.  Their son Damien, the boy who initially wrote a letter to Michael Jackson when he was 9, was interviewed by Martin Bashir when the latter was working with Victor Gutierrez on a sequel to his first documentary about MJ , but despite all Bashir’s effort Damien didn’t say anything bad about Jackson (here, ignore the narrator).

Damien was only sorry that their friendship with Michael stopped so abruptly. No wonder it did – the father of the family recorded their conversations with Michael Jackson and sold the tapes to some gossip website in 2005. These tapes, however, somewhat backfired on the media – they show the so incredibly innocent side of Michael Jackson that even the press refrained from talking about the Steins. Obviously this family didn’t live up to the media standards either.

Then there is also the Cohen family, Jimmy and Donny Osmond and many others. The  enumeration of those whose voices are seldom heard can go on forever, but even this short list is proof enough of the media monstrous bias. All these people are considered totally unimportant and it is only Robson & Safechuck who should be listened to by all means.

The anomaly of Robson & Safechuck

But isn’t time we reversed this topsy-turvy situation and put everything in its right place?

It is hundreds of those people who speak in Jackson’s defense that actually represent the rule, while these two guys are a total anomaly to it!

However it is them who go on TV in prime time, give interviews, enjoy the media limelight, and are being incessantly talked about in the press.

In contrast to them, hundreds of those who could testify to Michael’s innocence and refute the two rogues’ claims have never been given a chance. Apparently, these people are virtually non-existent to the media, and their testimony is considered worthless and redundant since Robson & Safechuck is all they need, so all those others should be thrown aside and knocked off the chessboard.

And this is why it is so important to put them back there.

~

In my opinion, the way how to go about it is to give these people their confidence back. To give them the feeling that they are not alone, that there are a great many of them and that the precious memories they have about Michael Jackson are very much in demand and should be shared with the public by all means possible.

And though they may think themselves to be the lone voices crying out in the wilderness, if each of them tells his story, they will make a powerful force and their voice will sound like a thunder that will drown out everything else.

And what is being asked of them is not anything special. It is the truth and nothing but the truth. No need to whitewash, invent or embellish anything.  Just everything they saw the way it really was, and relayed by them without beating about the bush.

By that I mean that form of the truth which is sure of itself and is told firmly, with no shyness, without any embarrassment and usual excuses to the media and which is free from any doubt and reservations.

The truth that sounds as a declaration of confidence in Michael’s innocence and a sort of a manifesto on their part.

This kind of truth has no room for half-excuses like “It didn’t happen to me, but I cannot speak for the others”. No one is asking them to speak for the others – let them speak for themselves only, and their lack of knowledge about other people’s experience with Jackson will be fully compensated for by their own true account about him and their confidence in what they are saying.

And despite the media pressure these people should be confident of what they say because it is their memory about Michael Jackson and no one else’s. And no one is allowed to dispute these memories, meddle and play games with them. No matter what dirt may be told by some others, their personal memory about Michael is their safe vault which is absolutely no place for any influence and pressure from the outside.

And outside pressure they will experience a lot. “Leaving Neverland” fantasy may be followed by LN2, LN3 and whatnot. This fantasy series will be populated with false witnesses, fictional accusers and probably even AI deepfakes. And also with lots of drama, emotional scenes, horrors amidst beautiful landscapes and other Hollywood special effects – all of which will be aimed not only at public at large but also at Michael Jackson’s child friends as well as his associates and witnesses of his behavior with children.

MJ’s friends should be prepared that each and every of those products will be tested on them too, with requests to comment on this and that, and questions whether their perception of Michael changed “after the new facts emerged” and what their reaction is now that they know “the whole truth”.

But there is no need for the friends of Michael Jackson to analyze other people’s lies.

These lies will certainly come in truckloads and in their all fifty shades of gray, especially after qualified psychologists and propaganda monsters work on them, so we can almost guarantee that the stories told in sequels to LN (if any) will be even more sophisticated than the original version. And this is why any analysis or search for similarities between what’s on the screen and the personal memories of Jackson’s former child friends will be a bad idea as this can only fog their minds and confuse.

So don’t allow that to happen. If I were to give advice to Michael Jackson’s friends I would advise them to cherish what they know, stand by what they remember and never doubt their memory and their own selves. And to be insistent on what they say. And to be brave, upright and confident of themselves. And to never waver and always stand by their good recollections of Michael no matter what.

Their memories are their own precious gem even though they may regard them as something insignificant. The truth may look to them too plain and dull, same as the phrase “nothing happened to me” actually sounds, but even despite its simplicity it is still a million times more valuable than other people’s brightly packed lies.

~

The reason why I focus on the need to stick to things just the way they really were is because we’ve seen what the mainstream and social media did to Corey Feldman, for example.

Corey Feldman defends Michael Jackson after watching ‘Leaving Neverland’. [the LATimes]

Corey knows perfectly well that he himself never experienced anything bad around Jackson, and his first spontaneous reaction to the “Leaving Neverland” film was that of resentment towards what he saw:

“This whole thing is one-sided with no chance of a defense from a dead man, & no evidence other than the word of 2 men who as adults defended him in court.”

But after a storm of media-shaming he was not longer sure that his own experience mattered, especially in comparison with the “horrendous crimes” described by the accusers. So he felt the need to correct himself by adding the usual excuses and reservations:

This led to a barrage of criticism on social media and, a few days later, a clarification from Feldman, who went on CNN to say, “I cannot in good conscience defend anyone who’s being accused of such horrendous crimes. But at the same time, I’m also not here to judge him, because, again, he didn’t do those things to me and that was not my experience.”

Corey started analyzing every instance of his experience with MJ and at some point even wondered if he was being groomed too (by MJ’s gifts), only in his case the grooming process wasn’t finished because “he wasn’t his pick”?

“It’s the standard grooming process that they describe. Everything was similar up until the sexual part. He bought me gifts, a Watchman TV, a gold watch from Disneyland. So was he grooming me and I just never ended up being his pick? That’s the fucking thing. We’ll never know.”

We will never know??? But this is exactly the reaction the malicious propaganda counts on.

And we shouldn’t think that we would be immune to its poison if we were in Corey Feldman’s place. We would probably doubt things in the same way if we allowed ourselves to reconsider our memories about MJ, compared them with the dirt pushed on us from every direction and if we asked ourselves questions like “what if?”

But when these youngsters were living their lives then, there were absolutely no “ifs” for them, everything was perfectly clear, and there is absolutely no need to question that experience now.

The devious propaganda method employed against MJ does not aim to turn his child friends into his worst haters – it is there to “only” seed confusion in their minds and blur their vision, so that they begin doubting the clarity of their memories, their own selves and their good judgment after all.

The antidote to that poison is to simply not get dragged into the suggested narrative, to remember things just as they were and to not allow oneself to be side-tracked by superficial “similarities” like gifts and the like. An innocent gift for one person is a grooming tool for another, same as the scissors you use for cutting roses are a means of murder for a criminal – so one and the same story will look different depending on who is telling it, their moral values and the goals they want to achieve.

To Corey’s credit his own memories of MJ and honesty with himself prevailed over the media pressure and helped him to get back on the right track. In his tweets he speaks of thousands of kids who hung around Michael and who don’t agree, and says that they also deserve their voices heard.

“Ok, I watched it. All I know is what I experienced, and yes, every experience was the same … right up to the sex part! That is where it becomes la-la land, instead of Neverland for me.

“Never once swore in my presence, never touched me inappropriately, and never ever suggested we should be lovers in any way! I feel like if people could hear our convos they would hear the innocence in them. No hint of perversion. I have a tape, I’m thinking about releasing, which could give people a real look at what a 30-year old man/child and a 13-year old boy would discuss, so everyone could hear the innocence of our relationship. Again I wasn’t there when those boys were, but I was there around the same time as Jimmy and I saw many kids around (girls included) who I am still friends with to this day, and none of us were ever approached by him in a sexual way at all! So as much as those 2 men deserve to have their voices heard, so do the thousands of kids who hung around him, that don’t agree! Most pedos are serial offenders. They don’t have self control.”

Only imagine if all those thousands were given a chance to have their say and declare one after another: “It didn’t happen to me” and “To me neither”.

Trash like Robson & Safechuck will be simply swept away by the flood!

Sean Lennon, Emmanuel Lewis and Kellie Parker in “Moonwalker”

Sean Lennon, the son of John Lennon and Yoko Ono who played in Michael Jackson’s film “the Moonwalker”, also seems to have had his share of doubt when he heard of the two rogues’ accusations. As all other children around Michael Jackson, he himself never experienced or noticed anything, but you can still feel a note of disquiet in the lyrics of the song written soon after the allegations surfaced.

The Rolling Stone relished the undertones in the song’s lyrics, though the same words may also be interpreted as nostalgia for the carуfree times when they didn’t yet know what drama was awaiting them in the future:

“Childhoods end / And Bubbles burst,” Lennon sings on the track’s chorus. “We didn’t understand / Dancing with Peter Pan / What would be the result when we / Turned into young adults.” [The Rolling Stone]

I personally didn’t like Sean Lennon’s song and regard it as a cheap and ugly trick to draw attention to his album. Anyway, three years later Sean made a clarification of what he had in mind when he wrote it. It turned out that “nothing illegal” had ever happened to him, everything was great and much fun at Neverland, but his answer contained the excuses and reservations which are almost a standard for anyone who speaks of Michael’s innocence:

“Nothing ever happened with me in an illegal way, but the whole place just felt like I was in some Peter Pan fantasy land. I think that was a super strange time, but not in a dark way,” he said. “In an odd way, in a unique way.”

Lennon only recalls fond memories.  “He was the coolest dude I’d ever met for sure,” he says. “I mean people, you know, they have a lot of opinions about him and like anything else, my opinions can only be based on my experience. But he was super fun to hang out with. I mean he was like a big kid, you know?
“So yeah, the time that I got to spend with him was — it was like Disneyland all day long. He’d set up water balloon fights and pie fights in basketball courts. It was like super high-level fun and it was orchestrated fun and insanity.
“I mean whatever happened with him and anyone else, I have no opinion of because I wasn’t there, you know?

“My opinions can only be based on my experience” is correct, but remarks like “I wasn’t there” sound totally maddening to me.

What the hell does it matter that none of us were there when something happened didn’t happen to a person who is telling a fairy tale now? Those who believe it weren’t there either but they still chose to believe it, didn’t they?

The idea of “never knowing the truth because we weren’t there” is not quite correct in and of itself, because we weren’t there when a murder took place, however the truth can still be established by other means.

And in a case like Robson&Safechuck’s allegations the phrase certainly turns into an implicit suggestion of a person’s guilt because it is heavily loaded with doubt and is therefore skewed to one side only.

Unfortunately few people notice the slant as they mindlessly parrot the sly media narrative without thinking what stands behind it and just repeat the words of some TV personalities as if they were gospel truth. This is what Michael Jackson actually called the state of being conditioned.

Which takes us back to the need to free ourselves from all that conditioning and equip ourselves with some novel approaches like the one suggested by Brett Barnes, when he practically declared that since nothing happened to him in his relationship with Michael, it couldn’t have happened to others either.

A little research discovered that the pioneer of that novel approach was not Brett Barnes after all, but Macaulay Culkin – which is no surprise as he is not only a staunch Michael Jackson’s defender but is also known for disrupting the old clichés and setting new trends.

This is what Macaulay stated when he was still very young and was grilled by Barbara Walters in one of the interviews:

“My opinion is, if he didn’t do anything to me, I don’t think he would have done anything to anyone else”.

Barbara Walter reacted to it with some incredulity and a grim face which somehow suggests to me that the media won’t like it very much if we peddle the same idea.

At that time we didn’t notice the truth and great potential of that statement. But the idea of it must have be hovering in the air because many years later Brett Barnes rediscovered it again, completely on his own and on the other side of the world too. He said:

“It never happened to me, so it couldn’t have happened to anyone else.”

I hope that this time we will get the message and won’t miss the chance.

So who will be the next?

.