Skip to content

Michael Jackson Fans Are Tenacious. ‘Leaving Neverland’ Has Them Poised for Battle, BY THE NEW YORK TIMES – VMJ interviews

March 4, 2019

Recently Joe Coscarelli, the music reporter at the NY Times contacted the admins of this blog to say that he was interested in getting the perspective of MJ’s “most loyal fans, supporters and historians” on the documentary which none of us had yet seen by that moment.

Today, the day after the documentary has gone on air on HBO, Joe Coscarelli’s article has been published, quoting us together with other Michael Jackson’s advocates with whom the correspondent has evidently been in touch.

Since most of these bloggers are Americans I presume that their interviews must have been done over the phone, while we (Susanne and I) are foreigners who are absolutely not sure of our English speaking skills and this is why we submitted our replies in writing.

We certainly never expected the NY Times to give a full coverage of our ideas on the present situation around Michael Jackson, so for the readers of this blog to really know what “truthers” like us think about it,  here is both Joe Coscarelli’s piece and our written answers to him sent several days ago.  Read more…

WHAT THE MAID SAW. Adrian McManus tells her full story about Michael Jackson in its four variations

March 2, 2019

On February 24th the Australian 60 min TV program aired an interview with Adrian McManus who reemerged again on the wave of a new craze over the revised stories of Robson and Safechuck.

Following the latest fashion each time a certain detractor from Michael’s past reappears, it is usually with a much graver story than before and Ms. McManus is no exception here.

You can watch the Australian video and read its transcript at the end of this post, but before you hear the latest from McManus, it is an absolute must to know her previous saga and see her memory in its evolvement during the past two and a half decades.

The saga is huge, so prepare yourself for a long read. However I feel that it isn’t only Dan Reed who is entitled to a four-hour narration, especially since his story is solely about fake emotions, while mine is solely about facts and it isn’t my fault that McManus changed her story four times.   Read more…

The New Lynching of Michael Jackson: Dan Reed’s Leaving Neverland, by Linda-Raven Woods

February 28, 2019

Linda-Raven Woods has published an excellent article about the recent highly questionable product by Dan Reed. Besides being a comprehensive overview of the situation around the film, the author also makes some very important points which I would also like to bring to people’s attention.

So here is just an excerpt from the article – for the full story please go to this source. 

The New Lynching of Michael Jackson: Dan Reed’s Leaving Neverland May, In Fact, Leave Blood on Many Hands

By: Linda-Raven Woods

… The utter hypocrisy and witch hunt mentality with which the mainstream media has greeted this film is, ultimately, the most disturbing aspect of all. “Hit pieces” on public figures will come and go, and this has certainly been the case with Michael Jackson. But in this case, Leaving Neverland is a travesty that should never have been made.

Dan Reed claims that his movie is not about Michael Jackson, yet by his own admission the film would not have been made had it not been about Michael Jackson. Dan Reed owed it to the subject of his film to go beyond the surface of these allegations and to vet his sources. He owed it to the public legacy of Michael Jackson, to his orphaned children and elderly mother, to fully investigate the stories of Wade Robson and James Safechuck before committing them to film, and moreover, to examine and analyze all exculpatory evidence (of actual, inculpatory evidence, the film offers surprisingly none).

But just because the film was made does not mean we have to be obligated to embrace or enable it. That so many prominent journalists and media talking heads have displayed the willingness to accept this film blindly at face value, without raising the much needed questions that need to be asked about its veracity, is a bigger unforgiveable travesty than the film itself. But this is exactly what Dan Reed, HBO and Channel 4 are counting on, that the current zeitgeist of MeToo and its “don’t question victims” mentality will create the tunnel vision needed to willfully blind viewers.

Dan Reed and Richard Plepler, as well as the executives of Channel 4, are certainly not naïve. They knew that this was the kind of smear campaign that would result from their film. It has been a carefully orchestrated strategy from the outset, with the clear end goal of diminishing the lucrative power of Michael Jackson’s brand. The logic and obvious modus operandi remains the same as it has been for Robson and Safechuck from the outset: To force a shakedown for the Michael Jackson Estate.

The very nature of Dan Reed’s hypocrisy can be seen first hand. In a recent interview with Independent, Reed claims to have been “disgusted” by the letter from the Michael Jackson Estate to HBO that clearly broke down the many, varied reasons why Robson’s and Safechuck’s litigations did not hold up in court, claiming, “What would the Jackson estate have to say about what happened in a hotel room in Paris, in 1988, between James and Jackson? Nothing. They weren’t there.”

Yet, by that same logic, Dan Reed proceeds within the same interview to state unequivocally of Jackson, He hurt a lot of people. He was cruel. He was vicious.” But Dan Reed, like the Michael Jackson Estate, was not there! Dan Reed was not in those hotel rooms in Paris, either. Dan Reed did not know Michael Jackson. He never met him, and never met Robson or Safechuck until 2017. Yet he has proceeded to weave a one-sided hit piece based on the reality he wishes to sell.

Read more on medium.com

 

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW before watching ‘Leaving Neverland’

February 19, 2019

When you hear reviews of the “Leaving Neverland” film all they tell you is that the two guys are “incredibly credible”, the film is “powerful”, and their only reply to your questions about its objectivity is “watch the film first.” This makes you realize that this movie relies solely on people’s emotions meant to outweigh the voice of reason and inconvenient questions like “Where is the evidence?” and “Why should we believe their current and not previous opposite version?”

Indeed, when emotions are involved it doesn’t really matter that it is a one-sided story and the film is no real journalism. It doesn’t matter that the filmmaker Dan Reed didn’t attempt to hear the other side or do even minimal research, and that it is the twelveth version of their story that you currently hear. When you see someone’s tears and emotions what other evidence do you need? The struggles of those guys look so real, that it will not even occur to viewers to doubt them.

No one will recall that Michael Jackson was also friends with an AIDS victim Ryan White for whom Michael bought a car and with whom he purposefully took a jacuzzi in order to boost the boy’s self-esteem and reassure him that at least Michael Jackson didn’t consider him a pariah.

Ryan White and Michael Jackson

No one will recall his other friend, a heavily scarred boy Dave Dave burnt be kerosene by his own father and whose face was so painful a sight that only Michael was capable of kissing and hugging the boy.

Michael Jackson and Dave Dave, a burn victim

The problem is that when you watch a four-hour fantasy saga, say The Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings, you forget everything else. The powerful story takes you away into its imaginary world, after which its scenes and characters imprint in your memory so hard that they look almost real. Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson will be forever remembered as Harry Potter and Hermione though some may forget their real names and some will think they never had any.

The movies hypnotic ability to grip your mind greatly assisted Robson and Safechuck in playing their role of “victims” which was also enhanced by the film non-conventional presentation at the Sundance festival. I hear there was a violin playing when the two characters came on stage… A violin, guys, which accompanied their story from a so-called documentary though even the name of this genre suggests that it should be based solely on document and fact.

However it is exactly fact which this documentary lacks. What it presents is the tales of two guys who changed their stories into their opposites and who are now shedding tears worth a hundred million each (the sums wanted by them from the MJ Estate) as well as complex emotions of their relatives who initially believed their first version and now no longer know what to believe.

In 2011 Wade Robson was still imploring Cirque du Soleil to give him the job of directing the Michael Jackson tribute show, saying: ”I am passionate to do this show. I want to make it amazing for me, for you, for Cirque and of course, for MichaelRead more…

The Michael Jackson Estate Slams HBO and Radar Online for Breach of Journalistic Ethics

February 13, 2019

These days something new regarding the “Leaving Neverland” mockumentary arrives by the hour, so Howard Weitzman’s superb letter to HBO made on February 7, 2019 is already ‘old news.’

HBO in the US, same as Channel 4 in the UK refused to make any changes in their programme, but there are no surprises here – what else could you expect from those who ordered the show and paid for it in the first place?

The very least their reply did was opening the eyes of many to the true worth of these channels.

But our job is to collect facts and from this point of view Howard Weitzman’s letter is another big step towards getting the real picture. It provides details that were previously unknown or were overlooked by us, so before we examine them let me just reprint the letter in its entirety with an addition of a couple of Brett Barnes’ tweets.

For the sake of history, so to say.

The only comment I will allow myself at the moment is drawing your attention to a point in Mr. Weiztman’s letter where he says that both guys were seeking hundreds of millions of dollars against the Estate, at least at the initial stage of their lawsuits.

Hundreds of millions each.

  • “Given that they were both seeking hundreds of millions of dollars against the Estate, they had hundreds of millions of reasons for aligning their stories.”

These figures are not in the claimants’ civil lawsuits and are not to be found there at all as the sum is usually pronounced by the lawyers for the Plaintiffs. This is just information for those who are wondering why the lawsuits don’t name the sum of $1,5 billion, earlier reported by some media.

The lawsuits don’t mention the hundreds of millions demanded by each guy either.

Please don’t overlook this important point while you are reading the letter from Howard Weitzman, Michael Jackson’s Estate laywer.

Read more…

Sundance Festival Co-founder Admits to Child Molestation in Early 90s

February 10, 2019

His name is Sterling Van Wagenen, and in the avalanche of information snowballing since the Sudance festival announced a fake documentary about Michael Jackson, we are amazed to learn that back in the 90s the co-founder of the Sundance festival admitted to the police and his religious leader that he had molested a 10-year old boy.

The boy, now a grown-up, comes from a family belonging to the Mormon community in Utah where Sterling Van Wagenen is still playing a prominent role. Currently he is a professor and lecturer at Utah University and is a film producer who also makes videos for the LDS endowment ceremony (LDS is the short for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons).

The amazing news comes from Ryan McKnight, who just several days ago (on February 4, 2019) published his story on The Truth & Transparency Foundation, a website authored by two ex-Mormons who also founded Mormon Leaks.

A short summary of Ryan McKnight’s research is reported by kutv.com. Here are some excerpts from it

Read more…

Episode 095 – MJCast Leaving Neverland Roundtable TRANSCRIPT, part 2

February 9, 2019

This is the second part of episode 095 on the MJCast regarding Dan Reed’s fake documentary and is the continuation of the previous post. The co-hosts of the show are Q and Jamon Bull, and their guests are Charles Thomson and Samar Habib (both speaking from London).

The participants share their stories and give some advice to younger MJ fans on how to cope with the current situation and what’s the best way to deal with the nastiness of it.

The text has been slightly shortened and some ideas of the participants are emphasized. This is a draft copy only, so if there any inaccuracies please don’t hesitate to correct me.

The original tape is here.

“THIS IS A COMPLETE ANTITHESIS OF A CREDIBLE ACCUSATION”

1:15:15 SAMAR: We have to deal with stupidity on a daily basis.

In the conversation I had on the radio that lady referred to the accusers as “incredibly credible”. With everything you know about the allegations, and the timings, and the 25-30 years of defending Michael Jackson, for them to turn around years after he has been killed for a massive civil suit payout and accuse him of things that he can’t defend himself against? It is the complete antithesis of a credible accusation.

Back in 1993 we’ve been through it all before, and the court found Michael Jackson not guilty fourteen times. He was investigated by the biggest, most powerful intelligence agencies in the world. Listening to your telephone calls, having your telephones recorded, the computers searched, video library searched, having your paintings ripped to shreds, having your safes gone through – he’d have to be Batman to get away with what was allegedly going on there.

And then to pull someone who he had apparently been “abusing,” viciously and aggressively, as your first witness against prosecution lawyers who have 10-20 years of experience of prosecuting cases, and putting yourself under that scrutiny and being one of the strongest witnesses for the defense?

It’s preposterous. Honestly, are they doing it deliberately to be as preposterous as possible?

“SHOCK AND AWE ARE THEIR AMMUNITION”

1:17:40 Q: I think there is definitely an element of shock and awe – that is the ammunition. It is shock and awe. They just lull everyone into the false security and believability, and then shock them all. Read more…

%d bloggers like this: